States Meeting Transcript - 05/04/2011

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 5th APRIL 2011

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

1. Appointment of the President of the Chairmen's Committee...........................7

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................7

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................8
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ...................................................8
3. Senator A. Breckon: .....................................................................8
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ...............................................................9
5. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ....................................................9
6. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:.......................................................9
7. Deputy of P.J. Rondel of St. John : ......................................................10
8. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................10
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................11
10. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary : ..............................................11

2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................12

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................13
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................14
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................14
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................14
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................15

6. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................15
7. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................15
8. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................16
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................16
10. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................17
11. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:...................................................17
12. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................17
13. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:................................................18

3. Appointment of the President of the Chairmen's Committee: result of election......18

2. Nomination of Senator J.L. Perchard as a member of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel .....................................................................................18

2.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................19

QUESTIONS.....................................................................................19

3. Written Questions.......................................................................19

1. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING HOSPITAL WAITING LISTS: ............................19
2. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING TREATMENT FOR OBESITY:...........................20

3. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE COST OF A G.P. CONSULTATION: .........................................................................................23
4. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE OVERLAP BETWEEN INCOME SUPPORT AND INCOME TAX THRESHOLDS:.................................................24
5. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING SOCIAL RENTAL HOUSING:........................................24
6. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING COMPANY TAX REVENUES:..................25
7. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PAY AND CONDITIONS OFFERED TO NURSES:..................25

4. Oral Questions...........................................................................26

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the introduction of a first-time buyers loan scheme for those earning under £60,000: ......26 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................26

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................27
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................27
3. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................27
4. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................28
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................28

2. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour of the Chief Minister regarding recommendations within the report of the Review of the Roles of the Crown Officers (R.28/2011):.......28 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf ( Deputy Chief Minister):...............................................29

4.2.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................29

3. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the maximum award available to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board:.........................29 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................29

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................29
2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................30

4. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the conditions attached to the Regulation of Undertakings and Development licence issued to the company responsible for the construction of the Portelet development:.............30 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):.............................................................................30

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................30
2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................31
3. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................31
4. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................31
5. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................32
6. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................32
7. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................32
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................32
9. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................32
10. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................33
11. Deputy J.A. Hilton:..................................................................33
12. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................33

5. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade of the Minister for Economic Development regarding action taken by the Harbours Department against the Jersey Sailing Trust:.............33 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):..........33

1. Deputy S. Power:.......................................................................34

2. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................34
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................34
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................34
5. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................35
6. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................35

6. The Deputy of St. John of the Minister for Economic Development regarding waiting lists across all harbours and marinas: ...................................................35 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................35

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................36
2. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................36
3. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................36
4. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................36

7. Deputy A.E. Jeune of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding clinical staff employed on an interim, locum, agency and contract basis during the past 12 months: .37 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):.................37

1. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................37
2. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................37
3. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................37
4. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................38
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................38
6. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................38

8. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding the construction of a new school on Field 327A in St. Martin : ..........................38 The Deputy of St. Ouen (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):....................38

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................39
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................39

9. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chief Minister regarding the Terms of Reference in the Napier Report:..........................................................................39 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf ( Deputy Chief Minister - rapporteur): ..................................39

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................40
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................40
3. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................41
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................41
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................42

10. Deputy A.E. Jeune of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the £600,000 savings' achieved by the Managing Director:..........................................42 Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services - rapporteur)..............................................................................42

1. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................42
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................43
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................43
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................43
5. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................43
6. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................43
7. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................44

11. The Deputy of St. John of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the signing of the Reciprocal HealthAgreement:...........................................44 The Deputy of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):........................45
12. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the treatment and prevention of blood-borne diseases such as H.I.V. and Hepatitis C:......45 The Deputy of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):........................45

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................45

2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................46
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................46
4. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................46
5. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................46
6. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................46
7. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................47

13. Deputy S. Power of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the benefit of outlying harbours and piers:............................................................47 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................47

1. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................47
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................47
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................48
4. Deputy of St. John:..................................................................48
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................48
6. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour:..........................................48
7. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................49

14. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the benefit to other Islanders from 1(1)(k) residents:..................................................49 Deputy E.J. Noel (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):..............49

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................50
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................50
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................51
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................51
5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................51
6. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier : ......................................................51
7. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................52
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................52
9. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................52
10. Deputy G.P. Southern :.............................................................52
11. Deputy G.P. Southern :.............................................................52
12. Deputy T.M.Pitman:..............................................................53

15. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the replacement of the current sewage treatment equipment by the end of 2013:........53 The Connétable of St. Brelade (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):.........53

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................53
2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ............................................54
3. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................54
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................54
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................55
6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................55

16. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the rate paid to Allied Health Professionals: ................................................55 The Deputy of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):........................55

1. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................55
2. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................56
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................56
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................56

5. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................56
6. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................57

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................57

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................57

5. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Social Security.............57

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................57 Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement (The Minister for Social Security):..........................57

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................57
   2. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................57
   3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................58
   4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................59
   5. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................60
   6. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................60
   7. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................60
   8. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................61

6. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Economic Development....61

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................61 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................61
2. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................62
3. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................62

6.3.1 Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................62

4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................62

6.4.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:..................................................................63

5. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................63
6. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................63
7. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................64

6.7.1 Deputy S. Pitman:......................................................................64

8. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................64
9. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................64
10. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:....................................................64
11. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................65
12. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................65
13. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................65

14. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................65
15. Deputy A.T. Dupré ofSt.Clement:.....................................................66

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................66

7. The Minister for Economic Development - statement regarding the Jersey Financial Services Commission....................................................................66

7.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................66

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................66
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................67
3. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................67
4. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................67

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................67

8. Jersey Financial Services Commission: Imposition of Fines (P.150/2010).............67

8.1 Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................67

9. Speed Limits: revised policy (P.167/2010)..............................................68

9.1 Speed Limits: revised policy (P.167/2010) - proposal of the Deputy of St. John to defer debate....................................................................................68

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................68
2. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................70
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................71
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................72
5. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................72
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................73
7. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................73
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................73
9. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................73
10. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................74

10. Draft States of Jersey (Transfer of Functions No. 4) (Treasury and Resources to Chief Minister) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.25/2011)........................................75

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf ( Deputy Chief Minister - rapporteur):............................76

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................76
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................76
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................76

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................78

11. Income Tax: introduction of higher rate (P.23/2011) ..................................79

11.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................79

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................84
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................87
3. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................87
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................90
5. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................92
6. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................92
7. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................93
8. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:....................................................93
9. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................94

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................98

[9:30]

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

1. Appointment of the President of the Chairmen's Committee

The Bailiff :

Then we come under F, appointment of the president of the Chairmen's Committee. As you know the former president has resigned and there is therefore a vacancy on this and therefore I invite nominations for the position of president which must of course be from among the members of the Chairmen's Committee. Are there any nominations for the position of President?

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

I would like to nominate Senator Ferguson.

The Bailiff :

Very well. Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

Yes. I would like to nominate Deputy Southern .

The Bailiff :

Yes. Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Very well, so I declare that there are 2 nominations. The procedure is set out in Standing Orders. It is one of those occasions where each candidate is entitled to address the Assembly for up to 10 minutes and then there is an opportunity to question them thereafter. The candidate who is not here must be in a place where he or she cannot hear what is going on. Can I say to each Member, there will be a bell rung after 9 minutes to warn the candidate that 10 minutes is nearly up? There will be a second bell at 10 minutes and at that occasion the candidate will have to stop even in mid-sentence. Now, Deputy Southern , I think you were called second so if you would like to retire with the Greffier to a suitable location. Very well, I am sure Deputy Southern is by now in some secure location and therefore I invite [Laughter]

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Sir, were you hinting at something? [Laughter]

The Bailiff :

The Chair never hints at anything, Senator. I invite Senator Ferguson to address the Assembly.

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Thank you. I was not exactly expecting this so Members will be pleased to know that I shall not be rattling on for the next 10 minutes or so. At this point in time the position of chairman is a night watchman' type of post. It is to keep the cart on the rails until October when no doubt things will all be changed. I would say that I bring to this my previous experience as chairman of the Chairmen's Committee and I suppose I would try, as I say, to keep the cart on the rails and keep the thing running smoothly until October. In actual fact it is less than that because most of the Scrutiny Panels are in fact finishing their reports by the end of July in order to start preparing for elections so that we are really talking a 3½ to 4 months period, so, as I say, it is a night watchman period. I think that is all I need to say. [Approbation]

The Bailiff :

Members have up to 20 minutes in which to question the candidate so are there any questions of Senator Ferguson?

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Thank you. What does the Senator see as the major issues that are facing Scrutiny at the moment and how does she plan to, in her capacity as the Chairman of the Chairmen's Committee, if elected, help to resolve any outstanding issues?

[9:45]

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

The most controversial issue I think there are a number of issues but obviously the most controversial issue is the airport review by Deputy Higgins. I think again on this we will probably have to review again the situation and the chairmen to meet on this and try and thrash out a compromise situation, which satisfies the perception of their conflict as well as the wishes of the panel to review the airport. Other matters: I think making sure that we can get our point across to the Council of Ministers, but that is probably an ongoing matter and probably will depend on how many bricks I have got in my handbag at the time. Basically, as I say, we have only got a 3½ month period so I really cannot see that we can achieve a lot apart from keeping the cart

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

While I was happy to second the nomination of the candidate, I would like to ask the candidate why it appears this morning that no discussion has taken place for this position. Is this position not something of importance in the States Assembly? Given the fact that the previous president had resigned on such a significant issue as his belief that Scrutiny is failing and the system is not working, is this not just another demonstration that the Scrutiny side of matters are not taking the sort of attention of Members that they should be?

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

That is a very good question. I am not quite certain why we did not have a meeting. I had in fact left it to others to organise it, which was probably my first mistake. We should have had a get- together to discuss it. It is an important post but, as I say, it is a somewhat of a "Johnny-come- lately" position in that it is merely to look after 3 months and to keep the cart on the rails. I do consider it important. Certainly I had made the suggestion that the vice-chairman should take over for this last period to July. I regret that he has not, but if elected obviously I will do my best to keep the cart on the rails.

3. Senator A. Breckon:

I wonder if I could ask Senator Ferguson to comment on the working relationship between the Chairmen's Committee and the Council of Ministers and if she thinks anything could be done to improve it.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

My particular committee has had no problem dealing with the Council of Ministers. If I could persuade all chairmen to deal with the Council of Ministers in the same way then perhaps everything would be better. On the other hand, I think the regular meetings we have with the Council of Ministers are, in fact, useful. I think the problem is that if you go into these sorts of meetings with an antagonistic approach, then obviously you do not get such a good response. There has to be a give and take. Scrutiny cannot take everything; it does have to give on occasions. My real aim is to keep the channels of communication open and to keep them civilised. It is quite possible to question vigorously without being uncivilised. I think we all have a fantastic example in the Auditor General, who can ask the most penetrating questions in the most civilised manner that I have ever heard. It is possibly something that some of our advocates could learn from as well. But I think basically, it is to keep the channels of communication open and to keep talking. As Churchill said: "Better jaw, jaw, jaw than war, war, war."

4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Thank you. What is the candidate's view of whether membership of Scrutiny should be compulsory for all Members who are not on the Executive?

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

This is a question, I think, on which a lot of midnight oil has been burned and there has been a lot of consideration. There is a problem that we do have Members of this Assembly who stay outside Scrutiny and who are not part of the Executive. This is a problem because it means that we are down to small numbers in Scrutiny. Now, I think there are obviously Members who will come on to Scrutiny Panels for particular reports. We have also the problem that quite a lot of people are on the Planning Panel, which takes up a lot of time and people. I think there is also a problem that some of our newly-elected people are whisked-on to Assistant Ministerships without having been through Scrutiny and understanding what Scrutiny is about. Now, this is something that I think needs to be addressed before the next elections. It is certainly something that I think there will be a lot of discussion about because I think obviously at the moment Scrutiny does not have the glamour of being in the Executive. Unlike the House of Commons where the committees are people fight for membership of those committees and we are trying to raise the profile of Scrutiny in that at the completion of a report a chairman will make a statement in the House to try and get the points across because sometimes the media, God bless them, do not always get the points of view that you want to get across and the important points. I think this is obviously a matter we are going to have to deal with. You cannot, I do not think, just dictate to people that they must be on Scrutiny because I think that would better a willing volunteer than an unwilling conscript. I think this one may run for a while but we are doing our best to look at it and improve it.

5. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

Thank you. I am glad to follow that because I sense there is a contradiction. The candidate said when she gave her speech she saw this as a caretaker role keeping the cart on the rails yet obviously she shares my concern that less than half the available non-executive Members are serving on Scrutiny. Rather than keeping the cart on the rails what will the candidate do, if elected, to make sure that the next intake of States Members sees Scrutiny as valuable and sees the legacy as something to carry on?

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I see that as part of the caretaker role; to get some plans together for it. I think Scrutiny is very bad at advertising what it has done well. It is unfortunate that perhaps the Ministers do not always agree with the results of Scrutiny Reports but I think we need to emphasise where the Ministers have, in fact, adopted the findings and recommendations of Scrutiny Reports and I suppose basically it is also up to the chairman to raise the profile and make it more exciting. But, as I say, I see that as part of the caretaker role and it will need some more work and it will require working with my fellow chairmen in order to do this. We will try and get something done before the elections but more than that, until I am elected, I do not think I can say.

6. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :

Thank you. Following on from the last 2 questions really; what does the candidate feel that she can bring to the position that will develop some leadership and some decisiveness and enhance the role as far as team-building because, as she said, there are only 14 people doing Scrutiny work, and how can she enhance the role and provide that leadership that has been lacking, such as the role allows?

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I do wonder if part of the problem is the fact that some of the reports that some panels have been doing are not terribly exciting. I think you have also got to pick your subject that you are going to review to make it vital. It has got to be perceived as being vital to the good running of Government and with a bit more meat to it. One or 2 of the reports that I have seen come out of Scrutiny have not been on very exciting topics, and I think you can possibly look at the volume of reports that have come out of various panels and think, well, are they contributing? So, while people can say: "Scrutiny is not working", "Scrutiny is not this, is not that" and Scrutiny will try and blame everything under the sun. To paraphrase the immortal bard: "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves." I think perhaps we have not done enough to make it more exciting. My panel; yes, we have had some super topics

The Bailiff :

Yes, that is quite a long answer and there are other people wanting to ask questions.

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

Will the candidate lead the Chairmen's Committee towards change, towards a select committee system similar to what they have in the U.K. (United Kingdom), given the current system appears to be creaking at the edges and I believe change is needed?

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I know that the Deputy obviously wants to change the name of Scrutiny Panels to Select Committees. Sometimes if you are marketing, rebranding does help and I think this is something we do need to look at because, as I say, it is basically a marketing exercise. We need to make Scrutiny look more exciting. We need to make it look relevant. We need to make it look effective. If that requires changing the names to Select Committees then I think that might be a goer. I am sorry that is not parliamentary language, but I think it might well have a lot of merit and this is no doubt something that the panel would discuss.

8. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

What are the candidate's views on whether there is, indeed, a conflict with the chair of the airport review?

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Yes. As Members will know, I did, in fact, vote for the review because I think the airport does need looking at. At the time I make no excuses, it passed me by that the chairman of the E.D.D. (Economic Development Department) Panel is at the moment, out of the £100,000 E.D.D. grant he is, in fact, taking a salary for running the air display and I think, as I say, it flew past me for some reason. I make no excuses. In retrospect I think that does give the perception of conflict and I think this is something that will come back to bite us if it is not dealt with.

[10:00]

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can I make a correction there? I do not receive a salary from the air display. I have a contract of service. I do receive a payment for some of the services that I do. [Laughter] It is different to a contract; I am not employed by the air display company.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Having allowed that interruption, payment for his services in organising the air display for something which is allegedly a charity, I think there is

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I have got to interrupt again. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I am not giving way. There is a public perception to be considered and I think  it must be considered. There must be a way round it to remove the perception but allow the review to go forward and it is that that we need to organise. We really do not need to argue over is it a contract of service or is it a salary. What we need to do is see how we can push it forward rather than just argue at the margin.

9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

The previous President cited a number of reasons for his resignation: the Ministerial government not being fit for purpose, Ministerial government being responsible for the worldwide downturn as far as I could read it [Laughter], the Troy Rule and other issues in relation to Public Accounts Committee and the issue of conflict of interest. Does the candidate agree with any of the other criticisms, apart from the conflict of interest issue which was raised, and if she does agree with any of those other criticisms, what is she going to do about it?

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I think, as the Minister will remember, a lot of my panel's criticisms of how Ministerial government is working have been incorporated in our reports to the States Assembly on various financial matters, in the C.S.R. (Comprehensive Spending Review) 1, in the fiscal stimulus. Our reports do contain our criticisms. Our main criticism, which I do not think was one that the previous chairman mentioned, was long-term planning where we strongly recommended that they follow the New Zealand model where they have a 40-year strategic review and then shorter strategic reports every 4 years with the election cycle. So I believe in trying to be constructive and I will continue to be constructive as I hope our Scrutiny reports indicate.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I do not think she answered the question whether or not she agreed with any of the other criticisms. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I have been learning from the Minister for Treasury and Resources. [Laughter]. There is nothing else I can say. [Laughter] [Aside]

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

The candidate has talked about not exciting reports and the need to make Scrutiny look effective and relevant. There has just been a report published which has demonstrated that the proposition of the Minister involves no meaningful research, no aims and objectives, no evidence, no stakeholders were identified and the consultation itself was flawed, both in presentation and in execution. Yet the Minister persists in bringing this to the House. What is the candidate's approach to this because she has defined the problem as being Scrutiny has a lack of profile and so on and then when Ministers treat it like that, what is her reaction?

The Bailiff :

All right, so that is the 20 minutes end of questioning then. Just before I call Deputy Southern , Deputy Higgins, you wanted to intervene. It is only fair to give you the opportunity to say anything by way of clarification now if you wish to.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I take offence at Senator Ferguson's comments regarding the air display as a supposed charity. It has charitable status because its aims are to help raise money for service charities and promote tourism in the Island. It does both. It enables the Royal Air Force Association to raise money for its funds. It has also helped in fact we sponsored Holiday for Hero veterans at the air display, so it does have a charitable purpose. She is making an aspersion "alleged" charity. Yes, it has charitable status, that is the point. The other thing too is it seems to imply that because I receive some money - and I say some money - there is something wrong in me undertaking this review. The air display is distinct from the airport. It is distinct from the review we are doing. I believe that Scrutiny is evidence-based and it is only a perceived conflict of interest because it has been

generated as that. I am going to address that in the report when it comes out at the very beginning very transparently setting it out, but I would say to people, judge the report by the evidence because every report that I have been involved in has been evidence-based. If the airport is doing well, it will state that. If not, it will be criticised.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I did not mean you to go into a great defence of the position. I just wanted to know whether you wanted to clarify any actual errors which the Minister very well. Now then Senator Ferguson, would you kindly retire with the Greffier's Assistant to an equally secure location as Deputy Southern and we invite Deputy Southern to return. Very well then. Deputy Southern has returned. When you ready, Deputy , I invite you to address the Assembly for up to 10 minutes.

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

For one terrifying minute, you thought there was going to be no candidates but all you were witnessing was the fight to be second so that we could prepare a little, and perhaps that is to my advantage because I have done 10 minutes thinking about what is the role of the Chairmen's Committee and where we should be going and why we are in such a crisis. The first thing I did though was look at the Standing Orders to see what it is that we are supposed to do. I looked at the Chairmen's Committee, establishment and constitution, terms of reference and it lasts for all of 2 sides. It is not an enormous job. It is an important job but it is not an enormous job. Fundamentally it is to act as a co-ordinating body for the work of P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) and Scrutiny Panels to ensure there is no unintended overlap. It goes on to co-ordinate the actions of Scrutiny and that is about it. I do not really want to be standing here with 8 months to go competing for a position which is a co-ordinator but we are at a crisis. We are at a crisis, and Members may not like to hear this but I will remind them again, because we adopted half of Clothier at the very beginning. We did not go for the whole package and the crisis that we are in now in terms of Scrutiny and its effectiveness was almost inevitable and could have been predicted. We took half the package. We are going to end up here with ineffective Scrutiny and that is the first time I have ever said that. Scrutiny at the moment is becoming less and less relevant to the actions of this body. The question is can we change that, can we make Scrutiny more effective and more efficient? I think the first thing we should be doing - and if it is the only thing I do in the next few months, then I will be pleased - I will be trying to ensure that anybody standing for a position in the States, whatever position, is aware that when they come into the States if they are not on the Executive, they are expected to do Scrutiny work. It goes with the job. Whether it is Constable, Deputy or Senator, it goes with the job. Standing in here, sitting in here, you have got to be involved in Scrutiny. By Scrutiny I do not necessarily mean P.A.C. That is a different job. It is a backward-looking job. That is examining past spending, a different issue, it is not policy. I do not mean P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) which is different again, and I certainly do not mean sitting on a Planning Committee, which is different again, and yet people manage to escape into little bole holes in one of those committees and effectively not do Scrutiny. That cannot be allowed to happen. The first essential step we need to do is make sure anybody who is standing for a position in the States is aware that they will have to do, they are expected to do, and they will do, effective Scrutiny work. The second aspect of the crisis is that currently we are down to about 13 or 14 effective members. We cannot carry on like that and there has to be a new start come the new elections, and that is part of it. What else do we need to do? I think we need to and I will revisit the issue of who can do Scrutiny. In principle, I am against involving members of the Executive at all in Scrutiny. However, given what is happening and the way we are going, I would, as leading the Chairmen's Committee, review the position of Assistant Ministers as a possibility, examining scrutinising areas that they are not responsible for as a way forward to get more bodies and more enthusiasm and more commitment on the side of Scrutiny. It is interesting that 2 months ago an officer who was leaving as part of the redundancy programme said: "What is the biggest difference between an effective Scrutiny Panel and an ineffective Scrutiny Panel?" and he said: "Clearly, the

enthusiasm and commitment of the chairman and of the members for making sure that something gets done." You have either got that drive which says I have set deadlines and things happen by those deadlines or not. The chairman who has not got the enthusiasm and/or the commitment ends up being ineffective and that is the experience worldwide. It is certainly the experience of the U.K., in Scotland, in Wales, in the Parliament  itself. Talk to anybody about what makes effective Scrutiny and they will say the commitment of the chairman, and that is the key thing, and the members.

[10:15]

At the moment, members are feeling that what is the point? It is a moment of existential angst in Scrutiny. Everybody is walking around, including officers, saying: "What is the point? We do all this work, we gather the evidence, we sift it professionally and to the best of our abilities. We present our findings, we have recommendations and what happens? By and large, they get ignored." That is where the breakdown is and that is where the lack of enthusiasm is coming from because people are saying: "What is the point?" I hope I can bring some point to the activities of Scrutiny in the next 8 months. We will do that, I hope, by having more focused, better-focused meetings. This general "to act as co-ordinating body" is very vague. It says talk to the Council of Ministers. Make sure you know their plans and that they know your plans. That is a talking shop. When we go and talk to the Council of Ministers, why are we not taking one of the overarching themes which applies to more than one Scrutiny Panel, for example like promoting equality on the Island - that is one of mine - and discussing with the Council of Ministers out of their silos what effectively is happening across the whole of Government? Why are we not doing that? Why not focus on an issue, and this is something I always say with my panel. I do not have cosy tea parties with my panel. Neither should the Chairmen's Committee be having cosy tea parties where you just sit round for an hour and a half and we go away and nothing has really been decided. Nobody has said who is doing what and by when, what action are we taking in order to achieve something. that is not happening. Now I have sat on the Chairmen's Committee for a long time, it seems for ever. It does seem an awful long time and I have seen various abilities brought to the job and, to be honest, I do not want to sit back on a Chairmen's Committee led by the Senator because she has had 3 years of that and, to be honest, it was not that successful. We are down to lunchtime meetings that are done in an hour and a half, 2 hours. They are much more effective than they were. We used to have all morning sessions and without well, okay, telling tales out of school, the person who moved the committee on who said: "Is it not time we came to a decision who is doing what and by when? What are we going to do about this?" The person who did that prompt most often when we had half an hour of wandering around the issues and the hills was me. Now I do not want to have to do that again. I would rather be leading from the front and focusing more effectively the work of Scrutiny and trying to ensure that officers and members alike regain the enthusiasm, regain the vision and the commitment that made us decide to do Scrutiny in the first

place. That is my aim.

The Bailiff :

Very well. So then we have our 20 minutes of questions.

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

My question is about consistency. In resigning the previous president has sought to make considerable play out of alleged conflict of interest in criticising another chairman yet, from my own observations filling in for my chairman on the panel, appears oblivious to his own conflict in pushing to review public sector pensions despite his awfully much pronounced and flawed views on the subject. How would the candidate guard against these inconsistencies in taking the Chairmen's Committee forward?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

The Deputy focuses quite rightly on the fundamental decision within Scrutiny to remain objective. It is not a political position. I go back to a position that I have taken for a long time, which is that it is perfectly possible for everyone to walk into a Scrutiny meeting, take off their political hat and their political hobbyhorses, put on the Scrutiny hat, be objective, sift the evidence and do your best with that evidence to come to conclusions that are reasoned and logical and are supported by the evidence. The last question I always ask with my Scrutiny Panel - and I do it with any actions that we took as Chairmen's Committee - is is this position backed up by the evidence wherever possible? If it is not, then we change it and we work at it until we get a form of words that we can agree and we go forward with it. We have a serious danger of a major split at the moment on the Chairmen's Committee and in Scrutiny. I will work hard to make sure that we get consensus again and agree a way forward.

2. Deputy M. Tadier :

Which of the candidates does the Deputy think that the Ministers and Assistant Ministers will vote for? Should non-Scrutiny members be able to vote for Scrutiny members and would the result be different if Scrutiny solely were to select their own chairman of the Chairmen's Committee?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I have absolutely no idea how the minds of Ministers work, so I could not possibly second-guess which way they might vote in this particular case and I will not be drawn on it. However, the second half of your question?

Deputy M. Tadier :

Should Scrutiny members only be the ones voting on this and not the Executive? Deputy G.P. Southern :

In principle and since we had the first elections, I am in favour of Ministers not being able to vote for Scrutiny chairmen or Scrutiny positions because it is like picking your own team and that should not be allowed to happen, not that anybody would do that because we are all honourable men and women, but the opportunity to do so should not be presented.

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

The candidate said it is like picking your own team but I think what he meant was it is like picking your own opposition, which is worse. [Laughter] Would the candidate please address some response to this concern of mine? This morning, it was quite apparent, or at least it seemed apparent, that there was no preparation and no co-ordination from the chairs of Scrutiny in preparing for this election this morning. Is it now possibly time because these bodies need to be co- ordinated in an independent and impartial way that perhaps the chairman of this role could be considered from among general Scrutiny membership rather than just the chairs?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I thank the Deputy for the correction. He was right, that is what I meant to say, picking your own opposition, and it is a thought that the constitution of the Chairmen's Committee could be reviewed in such a manner as to get another body on there. I see no reason why not in principle and if that produces a bit of independence that would be good. However, it is not first on my agenda and I do not think that in and of itself would make a significant difference. What I have found in the past is that there has been too much emphasis on P.A.C. issues rather than on Scrutiny issues, and I think that has diverted the co-ordinating role somewhat and that needs looking at.

4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

How would the candidate ensure that the impact of Scrutiny reports is much more effective? Deputy G.P. Southern :

He will take the latest prompt sheet that applies to Scrutiny Panels as to how to maximise your media coverage and your impact in the big world out there and apply it to the Chairmen's Committee. Wherever we make a decision, then we should be looking at that template and say how do we maximise the impact of this decision in terms of the consciousness of the people and voters out there to say that we are doing something and it is effective.

5. The Deputy of St. Mary :

The speaker has talked about members on Scrutiny feeling what is the point and he has also spoken about the meetings with the Council of Ministers. A Scrutiny Panel has just done a report which demonstrates that a proposition has been brought to the States by a Minister with no meaningful research, no aims and objectives, no evidence having been considered, no stakeholders identified and the consultation itself was flawed both in execution and in presentation and yet the Minister still brings it to the States. I just wonder what the candidate would do in his position as chairman of the Chairmen's Committee.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I do not think there is a role for action on the part of the Chairmen's Committee there apart from to support the panel that brought the damning, I presume, assessment of the absence of research. I am totally unsurprised that material arrives from the Council of Ministers in this Chamber apparently under-researched and ill thought through. It happens time and time again. What I would like to see, and I think Scrutiny has an effective role in promoting this, is that where we have a so-called consultation, we do not have a flawed consultation where some of the results are already dismissed, where the questions sometimes are leading and there should be a role for, I think, the committee and certainly Scrutiny in tightening up the way in which Ministers conduct their consultation to make sure that it is effective and a good open consultation rather than one that is damaged.

6. Senator A. Breckon:

Could I ask Deputy Southern to comment on the present working relationship with the Council of Ministers and what he thinks could be done to improve it between that and the Chairmen's Committee?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I think the working relationships have got better. That is faint praise. I have been involved as long as anybody in this Chamber with Scrutiny but it seems to me that initially officers and Ministers seemed to want to keep everything secret. They would not give us the papers so we could do a halfway decent piece of work on an issue unless we knew exactly what we were going for. It was very hard to get hold of the material in the first place. That seems to have got better. However, the fact is that, by and large, the recommendations of Scrutiny are often ignored unless they are fairly small and inconsequential, in which case they are accepted, or unless they absolutely agree with the Minister, in which case they are welcomed with open arms. There is much to be done on that and the way in which the committee and panels themselves bring those issues to the States with their recommendation and whether their evidence needs to be fortified, to be strengthened and that way we can get better relations. We have now faced the issue that apparently has brought about the resignation where a Minister is saying: "Not only will we maybe not give you the papers and not only will we ignore your results but we will call foul whenever we feel like it and try and stop you going to an area where you feel you need to go." That is what is happening here, and I think we have to stand up to those sorts of tactics very firmly and say: "No, Scrutiny decides the way it goes. Scrutiny decides on the possibility of the perception of a conflict of interest and we will back our people to act professionally in a proper manner to investigate the evidence in an issue where they might already have some experience." That is not a conflict of interest. That is saying: "Maybe I know where the skeletons are. Let us go there."

7. The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

I think my question follows on from the answer the candidate has just given, and my question is what are the candidate's views on whether there is indeed a conflict with the chair of the Airport Review?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

As ever, the Constable asks a succinct and accurate and hard question. She does it time and time again. My views are that there is no conflict of interest. There may be a perception of a conflict of interest and it is up to us on that panel if we decide to go and investigate matters at the airport to do a thorough job, one that stands up to be double clean and doubly-effective because it has been so rigorous that our conclusions stand out a mile. So it has got to be the best Scrutiny report we have ever produced and the cleanest one we have ever produced in order to make sure that the people going around saying: "Oh a conflict of interest" there is no conflict of interest. If you look at the terms of reference, they are completely separate from any role associated with the air display and they are clearly defined and specific areas that I certainly am willing to help the chairman investigate in a thorough and efficient manner.

[10:30]

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

There was a Code of Practice Review Group set up that made a number of findings and recommendations to the Chairmen's Committee. What are the candidate's views of these and does he not agree that the fundamental problem at present is in fact the very Members in this Assembly and follow-up of reports for Scrutiny?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Yes, I have read the report. I do not agree with all of it. However, the second point that the Deputy made on follow-up is an essential one. It is something that Scrutiny is weak in and needs to be given a nudge from time to time or a strong nudge, something stronger than a nudge - imagine something stronger than a nudge - that is what it needs, a kick up the B.T.M. to make sure that we do follow up because after the 6-week period and then it is nominally then another 3 months, 6 months. Do we ever go back? Very rarely. It is something that is a failing I think almost everywhere in Government but certainly one that needs urgent attention in Scrutiny to make sure that we do follow up and say: "What has happened?" because I think the answer often will be: "Nothing." Reports are just sitting on the shelf again as used to happen in the bad old days of committees.

9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

In addition to the issue of conflict of interest, the previous president cited a number of reasons for his resignation, including the Ministerial government not being fit for purpose, Ministerial government being responsible for the global downturn, Guernsey's economic performance being better than Jersey, the Troy Rule and the Public Accounts Committee's report P.4. Does the candidate agree with any of these criticisms? Does he think they are fair and if he does, will he use his position if elected to deal with any of them?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

When I first read the letter of resignation, I could not believe what I was reading. It seemed to be a condemnation of everything that is wrong with the world and then it came to the conflict issue. On reflection, I do agree with him on many issues. However, I do not think they are resignation issues, any one of them, and I thank the Minister for Treasury and Resources, and I come back to the answer that I started with earlier on. What is wrong with Scrutiny is the same as what is wrong with Ministerial government. We took half of Clothier. We are trying to build half a machine. It is not going to work. We have to take the second half of Clothier eventually in order to get it right because until we do we will not get it right. We can try and get it right and certainly in terms of focusing the activities of Scrutiny and of the Committee, in particular, that is what I will be doing.

10. The Deputy of St. John :

If elected, will the candidate be able to work with fellow chairmen, with the Council of Ministers and if so, would he envisage working with P.P.C. in putting in place a stronger Scrutiny system and all that would go with that with a view to moving forward to a Westminster-type system of a select committee in the future?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I think the Deputy has perhaps already heard me say that I would review the issue of the involvement of Assistant Ministers in terms of trying to build a more solid base for Scrutiny, so in answer to his going towards a select committee system, that looks like a yes. It certainly requires review. In terms of working with Ministers, I will continue the way I have done. It is a challenging process. Scrutiny is about holding Ministers to account. It is not about cosy tea parties, tea and buns around the fire. It is about focused issues and that is what we should be doing whenever we meet. When we meet with the Council of Ministers, there should be a proper agenda and a proper focus to what are we doing with the next hour and a half rather than just meeting each other and making sure we know where we are. That is one issue but that can be done in writing. If we want to meet with somebody, it has got to be a working meeting that is about issues, best of all a single issue, and you thrash something out and something results at the end of it. So that is the way I would proceed and that is the way professionally we should be behaving.

11. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade :

I think the important thing is that we will remember that we are here as representatives. The answer that the candidate gave a little while ago as to who should be able to vote for Scrutiny members appears to me that that would be disenfranchising those electorates whose representatives are not on Scrutiny. Could the candidate please expand on his view?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I do not know what type of voters the Deputy has been talking to out there but I have yet to meet a voter who said all Ministers must be able to vote for their Scrutiny chairman that holds them to account. They must be allowed to vote for the opposition otherwise I am disenfranchised, and I care who does what inside the Chamber. The fact is that apart from the policies that they adhere to, no voter out there cares what we do in the internal machinations of who gets what. That is politics with a small "p". It is politics with a big "P" that voters are interested in, and that is about delivering effective policy in the interests of all people on the Island and not in the interests of a few.

12. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

Given that the candidate was a successful and hardworking chairman of the former Economic Development Scrutiny Panel, it was noted that some of the reports inferred personality clashes with the Executive at the time. I would ask the Deputy to indicate whether or not he would continue with this style if elected chairman.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I do not accept the premise of that question at all. Inferred personality clashes? Nonsense. I worked highly effectively with the Minister for Treasury and Resources over the Telecom sale and eventually he came round to the view we were holding out because the evidence was there in front of him, that he should not be going that way and he gracefully did not acknowledge what we had done but backed-off anyway.

The Connétable of St. Saviour :

Thank you but the question has already been asked.

13. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter :

Does the candidate believe that Scrutiny as a whole is weakened in the public eye where perceived conflicts of interest are not resolved in a transparent and open way?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Absolutely and the way to resolve them is through a thorough, sound and solid report based on evidence, based on the work of those who are supposed and we are on a small Island. Come on, look round the room. How many conflicts of interest have we got in the room? I bet everyone can think of a conflict of interest for every one Member in the States. If we go down the route of conflict of interest brought up by a Minister to object to a particular investigation, then that is the way of damnation because nobody in this room will be able to act, especially in areas where they have already got some expertise.

The Deputy of St. Peter :

In the candidate's answer to Deputy Jeune

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, Deputy , you have been beaten by the bell.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

May I say that is the longest 20 minutes I have ever been through in my entire life. [Laughter] The Bailiff :

Very well. Then could Senator Ferguson be invited back to the Assembly? Very well. Well I will invite the Usher and the Deputy Viscount to distribute ballot papers and they are blank and therefore Members should write on them the name of their preferred candidate.

Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John :

I wonder if I could ask, is this a first past the post vote or are we doing the alternative vote? [Laughter]

The Bailiff :

I think with only 2, whichever system you have, Connétable . [Laughter] Very well. So I invite the Usher and Deputy Viscount to collect the ballot papers please. Very well. Have all Members had an opportunity of filling in their ballot papers? Then I will ask the Attorney General and Deputy Viscount to act as scrutineers.

3. Appointment of the President of the Chairmen's Committee: result of election The Bailiff :

Very well. We will move on to the next question but before that, I can announce the result of the election for the President of the Chairmen's Committee. The votes cast were as follows: Senator Ferguson 27 votes, Deputy Southern 20 votes and there was one spoilt paper. So I declare that Senator Ferguson is the president of the Chairmen's Committee. We come to the next matter which is the nomination of a member of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel. Senator Ferguson?

2. Nomination of Senator J.L. Perchard as a member of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel

2.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I am very pleased to be able to nominate Senator James Perchard to join the panel. The Bailiff :

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations for the position of a member of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel? Very well, then I declare that Senator Perchard is elected as a member of that panel. [Approbation] There are no matters under G or H so we come to Questions.

QUESTIONS

3. Written Questions

1. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING HOSPITAL WAITING LISTS:

Question

Could the Minister tell members what the hospital's policy is on waiting lists? What are the waiting times in the most accessed disciplines compared with comparator health authorities/hospitals in the UK and what have been the trends over the last ten years?

Answer

HSSD's waiting list policy is a comprehensive document (12 pages) covering a variety of issues and circumstances relating to waiting list management[1].

HSSD's current waiting list targets are:

• 3 months for an out-patients appointment from the date the referral is received to the appointment
• 3 months for elective operations from the date the patient is added to the surgery waiting list to the day of the operation.

These targets do apply to all services except for emergency admissions or urgent patients, such as those with cancer, who are always prioritised.

At the end of 2010, across all services, 80% of outpatients' appointments and 79% of elective operations were within target. This performance against target has remained relatively static to date during 2011 (1st March 2011 - elective and outpatients waiting lists both at 79%).

HSSD does not hold the data to provide meaningful 10 year trend information. Detailed service-by- service information relating to fluctuations against target can be provided a longer time frame will be required. Specialities with the longest wait include:

Elective in-patient waits over 3 months target

Specialities with the longest waits include:

• orthopaedics - a new consultant is taking up post in April

• oral surgery - an action plan has been developed and the lead consultant will carry out some additional operating lists
• ophthalmology - the appointment of a temporary middle-grade doctor is supporting reductions in waiting times (new funding for this service will be available from 2012)

Out-patients waits over 3 months target

Specialities with the longest waits include:

• diabetic services - Diabetes Jersey are funding an additional specialist nurse to help bring down waiting times
• bariatric services - HSSD is currently developing plans to tender for new UK service to provide bariatric surgery (current contract price is not competitive)
• ophthalmology – the length of patients waits is increasing in the ophthalmology service. A new middle-grade doctors has been appointed to help reduce waits. A full business case is being developed in order to help meet increased demands for this service which are driven by an ageing population.

It is important to note that the elective surgical waiting lists are directly affected by activity in out- patients services. An increase in throughput of out-patients results in increased work load and potentially increase waiting in elective surgery.

HSSD targets are different to UK targets (18 weeks from the date the referral is written to treatment) and the two jurisdictions are not directly comparable in part due to the very significant financial investment in the UK aimed specifically at reducing waiting times.

2. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING TREATMENT FOR OBESITY:

Question

Can the Minister tell members what the Health Service's current policy is with regard to the treatment of obesity and other health problems to which obesity is a contributory factor, and to the prevention of obesity? Can the Minister tell members of any cost benefit analysis which has been done into the costs and the benefits, financial and non-financial, of prevention rather than cure? What is the trend  in obesity-related treatments  over the last 5 years, and what are the latest estimates of the scale of the potential costs involved both now and in the future?

Answer

The increasing prevalence of obesity amongst adults and children is a major public health challenge in Jersey and other jurisdictions. Being overweight or obese increases the risk of developing a range of other health problems such as coronary heart disease (CHD), type 2 diabetes, some cancers, stroke and reduce life expectancy.

The consequences of obesity are not limited to the direct impact on health. Being overweight or obese has adverse social consequences for the individual (eg. discrimination, social exclusion and loss of or lower earnings) and for the wider economy (eg. working days lost and increased benefit payments).

HSSD approach is therefore twofold:

1. Prevention of obesity

Focus on intervening early during childhood.

• Rolling out the Healthy Schools Programme
• Ensuring healthy food and exercise is part of the curriculum
• Establishing Healthy Food Standards for Secondary School Canteens
• Monitoring child weight as part of school entry health check
• Health walks

In addition approaches which are focused on adults include

• Supporting the delivery of the Exercise Referral Scheme
• Piloting weight watcher on referral scheme
• Advocating for a physical environment that promotes active travel (cycling and walking)

2. Treatment and support

Specific services offered by HSSD relating to the treatment of obesity include:

• Patients with obesity problems may also be referred to the dietetic services by our consultants if they have associated health conditions.
• Bariatric surgery - GP's refer to service which takes a multidisciplinary approach

including weight loss advice and monitoring psychological assessment prior to referral to the UK for surgery, if deemed appropriate

Increase in obesity and associated costs

Jersey has a growing obesity problem. The Jersey Annual Social Survey 2010 (JASS 2010) suggests about 19% of men 17% of women are now obese (Body Mass Index [BMI] of 30 or more). This is an increase on 2008 when 11% of men and 12% of women were obese. The 2010 survey also suggests that 1-2% of adult islanders (over 1,000 people) have a BMI of 40 or more. The lifespan of an obese person is up to 8-10 years shorter (for a BMI of 40-45) then a person of normal weight. This is similar to the reduced life expectancy observed in smokers[2].

JASS 2010 also suggests that around one in five women and one in ten men have a waist size at levels associated with a very high risk of cardio-vascular disease.

This increase will inevitably result in rising health care costs and rising numbers of patients seeking treatment for obesity and associated chronic conditions. For example, HSSD's Diabetes Centre has seen significant increases in caseload over recent years and it is expected that by 2016 it will be providing services to 7,500 patients (8% of population) compared to 500 in 1990.

Cost benefit analysis

Research evidence indicates the financial costs associated with obesity and it treatment, examples of which are detailed below. It is important to note that some of the evidence in this area is contradictory and open to dispute.

• Cost of obesity: The National Obesity Observatory has estimated the direct and

indirect costs of obesity in the UK, as detailed below[3]:

Estimated costs 1998 (£ millions)  2002 (£ millions) Treating obesity  9.4  45.8 – 49.0c Treating consequences of obesity 469.9  945 – 1,075 Total direct costs 479.3  990.8 – 1,124

Lost earnings due to premature mortality 827.8  1,050 – 1,150 Lost earnings due to attributable sickness 1,321.7  1,300 – 1,450 Total indirect costs  2,149.5  2,350 – 2,600 Total economic cost of obesity 2,628.9  3,340 – 3,724

Extrapolating these costs into the Jersey context, obesity and its consequences in 2002 would have cost around £1.5million in direct costs and about £4million in indirect costs. Costs that would have increased significantly in the intervening years.

• Cost of prevention: logic dictates that prevention is better that cure, both financially

and socially. It is important to recognise that whilst investment in prevention will bring financial benefits there is no evidence to support the notion that preventing obesity will mitigate or even reverse the trend of increasing expenditure. This is because technological progress puts constant pressure on health budgets so improvements in public health can, at best, only diminish the rate of increase in health spending.

Costs of surgery: Bariatric surgery and associated aftercare is costly however there is some research evidence that suggests that there are financial saving to be made through upfront investment in bariatric surgery. This is because the costs of surgery can, in some cases, be less that the costs of care for morbidly obese patients who have not undergone surgery4. Investment in bariatric surgery

does however need to be prioritised against spending in other services.

HSSD future provision

As part of the KPMG Strategic Roadmap' work, a significant amount of energy is being spent on modelling the likely impact of future local population changes and health care need. This modelling work is informed by the ageing demographic and other significant trends such as increasing overweight and obesity.

This work will underpin a strategy for future health service delivery in the Island, alongside the strong imperative to invest in prevention and early intervention across a range of health issues. A Green Paper outlining the options is currently in development.

1 Crémieux PY, Buchwald H, Shikora SA, et al. A study on the economic impact of bariatric surgery. Am J Manag Care. 2008;14(9):589-96.

3. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE COST OF A G.P. CONSULTATION: Question

Does the Minister accept the findings contained in Chapter 20 of SR.3/2011 Review of Benefit Levels' that the cost of a GP consultation is such that it stops some people, especially those on low incomes, from seeing their GP?

Does she further consider that this presents a significant barrier to the implementation of her primary care strategy which emphasises preventative medicine?

What measures, if any, have been put in place to alleviate this problem since it was first reported in Jersey Annual Social Survey 2009, and if none, why?

What steps does the Minister, in conjunction with her colleagues, have under consideration to address this issue, and when will she bring any proposals to the States?

Answer

The Minister notes that the findings of the SR.3/2011 and recognises that the cost of a GP visit reportedly acts as a deterrent for some Islanders, at all income levels.

For those eligible for Income Support (IS) system support, there is provision for some GP visits and additional support is available for those individuals and families whose health is such that they require additional GP visits.

This benefit provision is designed to protect individuals who qualify for IS from the full impact of the costs of GP care and does therefore help families access primary care when they need to. The Minister acknowledges however that prioritising the costs of these visits may nevertheless present a problem in some cases.

The Jersey Annual Social Survey (JASS) 2009 survey does suggest the cost of GP services might contribute to reluctance to access preventative healthcare with people reportedly only visiting the GP "when I have to". It is a matter of public health concern that about half the people in Jersey who pay for GP care may not prioritise spending on preventative healthcare, such as routine monitoring of chronic conditions e.g. high blood pressure and heart conditions.

In May 2010, the Minister for Social Security's Proposition 36 – adopted unanimously by the States Assembly – lay the foundations for reform of primary care, drawing on the Health Insurance Fund to invest in practice infrastructure in return for commitment from the Jersey Primary Care Body to local regulation and delivery of a quality contract from 2012. Once the new quality contract is in place a proportion of GPs' overall remuneration will be dependent on them delivering optimum regular care of their patients, as opposed to their current dependence on the level patient activity (i.e. the numbers of patients they see). It will therefore be in the GPs' interests to reduce cost barriers to patients receiving this care. The effect of this is already being seen with more practice nurses being deployed as part of primary care teams.

In addition, the Strategic Roadmap' work which is currently underway will make further recommendations for building on the foundations firmly laid in P.36, towards a future safe, sustainable and affordable health care system in Jersey.

4. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE OVERLAP BETWEEN INCOME SUPPORT AND INCOME TAX THRESHOLDS:

Question

Does the Minister accept that the overlap between Income Support and Income Tax thresholds is a significant inefficiency which must be addressed and, if so, when will he bring measures to the States to do so?

Answer

The Minister has noted the findings and recommendations on this matter in the recent Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny report and will be reviewing those with the Minister for Social Security. A fuller response will be provided to that Scrutiny Panel within six weeks in accordance with the Code of Practice for Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committee.

5. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING SOCIAL RENTAL HOUSING:

Question

Does the Minister accept Key Finding 13 and Recommendation 11 of SR.3/2011 Review of Benefit Levels' that the funding for the provision of social rented accommodation must be separated from the provision of Income Support benefits and, if so, when will he bring a proposal to deal with this to the Assembly?

Does he further accept that the quantity of States social rented accommodation is insufficient to meet the Island's needs, and, if so, what measures, if any, does he intend to pursue to resolve this problem and in what timescale?

Answer

I will be making a formal comment on SR.3/2011 in due course. A review of the relationship between the Housing Component of Income Support and social housing rents is currently underway. The findings will form part of the White Paper which will be lodged this year and is part of the wider Housing Transformation Project. I have formed a Political Steering Group to assist me with this work. The Minister for Social Security, Deputy Gorst , is a member of that Group.

I agree that we need more social and affordable housing. I am also of the view that we need to make better use of the social housing that we presently have. The Affordable Housing Gateway being developed as an element of the Regulatory work stream of the Housing Transformation Programme will address how we use the stock to benefit those in the greatest housing need, details about how it will operate and the benefits it will deliver will be set out in the aforementioned White Paper.

6. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING COMPANY TAX REVENUES:

Question

Given that in his response to written question 6121 on 1st March 2011 the Minister stated that it was "not possible to give firm figures" for company tax revenues for the years of assessment 2010 and 2011, will the Minister inform members of the latest estimates for these figures contained in his department's projections for budgetary purposes?

Answer

The estimated company tax revenues which are published in the Budget book summary table B remain the same. No further information is available at this time. The explanation for this position remains the same as in the answer to Part 1 of the Deputy 's written question 6121, which was actually asked on 15th March 2011.

7. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PAY AND CONDITIONS OFFERED TO NURSES:

Question

Will the Chief Minister inform members why the pay and conditions offer under discussion with nurses representatives is limited to Grades 5 and above when retention rates for grades lower down the scale NM1 and NM3 are almost as high as that for NM5 (15%)?

Will he further explain why no offer is under discussion for Grade 3 nurses (Staff Nurse) when the differential in pay at this grade (including housing costs) is greater that that for Grades 5 and 6?

Answer

The main point to emphasise in responding to this question is that the current review of nurses' and midwives' pay is not a general pay review: that takes effect from January each year and nurses and midwives received a 2% general pay award on 1 January 2011. Rather the current review concerns recruitment and retention problems being experienced with the registered workforce within this pay group.

Income Data Services (IDS) do not propose an increase in pay for Grades 1 and 2, where Health Care Assistants (HCAs) are placed, because we do not have a recruitment problem in these grades.

For example, a recent advert for Grade 1 and 2 HCAs attracted 150 applicants for 5 FTE posts. Although HCA turnover is high, this is not an unusual phenomenon as this part of the non registered workforce are often older females who are part time and more likely to be second income generators within households.

Some younger Grade 1 or 2's use the role before they move on to undertake professional health and or social care careers as Health and Social Services is often able to move them into Grade 1 and 2 vacancies as a result of partnership work with other departments, for example Social Security and ESC.

Further, we have experienced no difficulties in recruitment to Grade 3 posts which are newly qualified registered nurses and in general the posts are filled by locally trained people.

The recruitment problem in particular is experienced at Grades 4 and above and this is where IDS have concentrated their attention in their recommendations.

I should add that at this stage no final decisions have been made on the IDS recommendations.

4. Oral Questions The Bailiff :

So we come then to Oral Questions and first of all a question deferred from last time which Deputy Le Claire will ask of the Minister for Treasury and Resources.

[10:45]

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the introduction of a first-time buyers loan scheme for those earning under £60,000:

Will the Minister consider introducing a scheme in Jersey similar to that recently announced in the United Kingdom whereby interest free loans will be available to first-time buyers earning under £60,000 looking to buy a property to help them get a foothold on the housing ladder and if not, why?

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

This is an important question as I believe that affordable homes is a vital policy which the Council of Ministers needs to have. Providing affordable homes is of course also a key element in the Draft Island Plan, which is scheduled for debate in the Assembly in June. This document has gone through a lengthy and extremely thorough consultation process. Any proposals relating to the provision of affordable homes, whether it be social housing or in the form of low cost home

ownership, should be considered in the context of that plan. The approach to affordable housing has to take account of many elements, not just the cost of a mortgage. Supply and demand, access to financing, the economic environment and the costs to the individual and taxpayer all need to be considered. I can tell the Deputy that I am looking at the scheme that was announced in the U.K. budget. Members will also be aware that we have been trialling the shared equity scheme for first- time buyers - Jersey Homebuy - and I am currently awaiting the P.A.C. report on that. Following the debate on the Island Plan and the report by the P.A.C., with Ministerial colleagues I will be pleased to consider proposals to help meet the need for access to more affordable housing in Jersey, including looking at the U.K. scheme.

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Is the Minister aware that the predecessor to this particular scheme under the Tory Government there was a scheme which was very similar which was brought in by Labour and was folded as unsuccessful initiative and was not working?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

A number of policies have been brought forward by successive governments in the United Kingdom, and indeed others about getting first-time buyers on to the housing market. The scheme announced by the Chancellor in the U.K. if it was translated locally would effectively help 15 first- time buyers and the public subsidy or the capital made available for it would be in the region of £365,000. Those are my calculations. So it is a relatively small scheme and I have to say that Chancellors and Finance Ministers do make big announcements in budgets in order to position themselves and that scheme in the U.K., I am not sure whether directly it would deliver much, but I am prepared to look at the issue.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Supplementary, if I may. Does the Minister accept that the essential need in Jersey is for the supply of States-owned rental housing?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Most certainly not. I have always  believed that there should be supply in all sectors of the accommodation market in Jersey: Category B, Category A, first-time buyers. With Senator Cohen I have shared a long view about the importance of shared equity and I have also worked very effectively with the previous Ministers for Housing  in relation to the availability of low-cost purchase housing. It is not just about social rented. It is about giving people also the opportunity of owning their homes.