States Meeting Transcript - 25/05/2010

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2010

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS..........................7

1. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):.................................................7

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour (Chairman, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):..........................................................................7
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):............................................7

1.2.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ...............................................................7

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

2. Written Questions........................................................................8

1. DEPUTY J.M. MACON OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING FIRST-TIME VOTERS:................................................................................8
2. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE FORMER ODEON CINEMA SITE:............9
3. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE AMOUNT SPENT ON TAXI FARES BY 4 STATES DEPARTMENTS:.............................................................9
4. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING A REVIEW OF INCOME SUPPORT:....................10
5. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING VOLUNTARY REDUNDANCY ARRANGEMENTS:................11
6. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE TOWN PARK:..........................12
7. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE RENTAL COMPONENT OF INCOME SUPPORT:13
8. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING 1(1)(k) CATEGORY RESIDENTS' TAX PAYMENTS:..........................................................................14
9. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING WRITTEN EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE HAUT DE LA GARENNE INVESTIGATION:........................................................20
10. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING WRITTEN GUIDANCE FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE SPENDING REVIEW PROCESS:.....................................................21

13. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING STATES INSURANCE:................................23
14. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING PRIVATELY-OWNED DEVELOPMENT SITES IN ST. HELIER:................................................................26

15. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE INTERIM REPORT':..............................................................................27

3. Oral Questions...........................................................................27

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the impact of the decision not to build on the Millennium Town Park site on the North of Town Masterplan:.........................................................27 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................27

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................28
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................28
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................28
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................28
5. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................28
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................29

2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the potential impacton Jersey of the oil spilloff the coast of Louisiana:....................29 Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour (Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment - rapporteur):.............................................................................29

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................29
2. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ........................................................30
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................30
4. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................30
5. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................31
6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................31

3. The Deputy of St. John of the Minister for Economic Development regarding area payments to the agricultural industry: ..................................................31 The Connétable of St. Clement (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur): .........................................................................................32

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................32
2. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................32
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................33
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................33
5. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................33
6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................33

4. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding negotiations with teachers' representatives:...............................................................34 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................34

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................34
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................34
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................35

5. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the participation of States trading departments in the comprehensive spending review: ....35 Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):.............................................................................35

1. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................35
2. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................35
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................35
4. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................36
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................36
   6. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the Metropolitan Police Interim Report':..................................................36

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................36

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................37
2. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................37
3. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................37
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................38
5. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................38
6. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................39
7. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................39

7. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding positive identification of the fragment found at Haut de la Garenne in 2008 as a piece of coconut shell:....................................................................................39 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................39

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................40
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................40

8. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the costs and benefits of building underground parking spaces within the North of Town Masterplan: ...................................................................40 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................40

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................40
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................40
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................41
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................41
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................41

9. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding disciplinary action against the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police regarding Operation Blast:........................................................................42 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................42

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................42
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................42
3. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................42
4. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................43
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................43

10. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the provision for persons under 65 requiring residential/nursing care:......................43 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):.................44

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................44
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................44

11. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding the arrangements for the briefing for States Members relating to the suspension of a hospital consultant in 2006:45 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................45

1. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................45
2. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................45
3. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................45
4. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................46

12. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding the differences between the definitions of incapacity in Long Term Incapacity Allowance (L.T.I.A.) and impairment contained in the medical components of IncomeSupport:..................46 Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement (The Minister for Social Security):..........................46

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................47
2. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................47

3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................47
4. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................47

13. The Deputy of St. John of the Minister for Social Security regarding the employees working on the Energy from Waste Plant site: ..........................................48 Deputy I.J. Gorst (The Minister for Social Security):.........................................48

1. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................48
2. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................48
3. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................49
4. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................49

14. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chairman for Comité des Connétable s regarding the likely cost of organising and running the forthcoming Senatorial by-election: ................49 Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen (The Chairman for Comité des Connétable s):............49

3.14.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:................................................................50

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Transport and Technical Services..................................................................................50

1. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................50 Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): .........................................................................................50

1. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................50
   2. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................51
   3. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................51
   4. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................51
   5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................51
   6. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey:...............................52
   7. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................52
   8. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................52
   9. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................53

4.9.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................53

10. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................53
11. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................54
12. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................54
13. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................54

5. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister............................54

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................55 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................55
2. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................55
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................56
4. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................56
5. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................57
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................57
7. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................57
8. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................57

5.8.1 Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................58

9. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................58
10. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................58
11. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................58

1. Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................59
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................59

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................60

6. Health and Social Services Department: Management Improvement Plan (P.31/2010) ...........................................................................................60

6.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................60

1. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................62
2. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................62
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................63
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................63
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................64

7. Draft Incorporated Limited Partnerships (Jersey) Law 201- (P.45/2010)................65

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................65

1. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................67
2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................67 Deputy M.R. Higgins (Chairman, Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):........................67

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................68

8. Draft Separate Limited Partnerships (Jersey) Law 201- (P.46/2010)..................68

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................69

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................69
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................69
3. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................69
4. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................70 Deputy M.R. Higgins (Chairman, Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):........................70

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................70

8.2.1 Deputy R.G. L Hérissier:...............................................................71 Mr. H. Sharp., H.M. Solicitor General: .......................................................71

9. Public Employees Contributory Retirement Scheme Committee of Management: membership (P.60/2010).................................................................73

9.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................73

1. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................74
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................74
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................74

10. Jersey Financial Services Commission: appointment of Commissioner (P.58/2010)..76 [Debate proceeded in camera] ................................................................76

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................77 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................77

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption..............................................................77

11. Draft Amendment (No. 13) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.40/2010) ...........................................................................................77

1. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): 78

1. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................80
2. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................81
3. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................81
4. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................81
5. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................82
6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................83
7. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:...................................................84
8. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................84 The Solicitor General:........................................................................84

9. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................86
10. Deputy G.P. Southern :.............................................................86
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..........................................................87 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................87 The Solicitor General:........................................................................88
12. The Connétable of St. Mary:.......................................................88

2. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................90

1. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................91
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................91
3. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................91
4. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................91
5. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................92
6. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................93
7. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................93
8. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen : ......................................................94
9. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................94
10. Deputy A.E. Jeune :................................................................95
11. The Deputy of St. Mary:...........................................................95
12. The Connétable of St. Mary:.......................................................96

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................99

12. The Connétable of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee:........99

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ..............................................................100
2. Deputy I.J. Gorst : .....................................................................100

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................100

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS

1. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

We come therefore to F, Appointment of Ministers, Committees and Panels and, firstly, I understand the Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel has a nomination to make for membership of that panel. Deputy Le Hérissier.

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour (Chairman, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

The panel has never quite recovered from the departure of the Constable of St. John who is still not with us. That said, we are very pleased to be able to recommend Deputy Maçon as an additional member. Thank you.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations for membership of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel? Very well, I therefore declare that Deputy Maçon has been appointed as a member of that panel. [Approbation]

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Members have on their desks a picture of a coconut and a picture of a coconut lampshade. I do not know if it is an attempt at satire by a Member but there is no notification as to who delivered this sheet, what it is, and I thought we had agreed that Members would not receive papers on their desks without notification of who they came from.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): It certainly is good practice, Senator. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I apologise if I am at fault here. I could otherwise have left things in the pigeon holes but this is to give detailed information in relation to one of the questions that I am shortly to answer. I apologise to Members for any confusion caused.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Thank you for the clarification, Minister. Very well, returning to F on the Order Paper. Following the decision of the States at the last meeting relating to the membership of the States Employment Board there is a requirement to appoint 2 members who are neither Ministers nor Assistant Ministers as members of that board. I firstly invite the Chief Minister to make his 2 nominations.

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

In accordance with the decision of the States and in accordance with my email yesterday, I have pleasure in nominating the Constable of St. Lawrence and Deputy De Sousa as members of the State Employment Board who are not Ministers or Assistant Ministers.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Are those 2 nominations seconded? [Seconded] Are there any further nominations?

1.2.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Yes, I would like to propose Deputy F.J. Hill.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The Deputy of St. Martin is proposed. Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any further nominations? Very well, as there are 3 nominations for 2 positions the States will proceed to a ballot and I will ask that ballot papers be distributed. Members can vote for 2 candidates or may choose to only vote for one. I remind Members the 3 candidates are the Connétable of St. Lawrence, Deputy De Sousa and the Deputy of St. Martin .

Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

Just a clarification, and I am not giving away who I could be voting for, the Deputy of St. Martin or Deputy Hill, would be either .. I know there is some confusion sometimes.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I am sure the scrutineers will be able to understand "Hill" or " St. Martin " or " Mezbourian " or " St. Lawrence ". We will ask the usher and the Viscount substitute to collect the ballot papers. Now have all Members placed their votes in the ballot boxes? Very well, I will ask the Solicitor General and the Viscount substitute to act as scrutineers, please.

[9:45]

QUESTIONS

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

While the votes are being counted we will proceed to I, Questions; firstly, written questions.

2. Written Questions

1. DEPUTY J.M. MACON OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING FIRST-TIME VOTERS:

Question

What measures, if any, are being put in place within schools to raise awareness amongst first-time voters on the voting process and the importance of being on the electoral register before the 2011 elections and, if none, why not?

Answer

In accordance with the terms of reference of the Privileges and Procedures Committee, as set out under Standing Order 128(b), it is the Committee's responsibility to: "keep under review the rules for enfranchisement and for the conduct of elections and to bring forward for approval by the States amendments to the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002, as considered appropriate."

As with the 2008 elections, the Privileges and Procedures Committee will undertake an advertising campaign in advance of the 2011 elections in order to raise awareness and encourage potential voters to register to vote. This will be followed by further advertising to promote polling day.

The Committee would encourage all potential voters to enrol on the electoral register, including those who have recently reached voting age, those who have been in the Island for the required 2- year period, those who have returned to the Island following a period of absence, and indeed any possible voter whose name does not appear on the electoral register at present. It is important that all eligible sectors of the community are aware of the need to register, irrespective of age, and it is appropriate that all such voters are treated equally and are made aware through the advertising campaign.

Education, Sport and Culture have advised that amendments were made to the curriculum to take account of the revised voting age in 2008, and the Personal, Social and Health Education citizenship programme now prepares young students for voting. A leaflet has also been produced entitled: "Are you 16 or over: do you know how to vote?" which is distributed to schools in the run- up to elections.

The Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel is currently undertaking a review into political education in Jersey and the engagement of young people in politics. That review will examine the current policy for political education and how it is delivered in Jersey. Should any recommendations arise from that review which refer to the role of the Privileges and Procedures Committee they will be considered by the Committee in due course.

2. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE FORMER ODEON CINEMA SITE:

Question

With the introduction of a grading system for the Historic Buildings Register and the lodging of the draft North of Town Master Plan, will the Minister agree to undertake a review of the historic buildings listing of the former Odeon Cinema building and will he outline the timescale for such a review?

Answer

The Minister is prepared to review the Listing of the Odeon Cinema as a Site of Special Interest, as requested by Senator Perchard and has already requested that Jersey Heritage initiate this process. The work, of necessity, will involve the engagement of specialist advice.

On the basis of specialist advice, complemented by that of Jersey Heritage and the Ministerial Registration and Listing Advisory Group (MRLAG) and, allowing for the statutory period of time for the owners of the building to express their own view about the special interest of the building, it is envisaged that the outcome of the review would be concluded as soon as possible.

3. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE AMOUNT SPENT ON TAXI FARES BY 4 STATES DEPARTMENTS:

Question

Would the Minister advise the cost to the taxpayer of taxi and taxi cabs by the following four Departments over the last 12 months –

1. Chief Minister's Department
2. Education, Sport and Culture
3. Health and Social Services
4. Social Security?

Answer

Total  expenditure  on  taxis  for  the  period  1  May  2009  to  30  April  2010  for  the  following departments was:-

Year to 30

April 2010 Department £ Chief Minister's 3,219 Education, Sport and Culture 69,000 Health and Social Services 93,996 Social Security 518 Total Expenditure 166,733

Education, Sport and Culture

97 per cent of total expenditure relates to pupil transport mainly special needs students. Due to the dispersed nature of the students' residence it is considered more cost effective to use taxis rather than to purchase buses and employ a large fleet of drivers.

Health and Social Services

62 per cent of total expenditure relates to patient travel. Additional Treasury Minister's comment:

The answers to these questions have been requested to Treasury even though authorisation for expenditure  is  made at departmental  level.  As the question  has  been asked  I  have asked  the departments to justify their level of expenditure. Whilst understanding there is a justified need for travel and efforts to control use are recognised, I have concluded from the answers submitted that procedures could be strengthened to achieve better value for scale of States purchasing of on-Island transport. This is one good example where a properly resourced and centralised procurement department could save the States money on the £100 million non-staff costs. This will be essential to delivering the Comprehensive Spending Review and thank the Deputy for his interest.

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

Question

Will the Minister inform members how many families were in receipt of transition protection for Family Allowance when Income Support was introduced on 28th January 2008?

How many of these households have been reviewed since and how many have lost their protection because they are above the income levels set by the old Family Allowance Law?

Does the Minister consider it is appropriate in conducting such reviews of those on Income Support and receiving Transition Protection to use income levels which were last up-rated in 2001, when average earnings have risen by 49% over this period?

Can  the  Minister  state  whether  the  previous  calculation  disregarded  Long  Term  Invalidity Allowance (LTIA) awards as income and whether in review today LTIA is now regarded? Will he explain what effect, if any, this has on households affected?

Answer

The exact breakdown of historical transitional protection is only available on a case-by-case basis. I can confirm that there are currently 89 families receiving transitional protection that includes an element in respect of Family Allowance.

Claims are reviewed on a regular basis and there are many reasons why transitional protection is no longer required. In respect of families previously claiming Family Allowance, the Income Support system provides additional support over a range of incomes and many Family Allowance claimants now qualify for Income Support at a higher level than the previous benefit so transition protection is not required. In other cases transitional protection is removed when a child reaches the age of eighteen, goes into care or leaves full time education. Under the previous system when these changes occurred Family Allowance ended in respect of that child. In the same way transitional protection is withdrawn in these circumstances. The other main reason for ending transitional protection is an increase in household income. To identify the specific reason for each change in transitional protection, the history of each individual case would need to be examined.

Transitional protection is applied correctly to all IS claims in accordance with the IS (Transitional Provisions) (Jersey) Order 2008. The rates and income levels used are those that were in force in January 2008.

I can confirm that Long Term Incapacity Allowance (LTIA) was excluded as income for Family Allowance calculation purposes. Assessments of Family Allowance transitional protected payments are made in the same way and LTIA income continues to be disregarded when reviewing the ongoing entitlement to transitional payments based on Family Allowance legacy.

Under the previous system there were many different rules for assessing income and different benefits were regarded, partially disregarded or wholly disregarded in the calculation of other benefits. This created a confusing system which has now been replaced by the consistent approach of Income Support.

5. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING VOLUNTARY REDUNDANCY ARRANGEMENTS:

Question

Will the Chief Minister inform members of the terms of the Voluntary Redundancy (VR) package currently in place for public sector workers?

Will he agree to release the terms of reference for the review of terms and conditions to be conducted as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review when they are finalised, along with the name of the person appointed to conduct the review?

Will he assure members that any changes to terms and conditions, including VR will be subject to full negotiations with employee representatives and will not be imposed on public sector workers?

Will he also explain to members why he considers that "it would not be appropriate" to bring any changes to terms and conditions to the States for ratification?

Answer

The terms currently in place for Voluntary Redundancy for public sector workers are as follows:-

• More than 5 years service 18 months pay

• More than 10 years service 20 months pay
• More than 15 years service 22 months pay
• More than 20 years service 24 months pay
• More than 25 years service 26 months pay
• More than 30 years service 28 months pay
• More than 35 years service 30 months pay

Employees with less than 5 years service would receive 2 weeks pay for each full year of service under age 40 and 3 weeks pay for each full year of service over age 40.

I am prepared to release the terms of reference for the review of terms and conditions to be conducted as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review when they are finalised, along with the name of whoever is appointed to conduct the review.

It is the States Employment Board's intention to fully negotiate and consult with the employee representatives on those matters which form part of current agreements with trade unions and staff associations. Voluntary Redundancy terms have never been negotiated with staff representatives – they are incorporated in a policy which applies equally to all pay groups. But it is the Board's intention to consult with staff representatives on any changes it might propose to make. There is no intention to impose changes without prior negotiation or consultation.

The reason why I said that it would not be appropriate to bring any changes to terms and conditions of States employees to the States for ratification is because under the Employment of States of Jersey Employees (Jersey) Law of 2005, it is the States Employment Board, and not the States Assembly, which is the employer, and it is the employer which determines, after negotiation and consultation, the terms and conditions of employment of States employees. This is consistent with law and practice in the public sector for many years now.

6. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE TOWN PARK:

Question

Will the Minister explain to members whether  he considers the provision of underground parking beneath the Town Park for up to 200 cars at a cost of around £9/10m to be good value for money?

Notwithstanding the above response will he state why he considers that the provision of underground parking on this site is essential to the North of Town Masterplan?

Will the Minister inform members where the exact site of this underground parking is; what depth of the contaminated soil is on this location; what depth of the impermeable clay layer below this is, and what depth of excavation is required for the underground car park?

Can he assure members that the costs of remediation of the site are not significantly increased by the additional excavation needed for the underground car park?

Will the Minister further assure members that the excavation of an underground car park will not require a new Environmental or Health Impact Assessment, or otherwise cause any delay in the completion of the Park?

Will the Minister further assure members that the cost of provision of the underground car park will not be taken from the £10m already allocated to the creation of the Park?

Answer

1. While the costs are provisional and will be refined, I consider that, although it would be cheaper to provide car parks above ground, the benefits of placing them underground are the significant urban design improvements that result, and it allows the spaceaboveto be used for another purpose. Whether it represents good value for money will no doubt be taken into account by the States when they debate the Masterplan
2. It is imperative that most ofthe displaced existing shopper and commuter parking needs to be replaced, and if it is provided on another site at grade or above ground, it negates any return the States might achieve through alternative development ofthat site. The States has already rejected the development ofan above-ground multi-storey car park at Ann Court. As long as the cost of underground provision is recovered by the receipts from development of States land then providing underground parking is worthwhile.
3. Now that I have assured Members that there will not be housing on the eastern end ofthe Town Park, the manner in which the car parking will be configured has to be reconsidered. Until this is done, the question cannot be answered.
4. There is contamination in onlytwoareasof the Gas Place site. The impermeable clay layer is variable between 1 and 8 metres below the surface. The depth of excavation is likely to be no more than 5 metres.
5. It is proposedthat remediation ofthewhole Gas Place and Talman sites will be undertaken as the first step in delivering the Town Park. That work has been tendered and will commence later this year, and will be followed by construction of most the Town Park in 2011.
6. I cannot give an assurance at this stage that the provision of a partial or wholly underground level of car parking will not necessitate further Environmental or Health Impact Assessment.
7. The £10m States contribution to the Town Park will not be taken from the cost of providing the Town Park.

7. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE RENTAL COMPONENT OF INCOME SUPPORT: Question

Will the Minister inform members how many persons aged under 25 are claiming the rental component of Income Support?

Will the Minister explain under what circumstances under 25's are eligible for this component? Will he further inform members how the current rules for eligibility are working in terms of alleviating hardship amongst under 25's in Jersey's expensive rental market?

Answer

Income Support (IS) is providing assistance with the cost of accommodation to a total of 378 individuals under the age of 25 (as at 10 May 2010).

The circumstances in which an individual under 25 is eligible for the rental component were set out in the departmental response (P.90/2007 Amd(2) Com) to a number of amendments proposed by the Scrutiny Panel to the Income Support regulations in October 2007. For ease of reference the relevant extract is reproduced below:

"8. Page 51, Schedule 1, Paragraph 3 – Housing Component

The draft copy of policy guidelines issued to the Sub-Panel on 10th August included the

following (in the current version this is section 7.3.1).

"The main rule to be able to claim a housing component is that the claimant is aged at least

25 and is the tenant, licensee or owner of the property in which the IS Unit lives.

There are some exceptions to the age limit of 25:-

A claimant who has responsibility for a child. This can be the parent of the child or

someone else (example an elder brother or sister) that has the main responsibility for the child

A young person referred by Social Services as needing to live away from the family home

(e.g. someone leaving care or being removed from an abusive family situation)

A young person that cannot be expected to return to their previous family home because

either

Their parents (or the person that had previously looked after them) are unable to help them – for example: the individual is an orphan, their parents are in prison or occupying unsuitable accommodation or

The young person has been living independently for at least one year and had reasonable prospects of remaining independent – the reason for claiming Income Support is an unexpected change in circumstance (illness, unexpected redundancy etc)".

Having taken advice, it is noted that these Regulations would meet the requirements of the

Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000."

For individuals under the age of 25 who do not have the option of living with their parents this support works very well.

8. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING 1(1)(k) CATEGORY RESIDENTS' TAX PAYMENTS:

Question

Will the Minister advise whether he views the low degree of taxation (as outlined in response to my question on 23rd March 2010) amongst current 1(1)(k) residents - several of whom are paying between £5,000 and £10,000 tax; and a further ten paying less than £5,000 tax - in comparison with many lower and middle earners as acceptable within the present, highly challenging economic climate, and what measures, if any, he is currently examining to tackle this within the agreed Strategic Plan commitment to creating a fairer, more equal society in Jersey?

Answer

There is clearly a degree of misinterpretation and misunderstanding concerning the 1(1)(k) policy. In addition, I have received numerous questions on the subject even after making a clear commitment to a review ahead of the 2011 Budget.

However in order to further assist member's understanding, and clarify the position on the tax paid by those granted a 1(1)(k) consent since 1970, I will be publishing a document entitled History of 1(1)(k) policy' within the next few weeks. This should assist members and the public's understanding of 1(1)(k)s.

APPENDIX A HISTORY OF THE 1(1)(k) POLICY

1. In 1970 the present Housing Regulations were adopted and those seeking to retire or otherwise move toJerseytotakeadvantageof the Island's favourable tax arrangements, who had entered Jersey in large numbers in the 1960's, were faced withthe requirement that a consent to purchase a property was only possible if they satisfied the Housing Committee that they were of economic or social benefit (i.e. Regulation 1(1)(k)).
2. In the years immediately following the introduction of the Regulations the controls were not too tightly applied and in 1973, for example, there were 66 1(1)(k) consents granted. Although there was a minimum tax requirement it wasat£3,000in1972and£4,000 in 1973, not too much of a restriction.
3. In 1974 there was the first of a succession ofreports on immigration policy and population growth restraint produced by the Policy Advisory Committee initially and subsequently by the Policy and Resources Committee.
4. In 1974 it was decided thatthe number ofthe new 1(1)(k)s should be restricted to15 a year, and to help tosecure this limit the taxrequirement was raise to£10,000per annum. During the debate by the States in February, 1974 ofthe Policy Advisory Committee's Report and Proposition on the scale and pattern of development in the Island over the next five years (P.2/74) an amendment to one of the Propositions was approved in the following terms –

"Before directing the Housing Committee in respect of the admission of wealthy immigrants, the States called for a Report and Recommendations from that Committee."

A Report and Proposition regarding wealthy immigrants was presented to the States in May 1974, together with a note by the Economic Adviser on the "costs" of wealthy immigrants. That note concluded that "with proper restrictions over the type of property that can be acquired and over the redevelopment and extension of properties it is difficult to argue that 15 consents a year (in addition to the straight forward replacement of former wealthy immigrants who have died or left the Island) would be unacceptable, provided all those receiving consent have a certain minimum potential local tax liability which at the present time would be a figure of £10,000 per annum".

5. In 1979 the States approved a report ofthePolicy Advisory Committee and agreed that a greater degree of restraint should be exercised over the number of 1(1)(k) consents. The number of consents considered appropriate was closer to 10 a year rather than the 15 previously accepted, and the tax yield required was increased to some £20,000 per annum.
6. In 1987 in the Economic Adviser's Annual Report on the Budget reference was made to the package of proposals adopted by the States in January 1987 which included a significant reduction in the number of consents to be granted by the Housing Committee under Regulation 1(1)(k). Whereas for many years the policy had been to grant 10-15 consents a year, the policy then introduced restricted the number of consents to 5 a year.
7. In 1989 the numberofconsents remained at 5 a year and the Housing Committee in deciding whether or not to grant a consent took account of the following factors –

1. the extent and nature of assets held, and the degree of certainty with which a substantial income liable to Jersey tax would arise;
2. the applicant's business and personal background;
3. the number of children likely to establish residential qualifications in the future;
4. the age of the applicant;
5. the likelihood and nature of any active involvement in business interests  including business within the Island.

To ensure that the number of consents remained at around 5 a year the minimum tax requirement was increased at the end of the 1980's and into the 1990's firstly to £50,000 and then to £100,000.

8. In the early 1990's when a recession was experienced there was some flexibility introduced into the 1(1)(k) policy. TheStates in June 1992adopted a proposition ofthe Policy and Resources Committee requesting the Housing Committee to adopt a more flexible policy in considering applications for consent under Regulation 1(1)(k) with the number of additional consents no longer being limited to 5 per annum.
9. The Budget Report presented to the States by the Chief Adviser in 1993 referred to the 1(1)(k) policy as follows: –

"The number of immigrants granted consent under Regulation 1(1)(k)s was limited in number. In the past this policy was designed to limit the pressure on the Island from the demands those immigrants placed on the construction industry and other service trades in the Island which , in conditions of overfull employment, could only be satisfied by further immigration. In the current climate however the impact of the purchasing power of those concerned, and in particular the support given to the employment of local persons in the construction industry, retail distribution and service trades such as vehicle maintenance, should be more welcome.

There is sometimes criticism of a process of selection of new immigrants according to their wealth, although the fact that businesses new to the Island are also selected on grounds of economic benefit appears to be readily accepted. If however there are considered to be benefits from the granting of consents under Regulation 1(1)(k) in terms of the contribution to tax revenues and the "multiplier" effect of the spending power of those concerned, and at the same time there is a wish to limit the number of immigrants, it would seem to follow that other things being equal the higher the likely taxable income the greater the net advantage to the Island. It is on this basis that existing policy is founded.

The present requirement is for an applicant to have sufficient assets to yield an income liable to Jersey tax of £500,000 or more per annum. This has the effect of limiting the number of consents to a level consistent with current States' policy.

While there have been one or two examples where adverse market conditions have affected the value of an individual's assets and the return obtained on those assets, the evidence shows clearly that in almost all cases the contribution made to tax revenues significantly exceeds that expected when consent was originally granted."

10. As the economy picked up again and the immigration pressures recurred so a tougher policy on 1(1)(k)s was re-established. The Housing Committee in 1998 considered the tax benefits received by the Island which resulted from the granting of consents under Regulation 1(1)(k). The Committee notedthatof the 21consentsgrantedbetween1992and1995only 1 resident had under-performed. In total, for the year of assessment in 1996, the 21 1(1)(k) residents hadpaidtaxof£2.5 million. Of those who had taken up residence in 1996, and had finalised their 1997tax,allhadpaidsufficienttaxapartfrom 1 whowasabout10% below target. The Housing Committee was advised at that time that there were no grounds for withdrawing a consent, as it was granted  for a property, but that a person's tax contribution could be reviewed if they applied to move toanother property. The Committee wasalso informed that 1(1)(k) residents were not legally required to make the tax requirement, which was then £200,000 per year, but that the majority were keen to meet the obligations and that any exceptions were reported to the Comptroller of Income Tax. The Committee noted that the minimum annual income which each applicant undertook to meet was expected to be adjusted upwards each year in line with the increase in the Retail Price s Index plus 2.5%. This ensured that, where a consent was granted on the basis of an undertaking from an individual's trustees that the required level of income would be paidto the 1(1)(k) resident, the Island benefited from an adjustment which not only ensuredthatthesum involved increased in line with inflation, but also incorporated some element of real growth.
11. Throughout the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's the tax requirement was used for the main part as a "rationing tool". The idea was that if the States only wished to have, say, 15, 10 or 5 consents granted the tax requirement should be set to achieve this number. That is, those who were granted consent were those most likely to make the biggest contribution to the Island's taxrevenues. The principle wasthatifonly 5 consentsweretobegrantedthey should be the best in terms of the tax contribution to be made.
12. There has been some misleading language used in describing the policy adopted in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's. There were no "deals" struck or negotiations that led to any agreement that a personpaidlessthan20%onthe income theyreceivedthatwasliabletotax in accordance with the provisions ofthe Income Tax Law. All applicants were required to show that they would have sufficient income liable to Jersey taxat 20% to more than meet the minimum requirements set. That requirement was set as the basis for limiting the number of consents each year. Generally speaking the "hurdle" heights set had the desired effect of producing the number of applications and subsequent consents in line with the States' policy of limiting the total number of consents in each year. All applicants had to satisfy the Housing Committee, with advice from the Economic Adviser and subsequently the Chief Adviser, that they would have sufficient taxable income to meet the requirements. The

objective was also to seek to establish a degree of certainty by looking for a sufficient capital base which applying a conservative rate of return yielded a sufficient income liable to Jersey tax. Applicants whose income was in the form of employment or trading income which was susceptible to the influences of trading conditions were unlikely to obtain a consent. Most applicants were seeking to avoid a capital gains tax liability in the United Kingdom at a time when they were seeking to retire from business and sell their businesses or property assets. Because those individuals could not sell their assets before they took up residence if they were going to escape the UK tax liability the housing consents issued had to rely upon a written undertaking from the individual applicant that they would dispose of their assets and create the taxable income required. From the analysis that was undertaken subsequent to consents having been granted there were few cases where this undertaking was not met.

13. Some applicants had structured the disposition of their assets prior to applying for a consent to limit their exposure to UK tax. For example, many years before thinking of taking up residence inJersey some UK residents had established an offshore trust in a jurisdiction other than Jersey into which they had placed a substantial proportion of their assets of which they and their family were beneficiaries. The Comptroller of Income Tax had no ability totaxthe income ofthe offshore trust which was established well before an individual had thought of taking up residence in Jersey unless the income ofthetrust was distributed to the individual concerned when resident in Jersey. Theeffectof this was that the income received in Jersey would have been relatively low unless the trustees ofthe offshore trusts gave an undertaking to pay an amount from the trustto the individual applicants sufficient to meet the Housing Committee's minimum tax requirements. The trustees were called upon to give a letter of undertaking that they would make the required income payments. This arrangement was often better in some respects than where an individual didnot have an offshoretrust because the undertaking from the trustees ensured that the income payments were made and the income received was less likely to be affected by the impact on an individual's assets and income arising from changes in the economic climate, falling interest rates etc.
14. In the recent years the policy  has shifted to one of being  more  encouraging  of 1(1)(k) applicants and the previous approach of relying on undertakings has been replaced by a statutory requirement whereby those granted 1(1)(k) status are taxed at the following rates:

• the first £1 million of foreign income at 20%;
• the next £500,000 of foreign income at 10%;
• the balance of foreign income at 1%;
• all Jersey's source income at 20%.

It is too early to say what the impact of this will be on each individual's contribution to tax revenues in comparison with the position prior to 2005 when the new arrangements came into force. Certainly the position remains that if an individual has legitimate ways of reducing foreign source income the tax yield could be lower than that being paid by many who gave undertakings in previous years.

15. When looking at the tax receipts obtained from those granted consent under Regulation 1(1)(k) since 1970 account must be taken of the undertaking that those individuals were required to give at the time the consent was granted. Thus, for example those granted consent in the 1970's faced the requirement of £3-£4,000 oftax initially and £10,000 subsequently. As many ofthose who were taking up residence were doing soonthe back ofthe realisation of capital gains,and were in receiptof income derived from a certain capital sum, it should

not be of surprise if a number of those who came in the 1970s are now paying tax of little if any more than that promised at the time. However, what the tax figures showed for 2007 was that 30 1(1)(k)s who were granted consent in the 1970's produced tax of £1.75 million, an average of £58,000 per individual. This shows that many of those concerned were paying a sum in tax significantly greater than that which they gave an undertaking to do when they were first granted consent. There were only 7 paying tax of less than £10,000, and if some of those came in the early 1970s they were only require to pay £3-4,000 per annum when granted consent. A number of those will have seen their capital eroded over time through factors outside their control, and have seen their income eroded by falling interest rates. Having been resident in the Island for more than 30 years it may also be questioned whether they should still be considered as 1(1)(k)s rather than residentially qualified.

16. In the 1980's the tax requirement increased from £10,000 to £20,000 and subsequently to £50,000 at the end ofthe decade. Thetax figures for 2007 showed that the 34 1(1)(k)s granted consent in the 1980's produced tax of £1.34 million, an average of some £40,000 of tax per individual. The figures show that the average was ahead ofthe undertakings given. Of the 34, there were 12 who were possibly falling short of their initial undertaking.
17. In the 1990's the tax undertaking increased from £100,000 to £150,000 and at the very end of the decade to £200,000. The tax figures for 2007 show that the 38 1(1)(k)s granted consent in the 1990'sproducedtaxof£3.77 million, anaverageof£100,000perindividual. Some 50%ofthose concerned fell shortofthe undertaking butthe economic conditions prevailing since theyweregrantedconsent could be expected to have had the effect of reducing their taxable incomes. For those granted consent in the 2000's the tax figures for 2007 show an average tax payment for the 14 concerned of £120,000.
18. It is to be expected that among those granted a 1(1)(k) consent over the past 40 years there will be those who performed extremely well withtax returns very substantially greater than the undertakings given at the time consent was obtained, and those who will have seen their circumstances change for the worst particularly in the light of recent events and whose taxable income will have reduced below that required to yield the tax that they gave an undertaking to meet.
19. There is no reason to suppose that in nearly all cases the undertakings given were not given in good faith. However, at the end ofthe day an individual cannot be taxed other than on that income that is liable to Jersey taxof 20%. The capital sum in the possession of many individuals may not have changed but the return on that capital sum can have reduced quite significantly because of lower interest rates and dividend payments. A reduction in the capital values from which income was generated could also have had an effect on an individual's liability to Jersey tax. The fact that on average the figures for tax in 2007 showed that the majority of those granted consent were more than meeting their undertakings should be seen as indicative of the success of the policy pursuit over the past 40 years. In the past consideration was given to the adoption of a different approach to the granting of consents, such as identifying a limited number of properties that could be purchased on the basis of first come first served, but it was thought unlikely that this would have yielded a tax contribution from the 1(1)(k)s as good as that obtained through the policy pursued over the past 40 years.
20. Through the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's there were no "deals" struck. The undertakings sought,andtheevidencethathadtobe provided to support the undertakings, was intended to achieve the States policy of limiting the number of consents against the background of a wish to ensure that those granted consent were those mostlikelyto make a significant contribution to the Island's tax revenues. A gentleman's undertaking was given by the individuals concerned that they would meet that obligation but this was no legal requirement. The figures show that for the most part the undertakings were honoured by those concerned.

Individual cases can no doubt be referred to as evidence that an undertaking was not complied with but it would be wrong to use the particular as evidence of a general failure on the part of those granted consent under 1(1)(k). In addition, before criticising those who have fallen short of their undertaking, regard should be had for the reasons  for this outcome. For example, it is known that some granted consent in the early years were Lloyds names who suffered from major calls on their assets as a result of major insurance claims; others suffered from stock market collapses as in 1987; and one or two saw their capital reduced through divorce settlements.

21. Future policy regarding 1(1)(k) consents should be determined having regard to the costs/benefits of those making application currently. The fact that information provided with regard to past 1(1)(k)s shows the following picture on the payment of tax –

Up to £20,000 - 32

£20-£50,000 - 29

£50-£70,000 -  5

£70-£90,000 - 13

£100,000 plus - 38

Total- 117

needs to be related to the fact that of those covered by this analysis – 30 were granted consent in the 1970's

34 were granted consent in the 1980's

38 were granted consent in the 1990's

14 were granted consent in the 2000's

and account taken of the undertakings required, and given, at the time a 1(1)(k consent was granted and the personal experience of the individuals concerned subsequent to their being granted consent.

9. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING WRITTEN EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE HAUT DE LA GARENNE INVESTIGATION:

Question

Following my questions on 11th May 2010, when the Minister informed the Assembly that he did not know whether or not the former senior investigating officer of the Historic Abuse Inquiry had invited a number of the Haut de la Garenne survivors to the police station in November 2008, where they were shown evidence recovered from the cellars, will he advise whether this event can now be corroborated by the States of Jersey Police; why and for what purpose such an action took place; and advise whether showing evidence to individuals alleging abuse/assault would have, as a consequence, made all such evidence inadmissible in a Court of law?

Answer

This event took place on 18 November 2008, following the press conference on 12 November at which some items were shown to the national media which were assessed as non-suspicious and non-evidential.

The items were shown to members of the Jersey Care Leavers Association in an effort to be open and transparent and to build their confidence in the police investigation team.

Ultimately it resulted in the JCLA undertaking a joint press conference with the police later that year.

It should be noted that such an event is not unusual when dealing with special interest groups in major enquiries.

As the items had been assessed as non-suspicious and non-evidential, the Police took the view that they would not be used in any subsequent criminal proceedings and that, therefore, issues of admissibility in subsequent proceedings would not arise.

10. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING WRITTEN GUIDANCE FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE SPENDING REVIEW PROCESS:

Question

Given the evident importance of the Comprehensive Spending Review process can the Minister tell members where they can find the written guidance, authorised by himself and/or agreed by the Council of Ministers and issued to Departments, outlining exactly how they were to approach and carry out their duties under this review?

Answer

The Council of Ministers approved the principles of the Comprehensive Spending Review in late 2009 and in February this year agreed the rules and framework which would deliver longer term financial and  business planning, improvements in  financial management and control of States spending

After the Council of Ministers approved the parameters of the CSR, it was, and is, for officers to develop a process to achieve the agreed principles and parameters. At the beginning of 2010, a dedicated team of seconded officers was brought together to work with departments to deliver the CSR and developed a toolkit and templates for departments to complete for 2011, 2012 and 2013 targets. The written guidance was sent out by officers and, although both I, as Treasury and Resources Minister, and the Council of Ministers are kept up-to-date with progress, we do not get involved in the process of the CSR.

2.11DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING INCOME SUPPORT:

Question

Further to his response to a question on 20th April 2010 regarding impairment (personal care) components  in  Income  Support  and,  given  that  the  personal  care  component  is  paid  as compensation for increased costs associated with an impairment, does the Minister not consider that to reduce transition protection negates any compensation received?

Answer

The calculation of Income Support is based on the financial needs of the household being identified through a number of components. Each component is in respect of a particular aspect of the circumstances of the household - for example, a child joining the household gives rise to an additional child component. In the same way, the deterioration of someone's health leading to the need for additional personal care gives rise to eligibility for a personal care component.

Every component of Income Support could be classed as a "compensation" for the increased cost associated with that component. In this respect there is no difference between the personal care component and any other component within the system.

As  previously  explained,  there  are  three  elements  of  the  Income  Support  (IS)  impairment component which provide financial assistance at different levels, depending on the nature and severity of the person's condition, towards the following costs:

Clinical cost

General practitioner visits for people with chronic or progressive medical conditions Personal care

Care needs, for example: washing, dressing, cooking

Mobility

Transport for people with a medical condition that seriously affects their ability to get around outdoors

The table below details the component type and the weekly rate from 1 October 2009. Impairment component types Weekly rate

Personal care level 1 £22.26

Personal care level 2 £98.14

Personal care level 3 £140.91

Mobility (working person) £44.52

Mobility £22.26

Clinical cost level 1 (5+ annual consultations) £2.87

Clinical cost level 2 (9+ annual consultations) £5.74

In my answer to question 5298 on 20 April 2010 I explained that transition protection exists to provide a phased transfer between previous benefit entitlement and Income Support (IS) entitlement.

To re-iterate, all transition protection is paid above current IS entitlement.

If IS is increased, the need for transition protection reduces. A successful applicant for an additional impairment component (or any other type of component) will have their Income Support entitlement adjusted in respect of the full value of their new component. In some cases this will result in an adjustment of transition protection.

2.12THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING CONTAMINATION FROM THE TALMAN/GAS PLACE CAR PARK SITES:

Question

Can the Minister advise members precisely what measures are in place to monitor on a continuing basis the pollution from the Gas Place/Talman site as it moves under the town and out into St. Aubin's Bay?

In particular, will the Minister tell members where, on what schedules and by whom this monitoring is carried out; what contaminants are measured; where this data is held and how it can be accessed?

Answer

Consultants contracted to Transport and Technical Services are monitoring groundwater from a number or boreholes around the proposed Town Park site. This commenced in October 2008 following discussions with Regulators from Planning and Environment, and is ongoing.

Eight monitoring locations are sampled on a quarterly basis. Monitoring locations comprise seven dual installations (shallow and deep), representing up-gradient and down-gradient off-site locations, and a single standard installation located on the northern edge of the Gas Place site.

Contaminants of Concern (COCs) are identified from the testing suite and constitute Ammonium, Sulphate, Total Cyanide, Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene and Total PAHs. The data is owned by TTS and can be accessed by request. I have arranged for a copy of the graphed datasets and a "Review of Groundwater Quality Data – Town Park, Jersey" to Deputy Wimberley to support this response to his question and further copies can be readily provided to other Members on request.

13. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING STATES INSURANCE:

Question

Given the Minister's assurances that he is fully aware of where the money goes' can he advise members the insurance bill for each Department of the States?

Can he further inform members how much of that insurance bill relates to liability insurance payments covering each Department's duties and responsibilities towards the public and possible failures or damages caused in carrying out such duties?

Answer

The main States' insurance programme is managed centrally by the Treasury to enable the States to achieve economies of scale within the insurance market. A summary of the type of insurance cover purchased and the Departmental allocations is detailed below:

States Insurance Programme

2009 2010

to 17 May Premiums: £ £ Property  279,474 291,210 Motor 85,320 90,540 Liability  1,023,994 985,840 Excess Liability 312,000 312,000 Personal Accident & Travel  135,219 129,635 Engineering Inspections 282,833 290,215 Miscellaneous Marine 6,000 6,000

2,124,840 2,105,440

Services:

Claim Management Fee 32,500 34,250 Insurance Service Fee 105,000 105,000 137,500 139,250

Self Insurance:

Self Insurance 1,656,957 1,561,615 1,656,957 1,561,615

Total Insurance Costs1 3,919,297 3,806,305

The self insurance allocations detailed above are held within the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs  of  self-insurance  claims.  A  report  and  Proposition  regarding  the  States  self  insurance arrangements will be presented to the States in the second half of the year.

Notes

1. 'Total Insurance Costs' do not include £30k HSBC Risk Management Fee
2. Includes Airport and Harbours.

In addition to the  insurance  expenditure detailed  above,  Departments  may chose  to  purchase additional specific insurance to provide cover for their particular risk exposures. These include:

Education, Sport & Culture  - Pupil Travel Policy, Work Experience Contingent Liability

Airport  - Airside Insurance and Contractors Airside Excess Infill Health & Social Services  - Consultants Insurance - Medical Defence Union

Home Affairs  - Police Authority Legal Expenses

Harbours  - Public Liability Excess Layer

Treasury & Resources - JPH Rock Stabilisation Insurance

I wish to add a comment on "where the money goes". As Treasury Minister I want to be held accountable to ensure there is an environment where Accounting Officers can assure members they have an appropriate control structure in place to control public money. I have set out a policy programme to significantly strengthen financial management across the States. This is designed to ensure  that  all  departments  improve  their  financial  management  and  controls.   The  Treasury restructuring plan has been worked on by the Interim Treasurer of the States since his appointment earlier this year. The Interim Treasurer is now well under way with the new departmental structure taking effect from 1 June at a senior level with the rest of the organisation being strengthened over the coming months.

I would envisage that by the end of the year I will be able to report a significant improvement in the financial management across the organisation.

14. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND  ENVIRONMENT  REGARDING  PRIVATELY-OWNED  DEVELOPMENT SITES IN ST. HELIER:

Question

What discussions,  if any, have taken place with the owners of the private sites  identified for development within the North of Town Master Plan (P.57/2010) in Appendix 3; who are the beneficial owners of these sites and does the Masonic Temple Car Park belong to the Masons as a Society or to an individual or company?

What are the financial implications arising out of endorsing the development rights of the different sites individually?

What are the likely financial gains to the States of Jersey for these sites?

What are the likely financial costs in building just an underground car park on the Gas Place site without any buildings on top?

Answer

1. Discussions havetakenplace with C.LeMasurierLtd, Comprop, JerseyGas Company Ltd,the Freemasons, Jersey Property Holdings, the Housing Department, the Constable of St Helier, and the Morvan Hotels Group, all of which own one or more of the sites listed in Appendix 3 of the proposition. I have no information on the beneficial ownership of the companies concerned, which has no relevance to planning considerations.
2. There are no financial implications to the States whatsoever. Advice is given to developers directly or through published advice, but such advice is only oneofthe considerations that are taken into account as part of the planning application process, and thus is given without prejudice to any legal decision made through that process.

3. There are no direct financial benefits to the States from these sites that can be quantified. The eventual development of these sites may well trigger planning obligations relating to items such as infrastructure improvements, affordable housing and so on, which will have indirect benefit to the States.
4. This will depend on the extent and configuration ofthe car park, which is currently being worked on as partofthe Masterplan review. Thecostofthe car park is likely to be around £10m.

15. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE INTERIM REPORT':

Question

Given that the Minister has previously stated that he has never personally seen the 'Metropolitan Police Interim Report' but only an electronic version of an e-mail apparently attached to this document; will he investigate and clarify whether this 'report' actually exists as a physical (paper) document or just in electronic format; whether it exists in the accepted 'report' format most professionals would be familiar with i.e. a detailed document of several pages; or whether this is in the form of just a simple e-mail of a small number of paragraphs; and whether, irrespective of the format the 'report' takes, the words 'Metropolitan Police Interim Report' appear as a title?

Answer

Yes, I will investigate and clarify as requested.

3. Oral Questions

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the impact of the decision not to build on the Millennium Town Park site on the North of Town Masterplan:

Will the Minister inform Members what impact, if any, his decision not to build on the Millennium Town Park site has on the North of Town Masterplan and advise when he intends to bring forward an amended plan for debate?

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

The decision not to build on the town park site and deliver an unencumbered park over the whole of the site will have a significant impact on the Masterplan. I am presently engaged in discussions with the various States departments involved in the project together with the Parish to ascertain the best options to ensure the delivery of the key objectives of regeneration, parking and housing provision. We are working on a very promising possible solution involving a key site but this must remain confidential at this stage. I take this opportunity of advising Members that if we are to deliver the key objectives at anything like cost neutrality we will need to consider the introduction of a developer levy on the privately-owned sites in the area. I will bring forward the revised Masterplan in a few weeks, however, I can say there will be no delay to the commencement of the town park. T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) will shortly be making a planning application which will be fast-tracked.

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Is the Minister prepared to give at this stage any details of the developer levy that he referred to? Senator F.E. Cohen:

I am unable to give precise details. It is very much in the embryonic stage but, very clearly, if the public is providing regeneration benefits to the north of the town area it is appropriate, as has been the case in many other jurisdictions, to expect developers to provide something back into the central pot for the benefits that they will receive through an improved regeneration.

2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier :

It is an interesting answer the Minister has given us because in my written question to him this morning in relation to my question: "What are the financial implications arising out of endorsing the development rights of different sites individually?" the answer is: "There are no financial implications to the States whatsoever" and he goes on to say that there may be ancillary benefits. Does the Minister stand by the written answers he has given me?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

The oral answer I have given is an update based on a meeting that was held with the various States departments in the Parish yesterday and provides the very latest position. Thank you.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Can the Minister assure the House that the changes to the North of Town Masterplan, including changing the arrangement for making underground parking on the site, will cause no further delay in the development of at least the town park site as a park?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I can give that assurance.

4. Deputy G.P. Southern :

That rather contradicts with item 6 in his written answer earlier which says that he may require a further environmental or health impact assessment and that the restructuring or rearrangement of the parking that he envisages, underground, on the car park site has not even been drawn up. We do not even know where we are going to dig. Is the Minister sure that there will be no further delay in delivering a town park?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

Yes. As I have explained, the oral answer that I have provided is based on an update that emerged from a meeting that was held yesterday involving most of the interested parties, although not all the interested parties, and I stand by the oral answer.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

A final if I may? Penultimately, perhaps? The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I saw Deputy Martin; I will come back to you.

5. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Deputy Southern has learned how to listen in Scrutiny. If you listen to the Minister he says: "It will not stop the start of the town park" it does not say anything about how long it would take. My question is around the parking. I notice, as I am around the area a lot, the old Ann Court site, which

is out to private parking I have never seen it more than at least a third full in the day and at weekends it is completely empty. Is the Minister working with an updated plan from Transport and Technical Services? Because I feel that maybe the message is getting through now that people can park a little bit further out and there may be not so much parking needed in this immediate area. That is what I think we should be aiming for. Does the Minister not agree?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

We are working very closely with T.T.S. and, yes, I do agree with the principles of the comments made by the Deputy .

6. Deputy G.P. Southern :

In that case I will ask the final question which is: when does the Minister expect to be cutting the tape on the Millennium Town Park? Can he give us a date because my diary is filling up?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

One thing I can assure the Deputy is that it will not be me cutting the tape. [Laughter]

2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the potential impact on Jersey of the oil spill off the coast of Louisiana:

What advice, if any, has the Minister sought and what preparations, if any, has the Minister made in relation to the potential impact on Jersey and the Channel Islands should oil from the recent BP oil spill off the coast of Louisiana reach us via tidal currents?

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

Deputy Duhamel will answer this question as he has special responsibility for that.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour (Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment -

rapporteur):

The Minister is keeping a general weather eye on the situation and doing, as the rest of us are doing, reading the media reports that are appearing day-to-day. There are provisions for civil emergencies in this Island and obviously if the worst did happen and oil of a significant quantity and toxic nature did arrive on these shores then extraordinary circumstances would require extraordinary measures. I would have thought that a proposition would be brought to this House in order to take monies perhaps from the Rainy Day Fund in order to bring about the security to the environment that one would expect from the Minister for Planning and Environment and all those concerned with the environment.

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

After the last oil spill off of the British Isles the Ecology Fund was set up with money from the States to deal with such contingencies and while I appreciate the States are quick to act to spend money, I am wondering what other measures the Minister has identified in relation to equipment, personnel and vessels, et cetera, that might be needed in the very unlikely eventuality that this does come our way.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

As one can appreciate from reading the newspaper and media reports this is very, very early days. One item that appeared in the Baltimore News as of yesterday from Professor Michael Kearney, Professor of Geology at the University of Maryland, who is also keeping a close eye on the situation, has suggested that if indeed the oil does get into the Gulf Stream it is not likely to happen until the end of July. He goes on further to say that if the Florida Keys are impacted within the next several weeks that would provide a good indication of how much oil is moving up the east coast. The Deputy is aware of the substantial distance between ourselves and the Gulf of Mexico. The oil

spill is in the Gulf of Mexico, albeit there are transport mechanisms that will take some of the oil outside of that loop and put it into the Gulf Stream. One further comment that the Professor from the university made is that one benefit Maryland might see is the oil to start to break down by the action of wind and tide, and experts are saying at the moment that the most toxic components of the crude oil should evaporate along the way.