States Meeting Transcript - 29/09/2010

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 29th SEPTEMBER 2010

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

1. Recycling of waste materials: identification of suitable sites (P.97/2010) (continued)..4

1. Senator J. L. Perchard:...................................................................4
2. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:....................................................4
3. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:.....................................................7
4. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ...........................................................7
5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................8
6. The Connétable of St. Mary:.............................................................9
7. The Connétable of St. Brelade:..........................................................9
8. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ........................................................11

2. Terrorist Asset-Freezing Bill: extension of a clause to Jersey (P.105/2010)............12

2.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................13

3. Draft Drug Trafficking Offences (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.106/2010) ...........................................................................................13

1. Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): ...........................13

1. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................14
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................14
3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................14

2. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................15

4. Draft Public Holidays and Bank Holidays (Jersey) Act 201- (P.107/2010)............16

4.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................17

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................17
2. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................17
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................17

4. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................18
5. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................18

5. Ratification of the Agreement for the exchange of information relating to tax matters between the States of Jersey and the Portuguese Republic (P.108/2010)..............19

5.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................19

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................19
2. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................20
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................20

6. Work and Residence Permits: establishment of working group (P.109/2010).........22

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................22
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................28
3. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................29

4. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................31
5. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................31
6. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................32
7. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................32
8. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................35
9. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................35
10. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................35
11. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................37
12. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................38
13. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................38
14. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................38

7. Draft Census (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.110/2010)..................................42

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................42

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................42
2. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................43
3. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................43
4. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................43
5. Mr. H. Sharp, H.M. Solicitor General:..................................................43
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................43
7. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................43
8. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................44
9. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................44
10. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................44

2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................45
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................45
4. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................46
5. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................46

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................47

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................48

8. Disabled Persons: Badges for Motor Vehicles - Single or Double Amputees (P.112/2010)..............................................................................48

1. Senator F.D.H. Le Gresley:.............................................................48
2. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................49
3. Senator F.D.H. Le Gresley:.............................................................49

9. Draft Sea Fisheries (Trawling, Netting and Dredging) (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.114) ................................................................50

1. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):.............................................................................50

1. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................51
2. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................51
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................51
4. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................52
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................52
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................53
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................53
8. The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................53

2. The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................55

1. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................56

2. The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................56

10. Greville Bathe Fund: Appointment of Trustee (P.122/2010)...........................57

1. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):.............................................................................57
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................57
3. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................57
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................58
5. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................58
6. Deputy E.J. Noel: ......................................................................58

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................58 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................58 The Connétable of St. Clement:..............................................................59 The Deputy of St. Martin:....................................................................59 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :................................................................59 The Deputy of St. Mary:......................................................................59 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................59 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................60 Senator A. Breckon: ..........................................................................60 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................60

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................60

The Roll was called and the Deputy Greffier led the Assembly in Prayer.

[9:36]

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Recycling of waste materials: identification of suitable sites (P.97/2010) (continued)

The Bailiff :

Very well, we return to the debate on projet 97, the proposition of the Deputy of St. John and I have seen next Senator Perchard.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence :

Sir, sorry, just before we commence, can I just ask to make a note that unfortunately I cannot be present for much of today because I am attending the examination in public on the Island Plan. The dates were changed. I appreciate it is not strictly States business but just for the record, just so Members know where I am. Can I also make a note that tomorrow I am also, for part of the day - possibly like yourself - involved with the official parties with the visit of the Princess Royal.

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

Can I also say exactly the same as the first part of that. I will be away at the Island Plan.

1. Senator J. L. Perchard:

If Members are like me, when a proposition arrives in the post you have a quick look at it and this is one I looked at and I thought: "Yes, very good" and on closer examination the other day I, like the Chief Minister, had my reservations. I am a little cautious about it. Why I am cautious is that the proposition clearly requests that we identify a single area of land that has to be in public ownership. I am confused by that. Why a single area of land that has to be in public ownership? Surely we want the best possible area of land suitable for recycling? Or maybe more than one area of land, not a single area. Recycling on an industrial scale is usually a bad neighbour and it may be that the best sites are not in public ownership. Reference in this debate thus far has only been made to the recycling on inert waste but, of course, as we know, there are many forms of recycling that need space, green waste, cardboard, plastic, cans, furniture, household goods, cars, vehicles and industrial equipment to mention just a few, not to mention the sticky subject of food waste. If we are to be practical here today, we will recognise that all these various types of recycling activities need to be undertaken on the Island and will need more than one site. But, on balance, when I read again the proposition this morning, this proposition does not prohibit the search for the right sites and more than one site. It strangely requests the Ministers to look for one site in public ownership but, as I say, it does not prohibit the search for other sites. So with that in mind I will support the proposition but I am suspicious that .. I offer a word of warning, recycling of any material, it seems to me, should be undertaken by the private sector. It is not an area where the public sector should be involving itself. This is not a role of Government. When I read the proposition it does imply the Government wants to put its heavy hand in here. I say that the Ministers should go away, identify any viable sites and give planning consent, detailed specific planning consent, for what activity can take place on that site, and encourage the private sector to go out and be competitive and do a good job of recycling, and pass on this work from the public sector into the private sector. So with that, I will be supporting the proposition and I urge Members to do the same because this proposition does

not prohibit the search for the right sites and multiple sites.

2. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour :

It still surprises me, although it should not having been here 17 years, that there does appear to be a collective amnesia expressed by this Chamber when it suits us. I have forgotten what I am going to say next, there you go. Seriously, we just had Senator Perchard tell us that waste recycling or whatever, in any shape or form, is not a role for the Government. So where was he in 2005 or 2008 or 2009 when we were discussing the waste strategy for the Island and outlining responsibilities not

only for the Planning and Environment Department but for Transport and Technical Services in helping to deliver higher recycling across the board? To refresh some Members' minds - and some of these things were alluded to by Deputy Le Claire yesterday - there are 3 streams that this House has decided it wants to be involved with. The first one, in P.72/2005, it states that the solid waste strategy committed the department - that is T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services)- to developing an enclosed composting facility and a vote of £4.212 million was allocated. It was £4.212 million that was allocated. The comprehensive site evaluation process considering over 30 private and public sites all over the Island, the very thing that is being called for by the Deputy of St. John, was undertaken and confirmed that La Collette was the preferred location for the composting operation by Ministerial decision in November 2007. It went on further to bind this House and the department to deliver through a planning application to be submitted at the earliest possible opportunity with construction commencing - this is of composting facilities - in 2009 on the approved site, the recommended site, and the improved facility operational during 2010. Since that time what have we done? Well, we have backtracked - and this is the fundamental point I want to make - we have backtracked collectively, independently and individually on this House having made the decision to provide this facility by a particular point in time. It has been done in a fashion that was not picked up by very many Members, if any, through the withdrawal of the monies and the funding in a previous business plan in terms of the capital allocations and were left in limbo. Now, are we the Government or are we not? It strikes me that when individual departments - and I am not pointing any fingers here by any means - collectively decide that they do not wish to deliver on something that the States have collectively decided then these issues are just put on the shelf and allowed to expire, hopefully without any comment from Scrutiny Panels or any other Members until such a stage as we can move on to where the departments wanted to be in the very first place. That is not good Government. It might well be for the individual departments because they get their own way, but certainly in terms of what we are doing here collectively deciding on what we are going to do, I think we are probably wasting our time in that respect. That annoys me, particularly when the public are upset that we are being paid to spend time in this House to effectively contribute - value adding - to the decision-making in a way that justifies our remuneration. If indeed being here does not mean anything and decisions are going to be taken by the House only to be ignored then there is not much point. Likewise, within the operating rules of the House we do not have any system .. and perhaps it is something that the P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) or the P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) can pick up in terms of having a list which is kept up to date by all the individual departments to advise any States Member at any particular time of their term of office which decisions having been made in the past have

been carried out. [9:45]

Perhaps it could be something for scrutiny to consider. There should be a register, I feel, to tell us at any point in time what we are not delivering on that has been collectively decided upon. So where am I going on this? Not only did we decide to have a spanking new facility for composting green waste in the most sustainable fashion possible, and we have gone back on that, we also decided in 2005 and 2008 to introduce a new permanent re-use and recycling centre collecting recyclables and the public green waste by 2011. Again, if you look in the budget plans, although there has been an attempt - which has been gratefully received by the T.T.S. - to provide a stopgap situation at Bellozanne to allow the public to bring greater quantities of recyclables to be recycled in the most sustainable fashion, that is not a permanent re-use centre. That was envisaged to allow a second thing that we decided upon, which was a bigger facility to allow commercial opportunities to be afforded by European and international recycling companies to tender for the construction or the operation of an all-singing, all-dancing recycling centre. Out of which would have given us the opportunity - because I do not think it is going anywhere at the moment, there are no monies, it is not in the look-forward things to be delivered, and we have not identified a particular site - for this

Island at some future stage to come forward with recommendations to increase the amount of recycling that takes place on the Island, to increase our green credentials and, indeed, to save a stack of money because burning waste does cost money. Recycling: generally at the moment, why are individual commercial operatives getting involved? Because they can make money out of it. If they can make money then I think it is incumbent upon this House to encourage, if that is the only thing we can do, those commercial opportunities to take place working with other bodies within the Island and indeed something else that we agreed to, which was to be working and investigating opportunities to bulk-up the amount of materials that could be recycled by working with Guernsey and other partners. Again, we do not appear to be doing much of that. So we agreed that there was going to be a further recycling of commercial waste, including separation of cardboard, metal and timber on a significantly larger scale through separate collections at separation by 2011. It is not there. We also decided .. so before T.T.S. come back and tell me: "Well, we have got the centre for recycling" it was to provide a recycling centre for the reception and recycling - and this is further recycling - to enhance those opportunities which I do not think can be applied to what we are doing at Bellozanne completely. What else did we do? Yes, and here is the good one and this is something that the Deputy of St. John has missed, and I do not blame him because he has been out of this House for a while, perhaps he did not do the right trawl. But item 8 in the proposition that was agreed in 2005 was that it was incumbent upon the committee to be charged to develop improved aggregate recycling facilities and bring forward for the approval of the States proposals for a future inert waste disposal site. If I am not wrong that is the very thing that the Deputy of St. John is asking us to do today, and quite rightly. But the essence of the point I am hoping to make, and hoping to have made, is that this House does itself no justice in taking significant decisions, spending large hours of debating time and officer time, and everybody else's time, going around and around in circles trying to value add to the best possible, and then to just throw the papers in the bin and forget about where we are. There has to be a better way. I am not convinced that necessarily having, as has been mentioned by the Chief Minister, a single site for everything is the best way forward. I think there might well be difficulties and, indeed, when the research was being undertaken by the various bodies who looked into the provision of these 3 separate facilities, it was stated on many occasions that perhaps more than one facility was the better way to do it. Not least of which to minimise the emissions of transporting vehicles for the public taking their materials to whichever site it was going to be, or to minimise the intrusion of all of those vehicles into perhaps more urban areas and to provide the kind of disturbances that those residents would not appreciate. But that said, these are meat and drink issues to the Island Plan review. I also find it strange that within the mineral strategy section .. and that was another report that was produced and put on one side for whatever reason and still has not seen the light of day in

terms of debate in this Chamber, although elements of it have been incorporated into the new Island Plan, and rightfully so. Within that there were suggestions that a particular quarry in the middle of the Island should be the centre for the recycling of inert materials. Now, unless that has changed, unless we are not going there, this perhaps could accommodate the wishes for the Deputy of St. John and, indeed, to all of us when we decided that this is what we wanted in 2005. But it is not certain, has not been put to bed, and I do not know because it is a commercial property whether or not it is the intention of the States through Planning gains or functions or permissions to encourage the facility to be used in that way perhaps by purchasing the quarry at great public expense when the quarrying facility has been extinguished. That said, the left hand still does not know what the right is doing because in the last couple of years we have given permission to this quarry in the centre of the Island to continue to mine and cut stone into the near future. So all of this really points to the fact that I really do not think we know what we are doing half the time, and when we do think we know what we are doing and we have decided on things, then those decisions, if the individual departments or perhaps the Ministers or perhaps whoever pulls the strings in some of these things decides that it was not really the thing that was desired, these things do not happen. So I am making a plea - I think there is room certainly within the discussions that are being undertaken down at La Collette and the harbour - to look again through the planning process to see whether or

not some type of commercial thread, which is apparently supported by Transport and Technical Services, to facilitate the bulking-up of waste materials for shipping and to reduce prices should not be further considered. But I do know that because we do not have an overall strategic planning guidance that is expressly delivered by the Planning Department, and in a lot of cases the Planning Department is not particularly involved and a lot of these decisions have been taken by the other commercial quango bodies that the States have set up. I think, perhaps, that if indeed those bodies are the ones who are actually the prime motivators for delivering particular policies and the bottom line is the finances of the scheme, then I think the wider picture in terms of the benefits to the Island might well be forgotten about, to the detriment to the Island. I think, in summing up, I can support the generality of the 3 departments working together to deliver what they decided they should deliver in 2005, but it might well be that the wording as put forward by the Deputy of St. John needs to be selectively interpreted in order to allow perhaps consideration of multi facilities to take place if indeed the opportunity for providing one all-singing, all-dancing site to do everything - which we probably all know in our heart of hearts is more difficult to achieve, and perhaps that is the game plan - then that might be a better way of dealing with it. So I think we should support this and I hope Members will.

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

May I ask the Minister for the Environment, who has just spoken, to compile those documents that he has spoken from today and circulate them to us in a small report so some new Members who were not present at the time can be aware of the decisions that have already been taken, please?

The Bailiff :

Deputy , will you be willing to do that?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I thank Deputy Le Claire for the promotion. I am Assistant Minister for the Environment but I am happy to provide any of the documents that I have mentioned, yes.

3. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen :

I am minded to support this proposition although, like Senator Perchard, I am concerned at the narrowness of it. Restricting it solely to publicly-owned sites does rather limit the field, if you will excuse the pun. Senator Perchard also said that it is not the role of Government to be involved in recycling and I agree, but it is definitely the role of Government to be involved in identifying and - at the planning stage - accepting whether a site is suitable. So we are involved in the round, in the system. As Deputy Green said yesterday ..  [Aside] As he said yesterday, this House has committed itself to recycling, not necessarily to doing the recycling work itself but it has committed itself to try and encourage and promote recycling. I think that this particular piece of work would be a good start down that path. I know that the Deputy of St. John and I have been involved in talking about sites for various recycling plants in the past and maybe I could suggest that the 2 departments, as Deputy Duhamel has pointed out, have an extensive amount of paperwork on this subject and maybe they could recycle them and produce this report.

4. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin :

I really feel we are making heavy weather of this particular proposition and it almost seems embarrassing that it does not appear that the Ministers are talking to each other. We have had the Minister for Planning and Environment stand up and support it. We have had the Assistant Minister with responsibility for Environment getting up and saying he supports it. I just wonder really why we are spending that amount of time. I also should mention that we are not reinventing the wheel. Deputy Duhamel - I mentioned this last night and it will save me repeating it because he did not say it this morning - was a member of the Planning Committee some 15, 16 years ago; the former Senator Tomes was a member of Property Services in those days and I was a member of the Agricultural and Fisheries Committee, and the 3 of us were tasked with going around the Island to identify satellite composting sites, and we did so. That was done without the need of coming to the House, it was a commonsense approach. We identified it; indeed we did have these satellite composting sites around. A lesson was learnt because they were successful at the start to a degree but really it was found at the end of the day that it is probably because you needed a certain amount of utensils to make the actual composting work we eventually had a more central site. However, what I am trying to get at is we are not reinventing the wheel; I cannot see why we are really spending all this amount of time when I think the general consensus is this is a commonsense proposal. I agree, as I think Senator Perchard and one or 2 other Members have mentioned, that it might need tweaking because I think if we can identify a better site which is in private ownership then that may well be one of those that can be put forward. But really, Members, I would ask that.. in fact, the Chief Minister is not here, nor the Deputy Chief Minister, but can someone on the Council of Ministers please accept this to save us wasting our time. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

The alternative way, of course, Deputy , is for no further Members to speak and move to the vote. Deputy Tadier .

[10:00]

5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

In some ways you feel that Members cannot win because if they bring a proposition which is too broad it is told to be exactly that, that it is vague and they want to pin the Member down; and then if it is too specific or something is not quite right the more pedantic of us will say that we are providing a straitjacket for Members and that we cannot support it. I think if we look at the wording here and we are simply being asked by the Deputy of St. John to identify an area of land - okay, in public ownership which I know certain Members are uncomfortable with - but that is really all it is asking us to do and when that has been done, to come back to the States and to work on it from there. So it is really not asking us to do it all now, it is really just trying to move things on. As we have heard from Deputy Duhamel, in the past the States have been slow on this issue and even not really fulfilled their obligations. I think irrespective of what previous decisions were in the States, it is quite obvious that the States do have an obligation, even if it is just in the organisation of recycling, to have a hand in that. We know we already do that. We provide facilities, we provide - even at Parish level - for rubbish to be collected and for some of that rubbish to be recycled. So I think to say that the States should not have any part in recycling is clearly not true. We already do. Okay, the States in the current climate are not going to be able to undertake the last mile, so to speak, of recycling but of course we know that the public/private partnership is going to have to continue and it is going to have to be strengthened, I think, if recycling is to be done at its optimum level. I do have a couple of questions though that I would like to seek clarification on from the Deputy of St. John. I am not fully sure at the moment of how the public and private aspects will work, so if a public site is identified what will happen to all those numerous private sites around the Island? Will they be obliged to only operate from this one site under contract? Because that seems problematic; I am not sure if that is what the Deputy is proposing or if it would simply be a central hub where the public can go to or whether it is where rubbish which is collected at the Parish level for recycling is taken to that site and how the 2 will mesh, so to speak. We need to be aware, even at this stage, of the unintended and intended consequences of that. On a more general point of recycling, I do have to ask .. we do seem to need to continue to have a more joined-up approach. It is great in my opinion that some of the Parishes have a kerbside

collection scheme and that is what I think needs to be promoted in Jersey right across the board. We know that it has happened in many countries and we have had these debates before with examples of Canada being given where for the last 20 or so years they have already had different crates which they put out on different days, and other jurisdictions have just one box of recyclables which then get taken away and sorted. It is a lot easier. To make recycling the optimum value it

has to be done on as a large a scale as possible. So what I would like to be seeing and this is probably for another time but from the Minister for Transport and Technical Services is to see if we can have an Island-wide service rather than having eventually 12 Parishes with their own little service for kerbside collection; if that can be done on an Island-wide basis on a rota. It would be interesting to see how this site, if and once it has been identified, could be used for that purpose. So I think that question: I would like to know about how this would mesh. I would also ask how the Scrutiny Panel feels about this proposition. It is not a criticism by any means but I would like to know perhaps why the Deputy thought of lodging it individually rather than as a panel. Of course, that is his prerogative but whether the panel is supportive and what their wider thoughts on the issue are.

Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

The Connétable of St. Mary indicated that she had put her light on before me so I am quite happy to defer to her.

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, I had not spotted it.

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : I have been trying to get your attention.

The Bailiff :

I do apologise. You can go next then.

Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John :

Can I give the Assembly notice that I am going to propose the closure motion under Article 84. We do seem to be making an awful meal of this.

6. The Connétable of St. Mary :

I am grateful to the Constable of St. Brelade for allowing me to go, this will be very quick. I have been listening very intently and the speeches of Senator Perchard and Deputy Duhamel made a great deal of sense to me. I certainly did not need to be reminded of many of the things that Deputy Duhamel said, having been involved in some of the consultations. This proposition is not doing what people think it does. This is simply .. and I am sorry to say this to Deputy Tadier but we do need to go by what the wording of the proposition is. This is asking the 3 Ministers concerned to look at a site already - a site, one site - in public ownership. My concern is, as has been mentioned, we have to find the best site. The best site may in fact be one or 2 other sites, it may be a combination. The sites need to be readily accessible. We are talking about large vehicles; we are talking about large amounts of material. It may well be that the recycling cannot be done on Island for some things that we choose to recycle; therefore, we should be near a transport link or at least somewhere where we are not moving material from one side of the Island and then moving it back again. We have to consider very carefully what we do here. We have to consider the best site. The best site may simply not be in public ownership yet or in the future. I cannot understand why we would seek to limit the focus of any work the Ministers might do to search for one site on public land. That seems to me to be fettering them when they could be spending the time and resources looking for the best site. This is a seductive proposition and I will not be supporting it. Thank you.

7. The Connétable of St. Brelade :

It is, I think, incumbent on me to explain a load of rubbish. In fact what I mean by that is the nature of this business, because I think it is quite important that Members do understand what this particular area the Deputy is focusing on is all about. Effectively, this is about mixed loads and the report which Members will have received last week regarding the skip operation did comment on the fact that there had been a policy change which had developed the situation. This is not quite the

case. In effect, my department started charging what it was costing to receive mixed waste and at present it is £120 for a mixed skip at Bellozanne. This, of course, has driven those who feel they can provide the service at lesser expense to provide it from whichever property they have at their disposal. I do not think it is incumbent on the States to be subsidising that operation. There is a cost to providing an operation successfully and commercially and we cannot be seen, in my view, to support any operation which is not doing it in the proper way. I fully concur with the Chief Minister it is not the business of the States to identify a publicly-owned site and interfere with the ways of commerce. Commerce will find its own level and I think it is important we do stand back from that. Notwithstanding that, I think it is important that my department and Planning and Property Holdings are in communication. I see nothing wrong with that. Members must also understand that any waste-related operations are challenging and generally not welcomed by the community surrounding them. I think I heard Deputy Duhamel mention having identified compost sites throughout the Island. Well, they have all been contentious, there is no question about that, and I recall well the contentious response from residents of Clos Saut Falluet in the Parish of St. Peter when composting took place on the site adjacent to the airport. Certainly not welcomed locally. As Members may recall, due to the fuel farm hazard risks at La Collette my department undertook a similar exercise to review all sites in States ownership with the suitability to become a green waste reception site. This resulted in a temporary solution in Bellozanne Valley with a longer term proposal at Warwick Farm. Both locations were chosen not because they were suitable but because they were the least worst options. This example highlights the issues with any waste- related process, and I have sympathy with the industry which is trying to operate within the Island. My department does not control States land, that is the responsibility of Property Holdings, but we are currently reviewing our land use and property and need to meet our C.S.R. (Comprehensive Spending Review) targets, as do other departments, to consolidate our operations on the various sites. This may, in the near future, free-up some land. This land will then be utilised by Property Holdings to generate income and has to be charged at commercial rates. Why should it be subsidising any specific area of the private commerce in the Island? The 2 main areas where waste operations occur are La Collette and Bellozanne. La Collette is currently in a state of change and has very little scope for additional operations. I am happy to show Members around at any time to demonstrate this. Next year Bellozanne will stop operating the Energy from Waste plant and my department is currently redesigning the public recycling areas to enhance the facilities and provide a more efficient service. In doing this we will free-up some space within the valley where the temporary green waste reception site is located at gate 14, and any reuse of this site would require planning and I believe, quite rightly, would cause a great deal of objections from the residents who have been very understanding about the green waste operations. I did receive, as did other Members, a letter from residents living next to a skip operation in St. John and I note not one but 2 lawyers had appended their names. I can understand why the Minister for Planning and Environment feels aggrieved that he has been pummelled by the recent report, which in my view his department was simply trying to help out. The saying: "You cannot please all of the people all of the time" certainly pertains here. We must be careful not to buckle to what must be described as N.I.M.B.Y-ating (Not in My Backyard) from perhaps rich lawyers in St. John, dare I say, at the expense of the inhabitants of areas such as Bellozanne Valley and Clos Saut Falluet and Warwick Farm. We have to take the broader view. Clearly the Deputy has answered the request of his constituents - and I fully understand and respect that - by bringing this proposition, but I consider that we have an obligation to look at the whole Island. While recommending that Members reject this proposition I invite the Deputy , as Chairman of the Environment Scrutiny Panel, to come and look at the information already in my department and understand better the present situation and assist in the difficult process of finding suitable sites and - as the Deputy of St. Martin says - adopt

a commonsense approach to this difficult problem. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well, I call upon the Deputy of St. John to reply.

8. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

I am pleased that Members have had time overnight to reflect. Several Members, including the last speaker, are quite negative in their response and they are still, in a lot of cases, living in the dark ages. I was on Public Services as the Vice-President at one time and I do know the problems with recycling and all that goes with it, having had responsibility in a number of areas, at the same time working alongside Deputy Duhamel and many others. So all I am asking is for the 3 departments to review sites across the Island. Whether the proposition may seem narrow .. it does say, in fact, sites if you look at the last line: ".. across the Island and identify the details of suitable sites identified for this purpose". That is the exact last line. I want what is best for Jersey. Given my background as a plumber, the way I put things down in writing may not be quite as correct as somebody who works in a lawyer's office and the like. That said, I think Members got the gist of what I am trying to do. Well, I am sure they did because it has been picked up. What we require .. nobody is asking for a site for nothing. People are prepared to pay. What we require is a skip sorting area where people can come along and they can sort their skips legally. We need to help the Minister. The Minster quite clearly said yesterday that he was happy .. the Minister for Planning and Environment was happy to take this on board and work with T.T.S. and with Property Services to try and locate an area within the Island to make this happen. I have not heard anybody from Property Services speak this morning; they may have done but I do not recall them speaking on this.

[10:15]

The only person, of the 3 departments I have mentioned, who has been against in fact is the current Minister for T.T.S. I thank the Minister for having invited me to go and have a look at his files but I am sure they have only increased by that much since I was on that particular committee. I note that Deputy Montfort Tadier asked about sorting the skips. Yes, once again the site would be for sorting skips, not for running businesses continually. So people could actually go down there and legally rent an area that can be charged at commercial rate for sorting skips. Not for running big operations out of, it is a sorting area. That is what we are talking about here. We are not talking about something covering tens of vergées, we are talking about .. and if you look at the Yellow Pages of the telephone directory where you only see 16 or 17 actual skip companies, most of those have got sites of their own which are in the white area, i.e. which are legitimate. There are several which are in the grey area or the black area which are operating legally on a site but that site is not permitted to sort. So these companies need somewhere to sort their waste so that we could all be singing from the same hymn sheet. Really, Members, we want to do what is right. We signed up in 2005, again in 2008, to do recycling and yet I hear the Constable of St. Mary basically saying you do not have this quite right. I am saying look at the bigger picture. Go out there, look at the big picture, think back. I know in St. John we do our recycling in a certain way; other Parishes do it somewhat differently. Other people will be taking on board kerbside collection and breaking apart over the next 2 years, from 2011 onwards. I have heard various Constables tell me this. Therefore, we will need certain areas. It is not for us to bury our head in the sand, as has happened to date. As I mentioned yesterday, we saw it with the waste vehicles. We saw it with the recycling of aggregates which was all happening out in the countryside, and we saw it with the green waste. That has all come under - at the end of the day - the mantle of T.T.S. where things are probably organised. You cannot be doing this 24/7, there are times when you get rid of your waste and the public get used to doing these things. We cannot have skips being sorted 24/7, day and night and creating problems for neighbours. We need this control so if you have got a skip sorting area that is under the ambit of a States department to control the hours, they will charge a rate which gets passed on to the consumer at the end of the day. All this is chargeable, so Members do not tell me or other Members that this is going to be a cost to the Island. It is a cost to the Island to go and dispose of waste at La Collette. At the moment there is a gate charge. If somebody wishes to use our facilities for sorting there would be a charge. Therefore, I believe we have had a good debate on this and I am going to ask for the appel. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

The appel is asked for then in relation to the proposition of the Deputy of St. John, projet 97. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

The Deputy of St. John :

Could I thank the Members, those who voted for, those who spoke against. It is good to be in a democratic assembly.

2. Terrorist Asset-Freezing Bill: extension of a clause to Jersey (P.105/2010)

The Bailiff :

We move next to the Terrorist Asset-Freezing Bill: extension of a clause to Jersey - projet 105 - lodged by the Chief Minister. I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to signify, pursuant to Article 31(1)(a) of the States of Jersey Law 2005, whether they agree that a provision of the Terrorist Asset- Freezing Bill of the United Kingdom Parliament should be made that would, when the Bill comes into force, prolong the duration of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Act 2010, as it relates to Jersey, until 31st March 2011, as summarised in the report of the Chief Minister dated 16th July 2010.

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

This is a relatively straightforward proposition, although it may appear slightly confusing. Earlier in the year a case was heard in the U.K. (United Kingdom) Supreme Court as a result of which their current terrorist asset-freezing legislation was deemed to be inadequate and  ultra vires. Accordingly, they are proposing to draft a new law and our policy has been to match such a law because we want to share with them our concerns and our stance against terrorist activities and money laundering. So this clause really gives effect to enabling arrangements while the U.K. changes its legislation. The U.K.'s objective is to have their legislation in place by the end of this year, December 2010. At the moment that legislation is going through various iterations in the U.K. and it would not be appropriate for us at this stage to give instructions to our Law Draftsman until we are clear what the U.K. law was because we wanted our legislation to mirror what is required by the U.K. Because the U.K. legislation is likely to be in place by the end of December, I estimate it will take a further 2 or 3 months before we can get the wording of our legislation drafted and hence the proposition is that we should allow this to carry on until 31st March 2011. Clearly we do not want to let it drift for too long because we do not want to be out of step or seen not to be supporting the U.K. in their legislation process. They fully understand the problem we have here between the 2 dates and the timing and so I hope Members do as well. I make the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition? Very well, all those in favour of adopting the proposition, kindly show? Those against? The proposition is adopted.

3. Draft Drug Trafficking Offences (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.106/2010) The Bailiff :

We come next to the draft Drug Trafficking Offences (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law - projet 106 - lodged by the Minister for Home Affairs. I will ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

A law to amend further the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988. The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following Law.

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

In Jersey we have 2 agencies in relation to enforcement in relation to illegal drugs, namely the States of Jersey Police Force and the Customs and Immigration Department. The original law in 1988 made provision for a police officer - but the definition of police officer was wide enough to cover a customs and immigration officer - to make an application to the Bailiff for certain orders in connection with drug money laundering matters so that they could obtain either customer information, which is information about a bank account, or an account monitoring order, which is information about the details of what is in the bank account. But when the original law was passed for some reason reference was only made to an application being made by a police officer on or above the rank of Chief Inspector and no provision was made as to what rank of customs officer could make the similar application. The purpose of this law is simply to fill that gap so that now customs officers of a particular rank, which is the rank of Assistant Director, could make the application to the Bailiff in order to obtain the information. So in one sense it is a very small technical piece of legislation simply to allow customs officers to do what police officers can do in

case the need arises in relation to one of the investigations that we are involved in. I have considered, in detail, the human rights implications of this and the approach that one takes to this depends upon whether one merely views this as technical and allowing a particular grade of officer to do this or whether one looks at the wider issue of the original law, because the original law was not subject to a human rights audit. But in order to keep Members, and particularly the Deputy of St. Martin, happy I am now going to indicate what the human rights implications are. The first is under Article 8 which is the right to respect for private and family life. The position is that fundamental safeguards exist in relation to the application. It has to be made to the Bailiff with the consent of the Attorney General and there are requirements to show detailed grounds for an order. It is consistent with other Jersey legislation on entry and search powers. The powers are proportionate and are prescribed in domestic law and are in pursuit of a legitimate purpose and aim, or a number of those, namely public safety and the prevention of disorder or crime. There was a second subsection, second Article, under human rights and that is protocol 1, Article 1, protection of private property, and exactly the same criteria apply as I have already outlined in relation to Article 8. So, as I say, all this is doing is allowing customs officers of the rank of Assistant Director - which is incidentally the third most senior rank in the Customs and Immigration Department, so that is a pretty senior rank - to make either of these applications to the Bailiff , and proper safeguards exist in relation to these. So I make the proposition in principle.

The Bailiff :

Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles? Deputy Fox.

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

I support this proposition because I think it is very important that we can provide the broadest base that we can on dealing with this subject of drugs, et cetera. The only thing that I stand up for is to ensure that we do not lose out any continuity of information between the respective enforcement agencies, which is a problem that we experienced in the past, and I would hate to think that someone was investigating something and the other did not know about it and affected the end result. That would be the only observation I would make, but apart from that I would support it fully. Thank you.

2. The Deputy of St. Martin :

Just a short speech. I concur with what Deputy Fox had to say. I think it is important that there is a good working relationship between the customs and the police and I understand that is now the case. I would also like to thank the Minister for Home Affairs for explaining the human rights. It does not really hurt, it does not take a lot of trouble really, but it makes us look so much more efficient and I am grateful for it. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Senator, do you wish to reply?

3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

There is provision in place for sharing of information through what I think is called the joint intelligence bureau. I hope I have the right name there. Although there are separate information systems kept by the police and by customs, there is a sharing mechanism available, I can assure Members of that. So I maintain the proposition in principle and call for the appel, or perhaps that is unnecessary, I do not know.

The Bailiff :

It is up to you, Minister.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Let us try the appel.

The Bailiff :

Very well, the appel is called for then in relation to the principles of projet 106. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

The Bailiff :

Now, this is a matter which falls within the responsibility of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel. Deputy Le Hérissier is ill. Deputy Pitman, I think you are the Vice-Chairman. Do you wish it referred to the panel? Very well then, Minister, do you propose the Articles 1 and 2?

[10:30]

2. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes, I do. These are amendments to the second schedule to part 1 and part 2 and their effect is exactly as I have already described to allow a customs officer at least the rank of Deputy Director to make the application. I propose the Articles en bloc.

Are Articles 1 and 2 seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the individual Articles? All those in favour of adopting Articles 1 and 2, kindly show? Those against? The Articles are adopted. Do you propose the Bill in Third Reading, Minister?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand: I do, yes.

The Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak in Third Reading? All those in favour of adopting the Bill in Third Reading kindly show? The appel is called for in relation to the Third Reading. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

4. Draft Public Holidays and Bank Holidays (Jersey) Act 201- (P.107/2010)

The Bailiff :

We move next to projet 107, draft Public Holidays and Bank Holidays (Jersey) Act in the name of the Chief Minister. I will ask the Greffier to read the Act.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Public Holidays and Bank Holidays (Jersey) Act. The States, in pursuance of Article 2 of the Public Holidays and Bank Holidays (Jersey) Law 1951, have made the following Act.

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

Earlier this year Members got into a state of confusion, I think I could say, about the Liberation Day holiday and the general feeling at that time was that the law should be changed before that situation recurred. I took that on board and consequently made some proposals to clarify the Act and sent these out for consultation to business and to employee representatives. The only response I have had is from the Chamber of Commerce who welcomed the content of this Act. The employees sector have not responded. So there are really 4 issues in this Act. The first is to clarify definitions. That was, I think, the downfall of the previous situation. It now clarifies that Saturday is not a week day for the purposes of this law. It also seeks to clarify that when Liberation Day falls on a Saturday it will be a public holiday, and also seeks to establish that when Boxing Day falls on Saturday the public holiday will be transferred to the following Monday, to mirror what happens in the U.K. There is one further nuance. Anticipating the Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012 and wanting to give people adequate notice of the likely situation then, there is also a paragraph in there dealing with the date of that and the moving of the May bank holiday in that year only. Those are the principles of the Act which I propose.

The Bailiff :

Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the Act?

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

Yes. On behalf of Deputy Le Hérissier who is not here today, I believe he brought a proposition which also prompted this, is that right? Yes, the Chief Minister is nodding his head. I would just like to thank the Chief Minister for getting on with this and bringing this back to the House. On behalf of Deputy Le Hérissier, I am sure he would express his joy in how this will cause an efficiency within the States Chamber and we should all be appreciative of that. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Deputy Green.

2. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier :

Just a question really for the Chief Minister. I do appreciate that this will help to clarify things and make life easier in the future, but it still fails in some places to recognise, particularly on Boxing Day, that staff who work the real Boxing Day, 26th December as it is, will not be paid as though it is a bank holiday. So those who work the new designated bank holiday - if you understand what I am saying - will be paid enhanced rates and, as I understand it, those who work the real Boxing Day, because Boxing Day to me is always 26th December whatever we might say, get paid less unless there is some arrangements that the Chief Minister has for our own employees. It would be interesting to see if he has some arrangement.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Deputy Tadier .

3. Deputy M. Tadier :

Although this law has been brought up so people know a lot more clearly what they are entitled to, and I am sure Deputy Le Hérissier in his absence would be very happy, it still does not solve the underlying problems for which Members brought the propositions in the first place. Deputy Green has already made his point and with Liberation Day it simply still does not answer the inconsistency and the contradictions of why Liberation Day is a bank holiday for 6 days a week but not for 7 days a week. This enshrines that contradiction in law. I know Members and the public

certainly have very strong feelings about Liberation Day in particular, some saying that it should not be a public holiday because, for whatever reason, it is not that kind of day, people should not be celebrating or whatever, or they should not be expected just to have a freebie. I take those points on board. There are other Members who say: "No, it is quite right that Liberation Day is a holiday." We still have not had the answer for why Liberation Day ceases to exist on a Sunday but we have enshrined it in law that if it falls on a Saturday we give a bank holiday on a Monday but not if it falls on a Sunday, even though nowadays there is no differentiation between any day of the week for many sections of society, particularly if you are obliged to work on a Sunday. So this contradiction has not been addressed in the law, it has been simply scooted over. Now, I do not think the next occasion where Liberation Day is going to fall on weekend will be until about 2021, if I recall rightly, so I will be bringing back a proposition, but thankfully for Members it probably will not be until 2020, although I expect to probably still have some opposition from the likes of Senator Le Main and possibly Senator Le Sueur . [Laughter] So clearly I will not be adopting this proposition and I ask for those Members who still have qualms about their particular issues to reject this because I do not think it solves some of the issues which Members are concerned about.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the Act? Deputy Hilton.

4. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier :

Very briefly, I just wanted to thank the Chief Minister for recognising the Queen's Diamond Jubilee next year by proposing a 2-day bank holiday. Effectively we have got an additional holiday so I would just like to thank him for that on behalf of the public of Jersey.

The Bailiff :

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

5. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Thank  you.   I thank those who  have spoken and  appreciate  that this  does  not  solve all the employment issue problems. This was an act designed to give clarity and certainty in respect of holidays. I note that Deputy Tadier may bring a proposition between now and 2020 in respect of the  next  situation  when  that  might  occur  and  I  would  say  to  him  and  to  all  Members  that employment legislation, employment practice, changes year by year. We are seeing now in the private sector a lot more flexible working where you work a certain number of days a week but there is no great distinction between one and another. I am sure that employment legislation and practice will change over the years. This Act is designed for one thing in particular and that is to give clarity and certainty. I believe it does. I maintain the Act and I ask for the appel.

The Bailiff :

The appel is asked for then in relation to the Act which is in projet 107, lodged by the Chief Minister. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.