States Meeting Transcript - 16/11/2010

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 16th NOVEMBER 2010

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

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

1. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING SCHOOL INSPECTIONS:...8
2. SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING PLANNING PERMISSION FOR FIELD 621:........9
3. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING DISCUSSIONS AT THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS CONCERNING PENSIONS: ............................................................................13
4. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF TIDAL POWER AND OFFSHORE WIND FARMS:..........................................................14
5. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF TIDAL POWER AND OFFSHORE WIND FARMS: ....................................................16
6. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE PROVISION OF MOTORCYCLE AND MOTOR SCOOTER PARKING PLACES IN ST. HELIER: ..19
7. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING WORK PERMITS:.....................................................19
8. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE EAST OF ALBERT' WORKING GROUP:...................................................22
9. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING INTERNET ACCESS AT H.M.P. LA MOYE: .........................22
10. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE PRODUCTION OF A CONSULTATION PAPER ON SCHOOL FEES SUBSIDIES:..........................................................24
11. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE TAXATION OF 1(1)(k) CATEGORY RESIDENTS:..........................................................................25
12. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING INCOME FROM AN INCREASED TAX RATE:26
13. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A REVIEW OF INCOME SUPPORT:..................................................................27
14. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING WAITING TIMES FOR SURGICAL PROCEDURES:........................................................................28
15. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING CUTS IN EDUCATION SERVICES: ............29

16. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING DIVISIONS AMONGST THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: ..........30
17. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE ECONOMIC RECOVERY:.................31
18. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE RETRIEVAL OF COSTS FROM VISITORS USING THE ISLAND'S HEALTH SERVICE:....................32
19. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF TO THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING SUCCESSION PLANNING:...........................................32
20. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING SEVERENCE PAYMENTS:........33
21. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE FINDINGS OF THE NAPIER REPORT:..............................................34
22. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING FAILINGS IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE NAPIER REPORT: ......................................34
23. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE REPORT FROM A.C.P.O:.............................................................34
24. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING ECONOMIC ACTIVITY: ..............................35
25. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE FINDINGS OF THE WILTSHIRE REPORT:....................35
26. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING INFORMATION ON VOLUNTARY REDUNDANCIES:.............................36
27. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING ECONOMIC GROWTH PLANS: ......................................................38
28. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE STATE OF JERSEY'S ECONOMY:.............................................38
29. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE GROWTH IN THE BANKING SECTOR:....39

30. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MARKET:..............................................40

2. Oral Questions...........................................................................40

1. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville of the Chief Minister regarding written guidelines relating to the taking of notes at suspensions:...........................................41 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................41 2.1.1.The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................41
   2. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................41
   3. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ........................................................41
   4. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................42
   5. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................42
   6. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................42

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding surgeons undertaking private work in public time: ...........................42 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):.................42

2.2.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................43 2.2.2. Deputy T.M. Pitman:...................................................................43

3. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................43
4. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................43

5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................43

3. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chief Minister regarding disciplinary action in relation to the Napier findings:........................................................................43 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................44

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................44
2. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:.................................................44
3. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................44
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................44

4. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding alterations to the Napier Terms ofReference:...........................................................................44 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................45

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................45
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................45
3. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................45
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................46
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................46
6. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................46

5. Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding estimates for future fee increases should grants to fee-paying schools be reduced:......47 Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):..............47

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................47
2. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................47

6. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding a review of the de minimis waiver within 12 months of the introduction of G.S.T:........47 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................47

2.6.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................48

7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Chief Minister regarding the use of the International Labour Organisation unemployment measures:.........................................48 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................48

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................48
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................49
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.......................................................49

8. The Deputy of St. Mary of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding urban and residential area speed limits:.................................................49 Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): .........................................................................................49

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................50
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................50
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................50
4. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................50
5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................50
6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................51

7. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................51

9. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Chief Minister regarding whether Mr. Napier was invited to come to Jersey to present his report to States Members: ......................51 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................51

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................52
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................52
3. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................52
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................52
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................53
6. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................53
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................53

10. The Connétable of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the use of the former Le Seelleur workshop in Oxford Road:...............................53 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):......53

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................54
2. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................54
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................54
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................55
5. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................55
6. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................55
7. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................56
8. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier : .................................................56
9. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................56
10. The Connétable of St. Helier:......................................................56
    11. The Deputy of St. John of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding internet access available at H.M.P. La Moye to inmates: ...............................................57 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................57

1. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................57
2. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................57
3. Deputy D.J. De Sousa: ..............................................................58
4. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................58

12. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding negotiations with the U.K. authorities to have Jersey students regarded as home students' rather than students from overseas dependencies': ....................58 The Deputy of St. Ouen (The Minister for Education, Sport & Culture):......................58 Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier (The Assistant Minister for Education, Sport & Culture - rapporteur):.............................................................................59

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................59
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................59
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................59
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................59
5. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................59

13. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the management and disposal of ash water: ................................................60 Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour (Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment):....60

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................60
2. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................60
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................61
4. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................61
5. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................61
6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................62

14. The Deputy of St. John of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding support for young carers within the community: ........................................62 The Deputy of St. Ouen (The Minister for Education, Sport & Culture):......................62

1. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:...................................................63
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ..................................................63
3. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................63
4. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................63
5. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................63

15. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding allegations made against the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police:.....................................64 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................64

1. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................64

2. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................64

16. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the total number of public sector posts lost in C.S.R. Stage 1:..............................................65 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................65

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................65
2. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................65
3. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................66
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................66
5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................66
6. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................66
7. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................67
8. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................67

17. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the proposed increase to 5 per cent of G.S.T. and its likely impact on middle earners':..............67 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................67

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................68
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................68
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................68
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................69
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................69
6. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................69
7. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................70
8. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................70

18. The Deputy of Grouville of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding

the percentage of works put out to tender by the Transport and Technical Services Department and undertaken by outside firms:..........................................70

1. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................71
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................71
3. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................71

2.19. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding I.T. links between G.Ps and the Health and Social Services Department:....................71

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................72
2. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................72
3. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................72
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................72
5. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................73
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................73

2.20 Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding previous assurances that G.S.T. would not be increased:.........................................73

2.20.1 Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................74

3. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Home Affairs ..............74

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................74 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................74

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................75
   2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................75

3.2.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................75

3. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................75

3.3.1 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................75

4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................76

3.4.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:..................................................................76

5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................76

6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................77
7. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................77

3.7.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:...................................................................77

8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................77
9. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................78

3.9.1 Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................78

10. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................78

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister............................78

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................78 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................79

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................79
   2. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................79
   3. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................79

4.3.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:...................................................................80

4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................80
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................80

4.5.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................80

6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................80

4.6.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................81

7. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................81
8. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................81

4.8.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:..................................................................81

9. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................82
10. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................82
11. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................82

4.11.1 The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................82

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................83

5. Statement by the Chairman of the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel regarding the review of the draft Health Insurance Fund (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.125/2010).............................................83

5.1 Deputy G.P. Southern (Chairman, Health, Social Security and Housing ScrutinyPanel): .........................................................................................83

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................84
2. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................84
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................84
4. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................85
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................85
6. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................85
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................85
8. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................86
9. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................86

6. Statement by the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding States Members remuneration ..........................................................86

6.1 Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .........................................................................................86

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................87
2. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................87
3. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................88

4. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................88
5. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................88
6. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................88
7. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................89

8. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................89

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................89 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................90

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................90

7. Social Security Scheme: Amendments (P.117/2010)....................................90

7.1 Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................90

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................96
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................98
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:................................................................100
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :................................................................100
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:..............................................................102
6. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:..........................................................103
7. The Deputy of St. John:...............................................................104
8. Deputy T.M.Pitman:..................................................................104
9. Deputy A.E. Jeune :....................................................................105
10. Deputy I.J. Gorst :..................................................................105
11. Senator J.L. Perchard: ..............................................................108
12. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..........................................................108
13. Senator A. Breckon:................................................................109

8. Draft Policing of Parks (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.135/2010)116

1. The Connétable of St. Brelade (Minister for Transport and Technical Services):......116 8.1.1. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:..................................................116
   2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ............................................................117
   3. The Deputy of St. Martin:.............................................................117
   4. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:..........................................................117
   5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ..............................................................117
   6. The Deputy of St. John:...............................................................117
   7. The Connétable of St. Brelade:........................................................118

9. Income Support: mortgage payments (P.149/2010)...................................119

9.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :................................................................120

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:......................................................122
2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:..........................................................123
3. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:......................................................123
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ..............................................................124
5. Deputy A.K.F. Green:.................................................................125
6. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ...........................................125

ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED................................................................125 ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................126

[09:30]

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

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING SCHOOL INSPECTIONS:

Question

Can the Minister summarise the current system for inspecting schools in Jersey and why are the results of such inspections (Validated School Self-Evaluations known as VSSE reports) not all made available to the public?

Answer

The current system for inspecting schools has been updated from the VSSE process.

1. The Professional Partner programme was introduced18 months ago for all States schools. This is a rigorous process that takes place everyterm. A Professional Partner who is an experienced officer from the ESC department evaluates all aspects of each school's performance.
2. This monitoring by Professional Partners takes into account a range of data including exam results, finance and safeguarding information.
3. External inspectors are also used within a threeyear cycle, or more frequently if necessary, to independently verify the schools' own self evaluation. Inspections take in to account the Professional Partner's judgements and can be directed by the Minister to cover the whole school or focus on individual subjects such as leadership or financial management.
4. All States schools are required to participate. Currently, private schools are treated with a light touch but have been invited to join in this programme, although not all have.
5. Schools that do not come under the direct control of the Education Department are required to meet registration requirements that set out basic legal obligations, for example in health and safety.

Professional Partner reports and external reports are used by the schools and their governing bodies, who are then responsible for making them available to parents, usually through the school's annual report. Copies are made available to the senior management team at ESC.

In this way the current system for inspecting schools is systematic and rigorous for all States schools. It develops an honest debate with schools and enables good practice to be identified across the island.

The reports are designed to help improve the standard of schools. They are part of an internal professional debate and provide specific technical information and detail for each school. Publication of such detailed reports in the UK has proved to be counter-productive and potentially detrimental. The confidentiality we offer in Jersey leads to greater professional debate – staff can be open and honest and therefore more effective in improving standards. OFSTED findings shows that published reports tends to make participants less open and for this reason the department does not publish the reports.

2. SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING PLANNING PERMISSION FOR FIELD 621: Question

Which Article of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 does the Minister rely on in making a decision which represents a substantial departure from the current Island Plan, such as the recent granting of planning permission in respect of Field 621 (Green Zone)?

Answer

Article 19 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 states (in part)

19 Grant of planning permission

1. The Minister in determining an application for planning permission shall take into account all material considerations.
2. In general the Minister shall grant planning permission if the proposed development is in accordance with the Island Plan.
3. The Minister may grant planning permission that is inconsistent with the Island Plan but shall not do so unless the Minister is satisfied that there is sufficient justification for doing so

As such it is Article 19(3) that gives the authority to make a decision that does not accord with the Island Plan.

Article 12 of the Law goes on to state

12 Public inquiries

1. This Article applies in respect of an application for planning permission where the Minister is satisfied that if the proposed development were to be carried out –
   1. the development would be likely to have a significant effect on the interests of the whole or a substantial part of the population of Jersey; or
   2. the development would be a departure (other than an insubstantial one) from the Island Plan.
2. Where this Article applies the Minister shall not determine the application until a public inquiry has been held.

This effectively sets a process for determination of applications that represent substantial' departures from the Island Plan. As I indicated in my written answer to the Senator's question on 6 July 2010 since I took office in 2005 there have been no planning applications approved for developments that are more than an insubstantial departure from the plan. Consequently there has been no need to convene a Public Inquiry in line with Article 12(1)(b).

The Esplanade Quarter planning application was for a significant development that would be likely to have an effect on the interests of the whole or a substantial part of the population of the Island. Consideration of that planning application was made through the mechanism of a Public Inquiry, under Article 12(1)(a).

As regards Field 621 the process of the granting of planning permission did not follow the normal course of events. A written undertaking to develop a single home on Field 621, Route de Noirmont, St Brelade, was made by the Environment and Public Services Committee in April 2004 at a time when the site was designated as a Built-up Area in the Island Plan, within which, under Policy H8, there is effectively a presumption in favour of development subject to compliance with a number of listed criteria.

As a result of that undertaking and also on the basis of the (then) Zoning within the Built Up Area, the site was acquired by to the current owner.

This occurred before the Planning and Building (Jersey) 2002 came into force in July 2006.

The planning history of the site is attached to this written answer, and demonstrates why, having consistently accepted the principle of a single dwelling on this site since April 2004, the decision to refuse an outline application for one dwelling which reserved all matters other than the principle of development, became indefensible on the grounds of inconsistency when the applicants lodged an appeal to the Royal Court.

Accordingly I had no option but to concede the appeal. The decision in law was then made by the Royal Court's Consent Order and not by me as the Minister. The Article of the Law under which it was made was Article 113 (3) (b) of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002

Chronology - Field 621, La Route de Noirmont, St Brelade July 2002

The States Assembly, in adopting the 2002 Island Plan, placed Field 621 in the Built-up Area, in which proposals for residential development that meet the criteria in Policy H8 will normally be permitted.

September 2003

The (then) owner submitted an application to construct 2 houses on the site December 2003

Following a site visit, the Planning Sub-Committee refused permission. January 2004

A request for reconsideration' was submitted to the Environment and Public Services Committee together with a petition, signed by 43 neighbours, opposing any development of the site

April 2004

The Environment and Public Services Committee visited the site, and met a delegation of local residents, the local Deputy and the applicant's lawyer. The Committee maintained the refusal of 2 houses, but in doing so agreed that it would be appropriate to permit limited and appropriate development of the site.' This decision was conveyed to the applicant by letter dated 7 April 2004, and explained that the Committee conceded the construction of 1 dwelling on the site in principle, with size position and design to be agreed.

June 2004

The site was acquired by the present owner, on the basis of the aforementioned letter of advice. The owner then submitted a new application for 2 dwellings of modified scale and design compared to the previous application.

September 2004

The application was refused by the Planning Sub-Committee, but not on grounds of the principle of development (for 1 dwelling), which had been established in April 2004.

October 2004

A further request for reconsideration' was submitted to the Environment and Public Services Committee.

December 2004

The Committee visited the site, but deferred a decision, pending the submission of further drawings.

January 2005

Following the submission of those drawings, the Committee maintained the refusal for 2 dwellings but in so doing maintain the previous undertaking to support the principle of 1 dwelling on the site.

February 2005

Deputy J Hilton lodged a proposition to amend the 2002 Island Plan by changing the designation of Field 621 from Built-up Area to Green Zone.

March 2005

A neighbour submitted a request to the Greffier of the States for a hearing by a Board of Administrative Appeal. The neighbour was advised by the Greffier that it would be logical to await the outcome of Deputy Hilton's proposition. These proceedings did not continue thereafter.

The owner's advocate wrote to the Committee advising them that a new application for 2 houses was about to be submitted, explaining that:

1. The owner had acquired the site on the basis of its Built-up Area designation and the Committee's advice conceding some development on the site;
2. That if the land were rezoned as Green Zone then a substantial claim for the resultant loss in value would be made on the basis of legitimate expectation'; and
3. The new application aboutto be submitted needs to be considered in the context of the existing policy context.

The Committee sought legal advice on the extent to which it was bound by its earlier decision, notwithstanding that the site may become part of the Green Zone.

The new application for 2 houses was received. July 2005

Deputy Hilton's proposition was approved by the States and adopted by the Committee as an amendment to the 2002 Island Plan.

September 2005

The Committee, having taken note of the legal advice it had sought, refused the new application for 2 dwellings on similar grounds to its decision in January 2005, but  decided to maintain its decision regarding the principle of one dwelling on the site, based on the advice and notwithstanding the change in the designation of the site.

November 2005

The owner submitted a new application for 1 dwelling. December 2005

The owner  lodged an appeal to the Royal Court against the September 2005 decision of the Committee to refuse 2 dwellings.

The introduction of Ministerial Government occurred. June 2006

The Planning Applications Panel considered the application for 1 house on the site. Having taken into planning history of the site, the Panel accepted the principle of 1 dwelling on the site but refused the application on grounds of unacceptable scale, siting and design. As this decision was contrary to the Department's recommendation, the matter was referred to the Minister under the cooling-off' protocol.

July 2006

Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 came into force.

The Minister refused the application on the grounds of unacceptable scale, siting and design, and unreasonable harm to the area, but not on the grounds of principle of development.

August 2006

The Royal Court heard the appeal against the September 2005 decision. In submissions to the Court on behalf of the Minister, it was explained that while 2 houses were unacceptable,  the principle of 1 dwelling was supported.

September 2006

The appeal was dismissed by the Royal Court

March 2007

A new application was submitted for 1 dwelling on the site. April 2007

Following a meeting with the Minister and his officers, a further set of plans were submitted with the intention of meeting the concerns that had been expressed by the Department. A second set of revised plans were submitted in December 2007.

March 2008

The Planning Applications Panel considered the revised application in a public hearing. Representations were made both against and for the proposal. The Panel deferred the application for further legal advice.

October 2008

The Planning Applications Panel considered the revised application again, having received further legal advice. It decided that it was minded to refuse the application, not only on grounds of scale, siting and design, but also on the issue of principle, now that the site was designated Green Zone. Again the cooling-off period was invoked. The Minister remitted the application to the Panel.

February 2009

The Panel further considered the application, and confirmed its decision to refuse on grounds of scale, siting and design, but not on grounds of principle given the legal advice and the planning history of the site. The owner lodged an appeal to the Royal Court shortly thereafter.

March 2009

The owner lodged an appeal to the Royal Court against the February decision. June 2009

The owner of the site submitted an outline application for 1 dwelling on the site, effectively seeking to formalise the previous undertakings regarding the commitment to one dwelling.

October 2009 and November 2009

The Planning Applications Panel considered the outline application to establish the principle of one dwelling on the site, and decided, at the second meeting, to refuse permission, contrary to every prior decision and advice given.

December 2009

The owner of the site lodged an appeal to this decision, on the grounds that the decision was wholly inconsistent with every previous application decision that had been made in relation to this site vis a vis the principle of 1 dwelling on the site.

Early 2010

It became clear, as the case against the Minister developed, that  given all the background circumstances of this case, the Minister's position in defending the appeal against the Panel's decision of November 2009 was untenable. Accordingly, he had no option but to concede the appeal. The Royal Court's Consent Order was made on 5 May 2010, and the outline permission was issued on 27 May 2010.

3. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING DISCUSSIONS AT THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS CONCERNING PENSIONS:

Question

As the UK will shortly require all companies to provide a pension for their workers what discussion, if any has taken place around this development in the Council of Ministers?

Answer

Provide for the ageing population is one of the key priorities of the States Strategic Plan 2009- 2014. Among the commitments in the Strategic Plan is investigating schemes to encourage people to make provision for the future'. However, at the moment the focus in this work stream, co- ordinated by the Social Security department, and working with the Chief Minister's and Treasury and Resources departments, is on proposals to implement a new long-term care funding scheme and to review the age at which the Jersey social security pension is paid. Close attention will be paid to developments in the UK regarding compulsory workplace pension provision and whether there are lessons for the Island.

4. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF TIDAL POWER AND OFFSHORE WIND FARMS:

Question

What progress, if any, has the Minister made in developing tidal power and offshore wind farms for the future and is Jersey linked into Scott ish programmes in these industries and, if so, in what way?

Answer

The Deputy is referred to the recent statement made by Constable Murphy updating the House on the progress the Tidal Power Commission - that he Chairs - is making in investigating the potential for renewable energy from Jersey's marine resources. For convenience the statement is reproduced below.

The question also refers to the work Scotland is carrying out in respect of the development of Tidal Power. The Minster and Assistant Minister for the Planning and Environment Department represents the States of Jersey in the British Irish Council Environment (BIC(E)) Energy sub-group where there is a work stream specifically in respect of renewables. Scott ish representatives chair this group and so there is ample opportunity to share knowledge and exchange information with our colleagues at both Ministerial and officer level. In fact on 1 & 2 November an officer from the Planning and Environment Department attended a renewable sub-group meeting of the BIC(E) in the Isle of Man. Moreover, at the recent Ministerial summit in June 2010 of the full British Irish Council in Guernsey the potential for marine renewables featured on the agenda with Jersey's position represented by the Chief Minister and the Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment.

However, despite an opportunity to share knowledge and exchange information within the BIC(E) context the Jersey situation is somewhat removed from the work that is going on in Scotland. The Scott ish projects are world-leading in terms of encouraging the research and development particularly of tidal power and has a sub-sea wave hub in order to facilitate developers to carry out research and development in these incredibly energetic waters. This is a multi-million pound project subsidised by the UK Government and the European Union. Such an approach would not be appropriate for Jersey at the moment both because our marine energy resource is of a much smaller scale and our infrastructure entirely different from the Scott ish network that has been specifically developed. However our contact through BIC(E) will enable Jersey to take full advantage of the outcomes of the Scott ish projects.

Notwithstanding the work in Scotland we continue to develop the potential for renewable energy for Jersey led by the valuable work of the Constable of Grouville and I look forward to receiving the report of the Tidal Power Commission. Any recommended work streams that arise from this report will be progressed by officers from this Department and from the Planning & Environment Department.

Statement on Tidal Power from Constable Murphy (16-09-10) Chairman of the Jersey Tidal Power Commission

I would like to take the opportunity to update Members about the work that the Tidal Power Commission has been undertaking over the last year.

Members will recall some preliminary work carried out by the Tidal Power Steering Group in December 2008.

We were unanimous then in believing that tidal power could, in the medium term, make a real and increasing contribution to the energy requirements and energy security of the Island for the rest of this century.

We had no hesitation in recommending to the Minister for Planning and Environment that the possibility should be actively pursued.

The Minister agreed and asked for more detailed investigations to be carried out, appointing a Tidal Power Commission consisting of some of the members of the Steering Group with myself as Chairman.

The first key step for us, was to carry out a feasibility study into the area of prime resource, the Le Ruau channel, which is positioned between the north east coast and Les Echreous.

Real-time survey work in the channel was supported by a detailed economic analysis and scoping work in respect of the environmental and economic considerations that would need to be considered.

I'm delighted to report to the House that the initial optimism regarding the potential for tidal stream energy from Jersey waters was not misplaced.

Indeed, the available tidal resource has commercial feasibility with the potential of providing energy equivalent of 50% of Jersey's electrical demand.

However, at the current time to produce this energy would be more expensive to produce than electricity imported from France.

But, we believe that, as the costs of energy production rise there will be a breakeven point in the future at which the generation of renewable energy from local waters will become a reality.

This time could be bought forward significantly if Jersey were to be eligible for the renewable energy subsidies available for European and UK generators.

Our work has also identified a number of steps that need to be initiated before a detailed commercialisation strategy is developed.

These include considerable investigation into the environmental issues associated with the site. As well, it will be important to define the consenting and leasing requirements of any sites of interest. Many of these initial steps are technology blind' and allow the emerging tidal stream technology sector to mature.

By providing the legal and consenting framework there is also the opportunity for other renewable technologies such as off-shore wind projects should developers wish to forward an application for this more established technology.

We recognise that these are very early days in what will undoubtedly be a long journey into the generation of renewable energy for Jersey.

There is much groundwork to be carried out especially when we consider that the lead-in times for these large engineering projects are many years.

For any future project to be successful, there will need to be a transparent and consultative assessment involving all the stakeholders and people of Jersey.

Recognising this, the Commission have opened several productive areas of discussion.

Even at this early stage the Commission has maintained a dialogue with the fisheries industry and other stakeholders such as the National Trust and Save Our Shoreline. Of course these are preliminary discussions but they have alerted us to areas of concern that will need to be addressed.

Importantly, we have approached Her Majesty's Receiver General in respect of the ownership and leasing arrangements for the sea bed to the 12 mile limit.

The Channel Island Renewable Energy Forum has been formed with representatives from all the Islands to discuss areas of commonality and co-operation across Channel Islands.

Already this is proving a very helpful forum and it will be critical for the Islands to work together if we are to be in a position to export energy through the Channel Island Electricity Grid.

Through the Island's place on the British Irish Council, Jersey has approached the EU to define how renewable energy subsidises may be applicable.

The Commission has also opened discussions with the new Minister for Energy and Climate Change in the coalition government to clarify if Jersey could be eligible for Renewable Energy Certificates (ROCs) if it were to export energy to the UK.

In summary, we believe that if Jersey is to have a truly sustainable energy future with a low carbon energy source and increased resilience from external markets, this work stream must be continued.

The Commission will be providing a detailed report to the Minister by November and I look forward to updating the House of progress in conjunction with the Minister for Planning and Environment.

5. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF TIDAL POWER AND OFFSHORE WIND FARMS:

Question

What progress, if any, has the Minister made in developing tidal power and offshore wind farms for the future and is Jersey linked into Scott ish programmes in these industries and, if so, in what way?

Answer

The Deputy is referred to the recent statement made by Constable Murphy updating the House on the progress the Tidal Power Commission - that he Chairs - is making in investigating the potential for renewable energy from Jersey's marine resources. For convenience the statement is reproduced below.

The question also refers to the work Scotland is carrying out in respect of the development of Tidal Power. The Minster and Assistant Minister for the Planning and Environment Department represents the States of Jersey in the British Irish Council Environment (BIC(E)) Energy sub-group where there is a workstream specifically in respect of renewables. Scott ish representatives chair this group and so there is ample opportunity to share knowledge and exchange information with our colleagues at both Ministerial and officer level. In fact on 1 & 2 November an officer from the Planning and Environment Department attended a renewable sub-group meeting of the BIC(E) in the Isle of Man. Moreover, at the recent Ministerial summit in June 2010 of the full British Irish Council in Guernsey the potential for marine renewables featured on the agenda with Jersey's position represented by the Chief Minister and the Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment.

However, despite an opportunity to share knowledge and exchange information within the BIC(E) context the Jersey situation is somewhat removed from the work that is going on in Scotland. The Scott ish projects are world-leading in terms of encouraging the research and development particularly of tidal power and has a sub-sea wave hub in order to facilitate developers to carry out research and development in these incredibly energetic waters. This is a multi-million pound project subsidised by the UK Government and the European Union. Such an approach would not be appropriate for Jersey at the moment both because our marine energy resource is of a much smaller scale and our infrastructure entirely different from the Scott ish network that has been specifically developed. However our contact through BIC(E) will enable Jersey to take full advantage of the outcomes of the Scott ish projects.

Notwithstanding the work in Scotland we continue to develop the potential for renewable energy for Jersey led by the valuable work of the Constable of Grouville and I look forward to receiving the report of the Tidal Power Commission. Any recommended workstreams that arise from this report will be progressed by officers from this Department and from the Economic Development Department.

Statement on Tidal Power from Constable Murphy (16-09-10) Chairman of the Jersey Tidal Power Commission

I would like to take the opportunity to update Members about the work that the Tidal Power Commission has been undertaking over the last year.

Members will recall some preliminary work carried out by the Tidal Power Steering Group in December 2008.

We were unanimous then in believing that tidal power could, in the medium term, make a real and increasing contribution to the energy requirements and energy security of the Island for the rest of this century.

We had no hesitation in recommending to the Minister for Planning and Environment that the possibility should be actively pursued.

The Minister agreed and asked for more detailed investigations to be carried out, appointing a Tidal Power Commission consisting of some of the members of the Steering Group with myself as Chairman.

The first key step for us, was to carry out a feasibility study into the area of prime resource, the Le Ruau channel, which is positioned between the north east coast and Les Echreous.

Real-time survey work in the channel was supported by a detailed economic analysis and scoping work in respect of the environmental and economic considerations that would need to be considered.

I'm delighted to report to the House that the initial optimism regarding the potential for tidal stream energy from Jersey waters was not misplaced.

Indeed, the available tidal resource has commercial feasibility with the potential of providing energy equivalent of 50% of Jersey's electrical demand.

However, at the current time to produce this energy would be more expensive to produce than electricity imported from France.

But, we believe that, as the costs of energy production rise there will be a breakeven point in the future at which the generation of renewable energy from local waters will become a reality.

This time could be bought forward significantly if Jersey were to be eligible for the renewable energy subsidies available for European and UK generators.

Our work has also identified a number of steps that need to be initiated before a detailed commercialisation strategy is developed.

These include considerable investigation into the environmental issues associated with the site. As well, it will be important to define the consenting and leasing requirements of any sites of interest.

Many of these initial steps are technology blind' and allow the emerging tidal stream technology sector to mature.

By providing the legal and consenting framework there is also the opportunity for other renewable technologies such as off-shore wind projects should developers wish to forward an application for this more established technology.

We recognise that these are very early days in what will undoubtedly be a long journey into the generation of renewable energy for Jersey.

There is much groundwork to be carried out especially when we consider that the lead-in times for these large engineering projects are many years.

For any future project to be successful, there will need to be a transparent and consultative assessment involving all the stakeholders and people of Jersey.

Recognising this, the Commission have opened several productive areas of discussion.

Even at this early stage the Commission has maintained a dialogue with the fisheries industry and other stakeholders such as the National Trust and Save Our Shoreline. Of course these are preliminary discussions but they have alerted us to areas of concern that will need to be addressed. Importantly, we have approached Her Majesty's Receiver General in respect of the ownership and leasing arrangements for the sea bed to the 12 mile limit.

The Channel Island Renewable Energy Forum has been formed with representatives from all the Islands to discuss areas of commonality and co-operation across Channel Islands.

Already this is proving a very helpful forum and it will be critical for the Islands to work together if we are to be in a position to export energy through the Channel Island Electricity Grid.

Through the Island's place on the British Irish Council, Jersey has approached the EU to define how renewable energy subsidises may be applicable.

The Commission has also opened discussions with the new Minister for Energy and Climate Change in the coalition government to clarify if Jersey could be eligible for Renewable Energy Certificates (ROCs) if it were to export energy to the UK.

In summary, we believe that if Jersey is to have a truly sustainable energy future with a low carbon energy source and increased resilience from external markets, this workstream must be continued.

The Commission will be providing a detailed report to the Minister by November and I look forward to updating the House of progress in conjunction with the Minister for Planning and Environment.

6. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE PROVISION OF MOTORCYCLE AND MOTOR SCOOTER PARKING PLACES IN ST. HELIER: Question

Would the Minister confirm whether he is satisfied with the provision of motorcycle/scooter parking places in St. Helier and, if not, what plans, if any, does he have to increase provision?

Answer

I recognise that the demand for parking motor cycles exceeds capacity and that the use of motorcycles with small engines is environmentally preferable to single occupant cars and therefore should be encouraged. Therefore, since taking office as Minster for Transport and Technical Services, I have increased the provision of motor cycle parking in St. Helier from 550 to 682, with a further 50 spaces planned by the end of this year on the Esplanade, bringing the overall total to 732, an increase of 33%.

I have stated in my proposed Sustainable Transport Policy that further on-street space will need to be provided, either in areas where other vehicles would not have enough room to park, or by conversion of a proportion of existing places where appropriate. I have charged my officers to begin this work, reviewing any opportunity to further increase the provision of motorcycle parking.

7. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING WORK PERMITS:

Question

Can the Minister provide for members a detailed breakdown (by sector and by country of origin) of those individuals currently working in Jersey on work permits; the number of dependents they have and whether any of those dependents have the right to work by virtue of their relationship to the prime work permit holder?

Answer

Powers conferred by the United Kingdom Immigration Act 1971, as extended to Jersey by the Immigration (Jersey) Order 1993, allow the Minister for Home Affairs to make rules to govern the employment in Jersey of persons from outside the European Economic Area.

The Immigration (Work Permits) (Jersey) Rules 1995 are administered by the Customs and Immigration Service under delegated authority of the Minister for Home Affairs. Work Permits may be issued to a specific employer for a limited period of time where it can be demonstrated that particular qualifications or skills are in short supply from within the resident and European labour market.

Permits may be issued for a maximum period of 3 years in the first instance, with the exception of Doctors employed by Health and Social Services where a period of employment not exceeding 5 years may be authorised.

Work permit holders may be accompanied to Jersey by their dependants only where a work permit is issued for a period of 12 months or more. Work Permit dependants are permitted to take employment in Jersey.

The breakdown, by sector and nationality, of work permit holders and their dependants in Jersey at the beginning of November 2010 is shown in Tables 1 and 2 below:

Table 1 – Number of Work Permit Holders and their Dependants by Sector (1 November

2010)

Table 2 - Number of Work Permit Holders and Dependants by Nationality (1 November 2010)

8. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE EAST OF ALBERT' WORKING GROUP:

Question

Will the Chief Minister provide the Assembly with an update on the activities of the East of Albert working group,  giving details  in particular  of any proposals and costings associated  with the potential relocation of the fuel farm?

Answer

The East of Albert Working Group concluded, some months ago, its initial high level review of development potential for the area. Due to the current economic climate, it is not progressing the project any further at this stage.

In relation to the La Collette fuel farm, its relocation formed part of, and was a critical element of, phase two of the plan for the development of East of Albert and was not scheduled to be considered until 2020-2022. When the project re-commences, more detailed costings and proposals will be developed.

9. THE  DEPUTY  OF ST.  JOHN  OF  THE  MINISTER  FOR  HOME  AFFAIRS REGARDING INTERNET ACCESS AT H.M.P. LA MOYE:

Question

Would the Minister advise whether internet facilities are available to inmates at H.M.P. La Moye and, if so, are the facilities in all or selected cells; how is internet usage monitored by prison staff; how has this been funded and from which vote and does the Minister consider that this is an appropriate use of public money at this time?

Answer

Prisoners do not have access to the internet. They have access to limited information taken from the internet which is loaded on to the Prisoner Network by the Prison Librarian with the same restrictions as apply to the Prison Library. Prisoners cannot use the system either to communicate with the outside world or with other prisoners.

Over the last three years the Prison, in partnership with a UK company, has developed the Prisoner Network, which is available in every normal cell.

The Prisoner Network provides:-

1. Accesstothecentralteachingandtrainingprogrammessothat prisoners can workonthese in their own cell
2. An information link between the individual prisoners and the Prison Management for direct exchange of information in electronic form
3. Access to television channels

The benefits of this being available in each cell are huge both in terms of improving teaching and training and in terms of improved communication between the prison management and individual prisoners with a resulting reduction in the staff costs of running the prison.

Each normal cell has a screen and a built in computer, together with a keypad, a mouse and a biometric reader (to ensure that prisoners can only access their own system).

The central information system was planned in any event. The decision to extend this to each normal cell has involved the purchase and fitting of 162 complete units at a cost of approximately £125,000, or approximately £770 per unit. However, if this had not occurred then the switch over to digital television would have required the purchase and fitting of 162 televisions to replace the existing televisions.

Because the system has been treated as developmental by the partner company, all the hardware and software which has been provided has been provided at cost and most of the development work has been done at this company's expense.

The extension into each normal cell was financed from underspends which were created from a reduction in the number of staff who were recruited and also in overtime payments.

I view this project as a major success. By wisely controlling staff resources a saving has been made which has then been invested in an improvement both to the access of prisoners to training and education programmes and in communications between prisoners and management with resulting further savings in the delivery of education programmes.

This is an example of good and creative management and an excellent use of public money which has been allocated to the prison.

10. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE PRODUCTION OF A CONSULTATION PAPER ON SCHOOL FEES SUBSIDIES:

Question

To ensure that the consultation process on the future of education is not unduly influenced, will the Minister unconditionally withdraw his proposals to reduce the levels of subsidy to private/fee paying schools during the period of research, publication and consultation on the green paper?

Answer

I do not believe this would be appropriate in the current context because action is needed now to tackle the potential deficit of £100m and fee-paying schools cannot be immune from the process. The proposal to reduce the level of subsidies is an essential part of this.

If the fee-paying schools do not play their part then the burden of savings will be shared unfairly. Savings of an equivalent sum would have to be found from other parts of the ESC budget in order to meet the targets set by the Comprehensive Spending Review. This would be very difficult to achieve without having a major impact on the other services that my department provides.

The Council of Ministers fully support my commitment to finding the savings and have concluded that all areas of States spending must make a fair contribution.

In the longer term I want to ensure that the education service continues to provide the best education for all the Island's children. Detailed analysis and in-depth reviews have taken place and I intend to issue a green paper early next year. This will set the overall shape of Jersey's education system for the future. It will be a strategic document that will help us secure an education service to meet the needs of the whole island in years to come. It will address fundamental issues such as

- Vocational provision for 14-19 year olds;

- Responding to the Skills agenda;

- Special Needs;

- Social Inclusion;

- Funding for schools and higher education

-Secondary educationa review of options, including opportunities at sixth form level.

I should also emphasise that the proposals regarding the level of subsidy of to private/fee paying schools are still proposals at this stage. Over the coming months they will be subject to further investigation and consultation. Members will be aware that I have agreed with the Council of Ministers to allow additional time for consultation with schools, parents and other stakeholders. Any information that comes from this will inform the wider debate.

People should not confuse the two processes. The spending proposals are designed to help the States to balance budgets so that we can continue to provide the services people need now. The green paper is a wider ranging document about Jersey's education provision. It will set the scene for the future of education in the Island, addressing how the system should be provided for the benefit of all.

11. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE TAXATION OF 1(1)(k) CATEGORY RESIDENTS:

Question

Will the Minister clarify the following issues in relation to the 1(1)(k) policy:

1. As the rate of tax required was reduced from £200,000 in the 1990s down to the present £100,000 – will the Minister clarify his justification for not increasing the present rate to more accurately reflect the benefits such individuals gain in being able to avoid the residential qualification period that applies to others?
2. Will the Minister clarify what would be the financial increase in taxation if the rate was to be increased to £150,000 for all new applicants?
3. What factual evidence is there, if any, to support the Minister's contention that an increase in taxation for 1(1)k's would result in a mass exodus of such residents?

Answer

1. The figures referred to in the question relate to the minimum contribution – thisisnot a rateoftaxormaximum contribution. Whenthey1(1)(k)sapplytheyneedto demonstrate tothe satisfaction ofthe Housing Minister that their forecast income is sufficient to ensure theypay a tax liability ofat least the minimum amount set at the time.

These amounts are a policy decision set by the Housing Minister set at a level to attract a certain number of applicants. As such they are driven by market forces. The amount of tax they actually pay is based on tax law. All pre-2005 applicants pay tax at 20% on all of their taxable income. All post-2005 pay 20% on all of their Jersey source income and differential rates up to 20% on foreign income.

The reason for the decrease from £200,000 in the late 1990s to £100,000 subsequently was that there were very few applicants at that level. Jersey was not competitive and wealthy individuals were choosing other jurisdictions.

The Minister committed in his Budget speech in 2009 to undertake a review of the 1(1)(k) regime and that review is near completion. He is considering a number of options which include whether it would be possible to increase the minimum contribution for  future applicants and still remain competitive.

2. It is not possible to determine what the financial increase in taxation would be if the minimum contribution was increasedto£150,000forall new applicants as it would depend on how many people decided to move to Jersey. If the level is set such that it is uncompetitive, the number of successful applicants would be minimal, if any, resulting in negligible increase in tax revenues. As noted above, this is being considered by the Minister as part of the review.

3. The Minister has said in debatethatan increase inthetaxratechargedto1(1)(k)s could, in theory, result in a number leaving the island. Logic suggests that highly mobile individuals whocanchoosewherethey live will consider the amount oftaxtheyhaveto pay. If the taxrate for existing 1(1)(k)s was increased above 20%, then it is likely that some would leave the island as there are a number of places which would then be far more attractive. Indeed, while Jersey has great advantages from its location and as a pleasant place to live – which mean it is ableto place itself atthe more costly endof the spectrum when granting housing consents - it also must remain competitive. Jersey also has no cap on the total amount payable by an individual so, depending on income, the amount oftax actually payable is unlimited. Guernsey and the Isle of Man, for example, do have income tax caps and would be a natural choice for someone currently living in Jersey who wants to stay close to the UK for business or personal reasons.

There will be a further announcement made concerning the future of 1(1)(k)s in the budget speech to be mad on 7 December 2010.

12. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING INCOME FROM AN INCREASED TAX RATE: Question

Would the Minister indicate how much increased income from taxation would result by increasing the tax rate to those with incomes over £120,000 to 25%; further still, what factual evidence, if any, exists to indicate that such an increase would result in such individuals leaving the Island?

Answer

There seems to be an assumption that an increase in the income tax rate will result in a directly comparable increase in tax revenues. This assumption is fundamentally flawed.

The amount of income chargeable to tax over £120,000 for individuals for the last complete set of assessments i.e. 2008 is £251 million. Assuming an increase to 25% for these taxpayers did not result in a change in taxpayer behaviour, such an increase would yield an extra £12.6 million. But in reality, it is more likely to result in a decrease in tax revenues.

To repeat what I said in the budget launch speech:

"I recognise there is a clear disparity within the population between those who feel that a higher rate of tax will be fair, and those who think it would seriously damage our economy. Those who favour a higher rate of tax believe we can tax the better off significantly more, without any impact on the Island as a whole. This fails to recognise the mobility of international business. If business moves elsewhere, this would result in a loss of jobs and a loss of tax revenue, leaving a higher tax burden for the rest of us. It is now clear that our closest neighbour and one of our competitors will retain a 20% income tax rate.

The Council of Ministers has given careful consideration to the arguments for and against the higher rate of tax - and has concluded that 20% makes a clear statement of stability. 20% has formed one of the island's key elements of stability and economic success for more than 60 years and I believe the States Assembly should send out a strong and powerful message that Jersey will maintain the 20% rate"

Whilst it is difficult to prove the extent to which individuals affected by such an increase would leave the Island, there is a considerable feedback from the Finance Industry, other bodies and media correspondence that the "headline" 20% tax rate  in Jersey remains a significant attraction for businesses and individuals alike. This is a critical time for the Island in retaining its most lucrative businesses and individuals – we must demonstrate that we wish to keep them if we are not to see a drift away of our primary sources of tax revenues. Once lost those individuals and businesses would be much harder to attract back.

13. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A REVIEW OF INCOME SUPPORT:

Question

Will the Minister inform members of the terms of reference for the current review of Income Support and when he intends to present it to the States?

Will the review consider the actions on benefits taken by the coalition government in the UK, such as capping the accommodation component of Income Support, or introducing compulsory community work schemes for the unemployed?

Answer

A comprehensive review of the Income Support scheme commenced in July 2010 and will continue throughout 2011 examining both current operations and policy. The review is assessing the present system and proposing further enhancements to ensure that support is available to each vulnerable group specifically tailored to their particular needs whilst providing appropriate encouragement for greater independence.

The review is being undertaken with external advisors providing specialist advice as required to consider the following:

• Interaction between the Income Support system and employment
• Support for individuals with potential or actual long-term medical conditions to remain in or return to work
• The legislative framework of Income Support
• Administration of Income Support, including communications with claimants, other States departments and service providers
• Benefit levels within Income Support
• The interface between social housing provision and Income Support
• Achieving the required savings under the Comprehensive Spending Review.

The review is still in the early stages. Due to the holistic nature of the Income Support scheme it is vital that consideration is given to how any potential future changes may impact on other elements of the benefit.

The housing component of Income Support is currently capped at the lower of the actual rent paid, or the value of the fair rent, up to a maximum amount permitted.

I am watching the UK proposals with great interest and will continue monitoring them closely as they develop.

14. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING WAITING TIMES FOR SURGICAL PROCEDURES:

Question

Will the Minister inform members of the current waiting times for patients for the following treatments, broken down by specialism, and state how these times compare with UK averages and targets?

• urgent surgery
• non-urgent surgery
• other non-invasive treatments

Can the Minister further inform members what criteria are applied to distinguish between urgent and non-urgent surgery lists and whether the lists have changed recently?

What measures, if any, has the Minister under consideration to ameliorate this situation and what deadline has she set to meet the targets for waiting times?

Answer

Members will be aware of the current waiting times as these were circulated within the past 2 weeks.

Urgent Surgery

The criteria set for urgent surgery is based upon clinical factors which are determined by the consultants in their own specialities and these will vary between specialities and sub-specialties. For example cancer patients will take priority because it is important for them to be seen, assessed and operated on, if appropriate, within a recommended timeframe. It is not possible to break down these details further - by specialism - as each patient is unique presenting with particular symptoms and different needs that are assessed on an individual basis.

Non Urgent Surgery

Non urgent patients are listed as being routine, by the operating consultant or his team as opposed to those considered to be urgent who will always take priority over the routine patients. Routine patients are scheduled for their treatment according to the date on which they were first added to the list. The length of these waiting lists is determined by the number of new outpatient referrals that are received and the number of patients seen who subsequently require surgery. With a growing elderly population this is a significant challenge in some specialities, for example ophthalmology, with increasing numbers of patients waiting for cataract surgery.

Non invasive treatment times

It is well recognised that there is sometimes a place for non-invasive or minimally invasive procedures and this will be determined by the clinician in consultation with the patient. A good example is local initiatives to offer fast track' access to physiotherapy services for some patients who would otherwise have waited for orthopaedic assessment in outpatient clinics.

Comparison with the UK

It is not possible, or necessarily meaningful, to seek to make direct comparisons with the UK as local targets are measured on a different basis. The current target waiting time for outpatient assessment in Jersey, following receipt of a GP referral, is 3 months. Should surgery be indicated the patient will be added to the waiting list and, from that point, there is a target wait of up to 3 months before the operation. This does not include urgent patients, such as those with cancer, as these patients are always prioritised and seen and treated very quickly according to their clinical needs.

In the UK the 18 week target is measured from the date that the GP writes the referral to the hospital up until the date of the operation. This target has not been adopted in Jersey and it is not possible, with the current IT systems, to make direct comparisons with the UK. There was very significant investment in the NHS, over a decade, to achieve the UK targets. The new government have recently suggested withdrawing this target as there is a growing recognition that chasing targets, to the exclusion of many other priorities, does not necessarily meet the real clinical needs of all patients.

Local waiting times are tightly monitored within my department.

15. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING CUTS IN EDUCATION SERVICES:

Question

Will the Minister explain to members what his position is on cuts in the education service, and whether the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture has his full support in proposing cuts to fee- paying and non-fee paying schools?

Should the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture fail to reduce the subsidy to fee-paying schools, will the Minister insist on further proposals for cuts in education or will he seek to achieve the £65 million target elsewhere?

Answer

The Minister welcomes the question as an opportunity to set the record straight following some media reports, some of which have been misleading.

The Minister for Treasury & Resources has always supported the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture's review of fee-paying school grants, with the specific objective of this making a contribution to the Comprehensive Spending Review.

The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture has now agreed that more time is needed for consultation on this matter. Members will make the final decision on any proposals to change the grants structure in 2012 and beyond, as part of the 2012 Business Plan.

All Ministers have shown determination in the delivery of the Comprehensive Spending Review. All are united in believing that all areas of States spending must make a contribution to the savings target. Neither fee paying nor non-fee paying schools are immune from consideration for savings.

Concerning the 2011 Business Plan, if the review of grants to fee-paying schools does not result in a reduction in subsidies, the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture will still need to meet his department's savings target as proposed and agreed by the States.

This is no different to any other department where the agreed level of savings were approved by the States in the Business Plan. The position of the Treasury & Resources Minister and the Council of Ministers is clear - that this only alterable by the Minister for Treasury & Resources. The Minister has no intention of altering that approval.

Whilst a reduction in the amount of grants to schools is undoubtedly going to be challenging the Minister also wishes to place on record his full support for the independent schools sector. He believes that the Independent schools in Jersey provide a valuable contribution to the Jersey Education system. Whilst a reduction in the grant arrangements is necessary as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review he believes that the review of grants for independent schools can and should be regarded as an opportunity. Out of this review the independent schools will be strengthened by the agreement of a long-term funding model and perhaps recognition of the role that they play in the Island.

The Minister for Treasury and Resources undertakes to work closely with the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture during his review of both the independent schools grants structure and his wider Comprehensive Spending Review reviews.

16. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING DIVISIONS AMONGST THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS:

Question

What action, if any will the Chief Minister be taking following the public criticism by members of his ministerial team of the proposals by the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture to meet the CSR targets for cuts set by the Minister for Treasury and Resources, and what further actions will the Chief Minister be taking to ensure that such divisions in his team do not occur in public again?

Answer

I have spoken to the relevant Ministers and I am satisfied that the reported divisions were more a matter of perception than reality.

The Council of Ministers at our meeting last week discussed this matter and we have confirmed our support for the ESC Minister. The Minister informed us that he is extending the timescale for considering proposals to reduce the subsidies to fee paying schools. He will propose any changes in June 2011, as part of the 2012 Business Plan. This will give States Members the opportunity to fully debate the issue. If there are to be changes in school subsidies they will not be implemented until the 2012 financial year, not September 2011 as originally proposed.

Ministers have agreed that all areas of States spending must make a fair contribution to savings and fee-paying schools will not be immune from this. However, extending the timescale will give sufficient time to ensure that the schools and parents are able to cope with the effect of the savings. The Council will work with the Minister as he develops his proposals and we are satisfied that we will have sufficient opportunity to fully consider any proposals before they are brought to the States.

The Code of Conduct for Ministers respects any Minister's right as a States Member to express their personal political views, provided that they ensure other Ministers are aware of any comments which relate to their responsibilities. All Ministers are aware of this requirement and I am satisfied that they will respect it.

17. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE ECONOMIC RECOVERY:

Question

Does the Minister have any firm economic indicators that the economy is in recovery and if so what are they?

Is he satisfied that the imposition of tax rises in the coming 6 months will not depress the economic outlook further, and if so, give his reasons?

Further, will he consider use of the Strategic Reserve to alleviate conditions for residents when the economy is in a state that he describes as "structural deficit?

Answer

The Minister has not stated that the economy is in recovery now. However, the Minister does take advice from the States Economics Unit and the Fiscal Policy Panel as to the likely direction of the economy. Both their forecasts are pointing to weak growth next year, albeit with significant uncertainty. The main reasons for these forecasts are:

- the world economy is forecast to continue to recover this year and next and financial markets have stabilised and strengthened since the global crisis;

- the latest market expectations are that interest rates will start to rise towards the end of 2011 (which will start to ease some of the pressure on banking profitability);

- the Business Tendency Survey indicates that the finance sector is already reporting improvements in business activity and is now optimistic about future conditions and business activity;

- improved expectations in the Financial Institutions Survey regarding profitability.

The latest assessment of the Fiscal Policy Panel will be published on 29 November.

The only tax rises proposed for the coming six months are the increase in impôts and International Services Entities (ISE) Fees proposed in the draft Budget 2011 and the Minister is confident that, given the latest assessments of the economy referred to above, such minor increases will not pose a risk to recovery.

The Strategic Reserve, as agreed by the States in 2006, is only to be used in exceptional circumstances to insulate the Island economy from severe structural decline such as the sudden collapse of a major Island industry. This is not what we face now and the Deputy should not confuse major structural decline with a structural deficit in States finances as they are different things. However, should the economy not recover as forecast in coming years and continue to decline the Minister would take further economic advice and reassess the situation.

18. DEPUTY  R.G. LE  HÉRISSIER  OF ST.  SAVIOUR  OF  THE  MINISTER  FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE RETRIEVAL OF COSTS FROM VISITORS USING THE ISLAND'S HEALTH SERVICE:

Question

Would the Minister state how much money has been retrieved in the last two financial years from persons visiting Jersey who utilised Health services, citing the numbers billed and the numbers who paid for service?

Answer

19. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF TO THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING SUCCESSION PLANNING:

Question

With reference to his written answer on 2nd November 2010, regarding Succession Planning, would the Chief Minister identify the targets against which the success of the Succession Planning programme is judged?

Answer

For a succession planning scheme to be successful, it requires development programmes to be in place. In my answer of 2nd November 2010, I identified the Modern Manager Programme which has demonstrated that of the first 100 employees to complete the Programme, 25% have attained some level of advancement in their career.

An independent evaluation of the Modern Manager Programme, which was commissioned when the first 100 managers had completed the Programme, provided strong evidence that participants had significantly enhanced their knowledge, skills and attitudes, as a result of attendance on the Programme. There was evidence of:-

• A tangible increase in the level of self-confidence and of silo' thinking being replaced by a more corporate view point.
• Improved skills in leadership, communication, managing people, change and finance, business planning and project management.
• An enhanced awareness of States wide policies and procedures and the need for services to be customer focused.