States Meeting Transcript - 09/06/2011

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT THURSDAY, 9th JUNE 2011

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

1. Draft Architects (Registration) (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.62/2011)....4

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):....................4

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................5
2. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ..............................................5
3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.................................................................5 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville (Chairman, Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):...............7

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.................................................................7

2. Draft Social Security (Amendment No. 20) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.64/2011).............9

1. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement (The Minister for Social Security):.....................9

1. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................10
2. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................10 Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence (Vice-Chairman, Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel):...............................................................10

2. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................10
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................12

3. Draft Social Security (Amendment No. 20) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.64/2011) - amendment (P.64/2011 Amd.)...........................................................13

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................13
2. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................14
3. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................15
4. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................15
5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................16
6. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.................................................17
7. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................18
8. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................18

9. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................18
10. The Connétable of St. Saviour:......................................................19
11. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:.................................................19
12. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................19
13. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................20 Mr. H. Sharp, H.M. Solicitor General: ........................................................22

4. Draft Social Security (Amendment No. 20) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.64/2011) - as amended..................................................................................23

2.4.1 Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................24

3. Draft Food Costs Bonus (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.65/2011)........................25 Deputy I.J. Gorst : ............................................................................26

4. Draft Employment (Amendment No. 7) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.66/2011):..............27 4.1 Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................27 The Connétable of St. Mary (Vice-Chairman, Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel):..................................................................................29

5. Draft Repatriation of Prisoners (Jersey) Law 201- (P.67/2011)........................31

1. Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): ...........................32

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................35
2. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................36
3. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:.........................................................37
4. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................37
5. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ........................................................37
6. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................38
7. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................38
8. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................38
9. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................39
10. The Connétable of St. Saviour:......................................................39
11. Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement:..................................................39
12. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................39
13. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................40
14. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ..................................................41
15. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:.......................................................41
16. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................41
17. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..........................................................43

2. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................51 The Deputy of St. John:......................................................................53 The Solicitor General:........................................................................53

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................55

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................55

6. Draft Sex Offenders (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.68/2011)....................55

1. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................56

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................56
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................57
3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................58 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (Chairman, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):.........59

2. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................60

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................61
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................61
3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................62

3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................62
4. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................63
5. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................63

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................63
2. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................63
3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................63

7. Standing Orders: publication of Register of Members' Interests (P.67/2011).........65

7.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................66

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................68
2. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................69
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................69

4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................70
5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................70

6. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................71
7. The Connétable of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):.......71
8. Deputy I.J. Gorst :......................................................................71
9. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................72
10. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier : .......................................................72
11. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................73
12. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................73
13. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................75 Deputy T.M.Pitman:.........................................................................75
14. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................76 The Solicitor General:........................................................................77
15. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................77 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................77 The Solicitor General:........................................................................77
16. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................77
17. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary : ..............................................78
18. The Connétable of St. Saviour:......................................................78
19. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................79 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................81 Deputy I.J. Gorst : ............................................................................81 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................81 Senator A.H. Maclean:........................................................................81 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................81 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................82 Deputy M.R.Higgins:........................................................................82 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:....................................................................82

8. Grant aided Schools: grants (P.72/2011)................................................84

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................86

2. Grant aided Schools: grants (P.72/2011) - amendment (P.72/2011 Amd.).............90

1. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................90
2. Deputy A.T. Dupre:....................................................................91
3. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................92
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................92
5. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................93
6. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................93
7. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................94
8. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................94
9. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................94
10. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................95
11. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................97
12. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................98
13. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................99

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

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Draft Architects (Registration) (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.62/2011) The Deputy Bailiff :

We now come on the agenda to P.62 the Draft Architects (Registration) (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 201- and I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Architects (Registration) (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 201-. A law to amend further the Architects (Registration) (Jersey) Law 1954. The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following Law.

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

The Architects (Registration) (Jersey) Law 1954 is the primary legislation which determines the ability of individuals to be registered as architects in Jersey. Under the law, having gained all the relevant qualifications and training, architects can make an application to the Royal Court to join the register, which is maintained by the Judicial Greffier, to use the name, style or title "architect". The 1954 law makes it an offence for a person to carry on a business in Jersey using the name or title "architect" unless they are indeed registered. Designated penalties are identified for unlawfully using the title if convicted. Turning now to the specific reasons for bringing forward this amendment, when the Architects (Registration) (Jersey) Law 1954 was passed by the States, Article 1 carried definitions associated with the U.K. (United Kingdom) Architects (Registration) Act 1931. There is close alignment between the 2 pieces of legislation, the U.K. and the Jersey, establishing case principles which would allow the Royal Court and the Attorney General in Jersey to draw upon U.K. case law. Approximately a year ago it was discovered that the processes for the registration of architects in Jersey were deficient. That is because the Architects (Registration) (Jersey) Law 1954 provides that a person may be registered in Jersey if, and only if, the person is also registered under the Architects (Registration) Act 1931 in the U.K. Unfortunately, the 1931 U.K. Act was repealed in 1997 and replaced by the Architects Act 1997. As a consequence, since 1997 there has been no lawful mechanism for registering architects in Jersey. Therefore, some architects have been registered since the 1931 Act was repealed in 1997, a situation that was only identified in 2010. In practical terms this has the effect that either their registration needs to be validated or they need to be re-registered. When this came to light in 2010 an embargo on any new registrations was put in place on all those wishing to register as an architect in Jersey. In summary, the amendment sets out to achieve alignment between the Jersey Law and the U.K. Architects Act 1997. If approved it will move the criteria for registration in Jersey from the face of the law to in future being prescribed by order of the Minister. It allows architects to once again register in Jersey and through a validation process lawfully register those admitted erroneously to the Jersey register since 1997 when the U.K. repealed their 1931 law. It updates the penalties for offences under that law. In addition a number of smaller issues have also been addressed. It will enable a person's name to be removed from the registered list, either at their request or indeed upon their death. It will require an architect to tell the Judicial Greffier if they change name or address or if their U.K. registration is for any reason cancelled. We believe this amendment deals with all outstanding issues and puts in place a new modern regime that will allow the Attorney General and Judicial Greffier to once again lawfully register architects to practise in Jersey. I should add that the Jersey Architects Association is also supportive. The current position is clearly unacceptable and is now acting as a barrier to professional registration and the ability to legally carry on a trade as an

architect in Jersey. I therefore ask Members to support this amendment. I propose the amendment. The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak?

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

Is  it  the  intention  of  the  Minister  to  introduce  a  category  called  "internationally-renowned architect"? [Laughter]

2. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour :

This does appear to sort out the problems that exist. Is there any charge for this registration? The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? I call on the Minister to reply.

3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I am sure Deputy Le Hérissier appreciates that we already have quite a number of internationally- renowned architects practising in Jersey. I think he would be the first to agree that the standard of architecture here is exceptional. [Laughter] The Constable of St. Saviour asked the question about  a  charge.   Yes,  there  is  a  one-off  registration  charge  which  is  £120. I  maintain  the amendment.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The principles are proposed. The appel is called for. I invite Members to return to their seats and ask the Greffier to open the voting.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I would say to the Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel, the Deputy of Grouville , do you wish to scrutinise this legislation?

Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville (Chairman, Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel): No, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, Minister, do you propose the Articles?

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, I am not going to make any further comments. I have made the salient points during my introduction and I would, if I could, like to take the Articles en bloc. [Interruption]

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are the Articles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the Articles?  The appel is called for. I invite Members to return to their seats if they have left them and I will ask the Greffier to open the voting.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Minister, do you move the Bill in Third Reading? Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? Those Members in favour of adopting the Bill in Third Reading kindly show. Those against. The Bill is adopted.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Just before we move on, can I just thank Members for that support? Obviously it is early in the day but I certainly hope that the remainder of the agenda moves as swiftly. [Laughter]

2. Draft Social Security (Amendment No. 20) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.64/2011) The Deputy Bailiff :

We now move to P.64 the Draft Social Security (Amendment No. 20) (Jersey) Law 201- lodged by the Minister for Social Security and I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Social Security (Amendment No. 20) (Jersey) Law 201-. A law to amend further the Social Security (Jersey) Law 1974. The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following Law.

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

I am pleased to propose this legislation, which will give some financial protection to employees whose  employment  ends  due  to  their  employer's  insolvency.   The  draft  legislation  has  been prepared based on my proposals that were set out in a White Paper in December 2009 and were widely supported, as well as the insolvency schemes operating in the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man. Our experience of administering the temporary insolvency scheme since early2009 has been invaluable in preparing what I believe is an efficient system to promptly provide a reasonable proportion of amounts owed. An insolvency benefit has been created within the existing Social Security Law that sets out (1) the conditions that must be met for a person to be entitled to insolvency benefit, (2) the components of benefit which are unpaid wages, holiday pay, statutory notice pay and statutory redundancy pay, (3) the method of calculating that benefit and (4) a mechanism to allow the Minister to seek to recover amounts paid in benefit through insolvency proceedings. Subject to Members supporting this amendment, further preparations to support the administration of this new benefit will be undertaken while the amendment awaits Privy Council approval. I make the amendment.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? Senator Breckon.

1. Senator A. Breckon:

Just a few words. This is very welcome and it looks like the Minister for Social Security is doing some very effective housekeeping. The reason I say that is I remember many years ago the company building Queen's Valley went bankrupt. It was said at the time that the Parish welfare system had to pick up those unfortunately who were owed money and there was a bonus scheme as well. There were all sorts of things that were not paid. The former Constable of St. Helier, Fred Clarke, was very proactive in doing something but there was no framework and other issues were looked at. There were a couple of fairly high profile building contractors and others that went the same way. Nothing could be done on behalf of people and, again, it was left to the Parish welfare system. So, that will give Members hopefully some idea - and it is certainly not this Minister's fault - as to how long it has taken to get this on the statute.

[9:45]

Really, it is sad that that was the case but I do welcome this and, as I say, it is a very effective housekeeping exercise by the Minister. Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? I invite the Minister to reply.

2. Deputy I.J. Gorst :

Yes, Senator Breckon is right, it has been a long time in arriving. I am pleased to see he puts it "to get our housekeeping in order" and I think it is a necessary piece of social provision. Often, unfortunately, in the past committed, loyal employees have been left high and dry, as it were, by decisions of companies which have gone into insolvency and struggled to re-claim amounts owed to them and this should put that straight. I hope that Members will support the principles. There is of course an amendment to an Article but we will come to that in a moment. Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff :

All Members in favour of adopting the principles, kindly show. Those against. The principles are adopted. Is there a member of the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel present in the Assembly? Yes, the Connétable of St. Lawrence .

Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence (Vice-Chairman, Health, Social Security and

Housing Scrutiny Panel):

Yes, Sir, as Vice-Chairman I can confirm that we do not wish to scrutinise it. The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, Minister, do you wish to propose Articles 1 to 4?

Deputy I.J. Gorst :

Yes, well I was wondering if I could move Articles 1 to 26F which is all the Articles prior to the amendment.

The Deputy Bailiff :

That is a slight difficulty because Article 5 is one Article although it contains lots of provisions within it.

2. Deputy I.J. Gorst :

I will take your lead, Sir, and move Articles 1 to 4. Hopefully they are straightforward. Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are those seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on Articles 1 to 4? The appel is called for. I invite Members to return to their seats. The vote is on whether to adopt Articles 1 to 4 of the draft law.

POUR: 42 CONTRE: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 Senator P.F. Routier

Senator T.J. Le Main Senator B.E. Shenton Senator J.L. Perchard Senator A. Breckon

Senator S.C. Ferguson Senator A.J.H. Maclean Senator F.du H. Le Gresley Connétable of St. Ouen Connétable of St. Helier Connétable of Trinity Connétable of St. Martin Connétable of St. John Connétable of St. Saviour Connétable of St. Clement Connétable of St. Peter Connétable of St. Lawrence Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S) Deputy of St. Martin

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S) Deputy J.B. Fox (H)

Deputy of St. Ouen

Deputy of Grouville

Deputy of St. Peter

Deputy J.A. Hilton (H) Deputy of Trinity Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B) Deputy S. Pitman (H) Deputy K.C. Lewis (S) Deputy I.J. Gorst (C) Deputy of St. John Deputy M. Tadier (B) Deputy A.E. Jeune (B) Deputy of St. Mary Deputy T.M. Pitman (H) Deputy A.T. Dupré (C) Deputy E.J. Noel (L) Deputy T.A. Vallois (S) Deputy M.R. Higgins (H) Deputy A.K.F. Green (H) Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H) Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

The Deputy Bailiff :

Do you wish to propose Article 5, Minister? Deputy I.J. Gorst :

Yes, Sir, I will take your lead because obviously this brings into force Articles 26A to 26J. But 26G is the subject of an amendment, so I am assuming you are suggesting I go up to 26F.

The Deputy Bailiff :

No, I am suggesting you move the whole of Article 5 and then we will come on to the amendment.

3. Deputy I.J. Gorst :

I stand corrected, Sir; that is exactly what I do. [Laughter] [Interruption] Indeed, hopefully, if Members have had time to read this I do not need to plough through it; it is fairly straightforward and it outlines details with regard to the scheme, the meaning of "employee". As I have said the components of the benefit: wages, notice pay, redundancy pay, holiday pay, how the benefit is to be calculated, the cap on the amount of benefit that an individual can receive from the fund and any mitigation against those components. Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Minister, I wonder if it would be helpful to Members before we receive the amendment if you would go into some detail on Article 26G so that Members will be aware of the comparison between what you propose and what the proposer of the amendment proposes.

Deputy I.J. Gorst :

Thank you, Sir, I will take your lead on how to deal with this. Yes, quite simply Article 26G suggests that the Social Security Department will deduct social security contributions from payments to individuals. The amendment, which obviously Senator Le Gresley will speak to, is suggesting that we should also deduct income tax payments. My officers liaised with the Income Tax Department and they were of the view that that was not appropriate and therefore that is the proposal I am putting before the Assembly. Obviously Senator Le Gresley will argue a different position and it will be for Members to decide. I obviously remain of the view put forward from the Treasury Department because I see the difficulties that it could include.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I was not asking you to address the amendment but to explain your own position. Thank you. Is Article 5 seconded? [Seconded]

3. Draft Social Security (Amendment No. 20) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.64/2011) - amendment (P.64/2011 Amd.)

The Deputy Bailiff :

We now come to the amendment. The amendment is lodged by Senator Le Gresley and I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Page 18, Article 5. In Article 26G (as to be inserted) - (a) in paragraph (2), delete the word "not"; (b) delete paragraph (3); (c) renumber paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

That must be about the simplest wording of an amendment this House has ever seen, I should think. I would like today, as I am in a good mood, to congratulate the Minister for Social Security for proposing this change to the Social Security Law which will establish the new insolvency benefit. He has my full support as I am fully aware of the hardship caused in the past to employees when their employer becomes bankrupt. In my previous job at Citizens Advice I responded to the White Paper issued by his department and recommended that income tax be deducted from the appropriate components as well as social security contributions. I was therefore disappointed to see in P.64 that the Minister, on the advice of the Tax Office, was not intending to make tax deductions where applicable. I believe if we approve this legislation today without including my amendment, we will be rightly criticised for helping people to avoid paying income tax and also for potentially causing people hardship when at a later date steps are taken to recover tax arrears. Members may not be aware that if a person has arrears of income tax the amount of the arrears is added to the liability when the Tax Office calculate the effective rate for I.T.I.S. (Income Tax Instalment Scheme). For one year of arrears the maximum effective rate is 25 per cent, for 2 years 30 per cent and for 3 or more years 35 per cent. So let us look at the 4 components of insolvency benefit in the order in which they would be paid. Unpaid wages for up to a maximum of 12 months prior to redundancy. All wages are taxable, holiday pay, also taxable, pay in lieu of notice up to a maximum of 12 weeks, again, taxable and, finally, redundancy pay, which is not taxable. Now the Minister for Treasury and Resources in his comments to my amendment says, and I quote: "I.T.I.S. deductions would only be required on certain components of the insolvency benefit, quite possibly the smallest component." Well as Members can appreciate I disagree, as the only component that is not taxable is redundancy pay and only employees with 2 years or more continuous service are entitled to receive one week's pay for every full year of service capped at average earnings. The Minister for Social Security is proposing that the maximum amount of insolvency benefit is to be capped at £10,000. So let us look at a simple example of an employee on £36,000 per annum who has been with the same employer for 4 years. When his employer ceases trading he is owed 2 months' pay. The calculation of the insolvency benefit would be as follows: unpaid wages £6,000, pay in lieu of

notice £2,769 which is equivalent to 4 weeks' pay, redundancy pay £2,769 equivalent to 4 weeks' pay, total £11,538. Now the insolvency payment will be capped at £10,000 of which £8,769 is taxable. If the employer had an I.T.I.S. rate of say 15 per cent, the tax deduction would be £1,315. However, the Minister for Treasury and Resources on the advice of the Tax Office says, and again I quote: "To deduct tax under I.T.I.S. from such components could be considered punitive on the individuals who may already have been suffering hardship due to their financial circumstances." With all due respect, it must be said that the Comptroller of Income Tax is not normally noted for showing such benevolence and compassion. It is quite possible that thousands of pounds of income tax could be lost should individuals who cannot secure new employment decide to leave Jersey without settling their tax liabilities. Should this be the case, the receipts of an insolvency benefit payment at the end of employment from the States of Jersey would be like receiving a tax-free golden handshake. I urge Members to support this amendment which is plain common sense. If we have to change the Income Tax Law to enable the Social Security Department to make I.T.I.S. deductions, I am sure that this can be done perhaps at a time that other tax changes are taking place, for instance, after the Budget. It is perfectly feasible for the Social Security Department to obtain the effective tax rates from employees themselves by requiring them to submit their last payslip when making a claim for insolvency benefit. It is a requirement by law for employers to give employees payslips. I ask Members to place little weight on the comments of the Minister for Treasury and Resources when reaching a decision on how to vote on my amendment but rather to consider the importance of behaving responsibly so as to ensure that legislation approved in this Chamber does not encourage tax avoidance or by the same token cause financial hardship. I make the amendment.

The Deputy Bailiff :

You say you are in a good mood today, Senator. It must be your birthday, is it? Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

It is, Sir. [Laughter] [Approbation]

The Deputy Bailiff :

Happy Birthday, indeed. Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? Minister.

2. Deputy I.J. Gorst :

Yes, perhaps I could start by offering many happy returns of the day to the mover of this amendment.  [Laughter] This is quite a difficult amendment for me because while I can acknowledge the Senator's arguments and understand entirely what he is trying to achieve, he is trying to achieve hardship down the line from individuals who might, when they get back into work, have what he describes as a punitive I.T.I.S. rate from their salary, and that is something we should be aware of. Of course, one thing that I have learnt, and my department has learnt, over the last couple of years since this Assembly agreed that we should have a temporary insolvency scheme

- and we have not always been able to do this because of the law surrounding insolvencies - is that people want the money as quickly as they can because the financial difficulty is when they leave their employment. That is the time when they are really concerned about how they are going to manage financially and how they are going to get through until the point that they have a new job. I wonder if that argument on this occasion does trump the argument of having to deal with the issues further down the line. Those individuals and those families do want as much of the benefit as they are entitled to in their hands to make sure that they can make suitable and appropriate provision for their families at the point that they are made insolvent. There have been a number of difficulties around that. We have not always been able to move quite as quickly as we would have liked to have done, as I have said, because of the legal issues surrounding insolvency.

[10:00]

I would be loathe, I have to say, to suggest that we should deduct any more. Of course, one would expect me to want to deduct social security payments, however, there is another reason why that might be appropriate in a way that I.T.I.S. is not and I will come on to that now. For me, I have to say I think that probably is the overriding factor that those families need as much of the benefit they are entitled to in their hands right at the point that they are made redundant through insolvency and not necessarily us helping them later down the line. They are issues that they will be able to manage as they move into employment. The other issue is of course that any benefit which the department pays out in this statutory scheme to individuals, the Minister via the department then becomes a creditor in the insolvency proceedings. The Viscount, when making those distributions, is able to deduct from those payments made to employees the social security but not the I.T.I.S. element as well. Therefore, I think perhaps that should have a bearing, the reason being that the Social Security Department can only re-claim or become a creditor for benefit paid and not for the respect of income tax. As I said at the start, I do understand the issues that the Senator is raising and it is a matter for this Assembly to make a decision. We have taken the advice of the Tax Office; of course there is the issue around I.T.I.S. anyway. Anybody who is not on a "pay as you go" a current year basis, the I.T.I.S. that they are paying might need to be adjusted. It might be too much; it might be too little anyway, so we will still have that issue to address when they move back into employment but it is, as I have said, an issue for the Assembly to decide upon. They, in my opinion, are the 2 contradictory issues that we need to address and decide which one trumps the other.

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

To be honest, I am quite amazed by this amendment and amazed that it should be coming from the direction that it is coming from. I have always taken the Senator to be somewhat of a liberal- minded person and here he is making what is, in effect, a massive step on behalf of the Government in a case that is absolutely inappropriate, I believe, and not proportionate. I am surprised that in his previous life dealing with individual citizens, in dealing with the vagaries and ways of various departments, his philosophy has not been one of those that is defending the ordinary citizen. But what we have here is a massive step to say that Income Tax will reveal details of your liabilities to a third party with or without and give them authority to tax you on their behalf willy-nilly. That is a tremendous increase in the powers of the Social Security Department. If you have matters to deal with the Social Security Department and you want to go down and deal with them, you do. You do not expect the officer in Social Security then to say: "Oh, and by the way, I have heard something about your tax issues. By the way, Housing have been in touch with me and I want to deal with this as well." You do not expect that and quite rightly you would not expect that. It seems to me that this amendment overlooks the fundamental relationship between the individual and government and the protection of your human rights within that relationship. As far as your income tax is concerned and your earnings, that is a relationship with the Income Tax Department. They have certain powers; those powers should not be given willy-nilly to any other department in order to assist the Government in the rare, rare occasion that somebody may leave the Island and escape paying their tax which is due. This is an argument again which is based on the exceptions we should not be making rules for the minority. The fact is most of the hardworking people out there who might find themselves in this situation are as honest as the day is long and are not going to be skipping the Island in order to avoid paying their tax when it becomes due. But the overriding principle must be that your relationship as far as your tax is concerned is with the Comptroller of Income Tax and that is confidential to you and part of your relationship. He will look after your income tax situation and he will chase you for the money due when it becomes due and you will make arrangements with him. You should not be dealing with a third party from the Social Security Department on their behalf. That is a completely separate relationship and the balance between your rights and the rights of the Government administratively is a fine line and this steps

well over that line.

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

If I can just add my congratulations to that of the Minister for Social Security on Senator Le Gresley's birthday as well. I would also like to follow Deputy Southern , he will be surprised to hear that I agree with much of what he has said, although I do not really want to associate myself with comments he made about Senator Le Gresley's past employment. But the general thrust of his argument I find very supportive. However, I think it would be right to say from the outset that Senator Le Gresley is entirely right to bring forward this amendment. He has pointed out a possibility that the States could be paying out money and not getting their due returns back from that. In that case, he is entirely right but I do not think it is appropriate. My mind goes back approximately 2 years ago when there were very long impassioned pleas in this Chamber about the Woolworths' people that were being put out of work and the needs and the hardship that they were going through. It was a hard-fought fight, mainly by Deputy Southern and contributed by other people as well. We supported the need to provide free money effectively at that time to people who were suffering such hardship and duress. If we look at the minimum wage now, off the top of my head I think we are looking at something in the region of £12,000 to £13,000 a year and I think it is fair to assume that they will not be paying I.T.I.S. on that. If somebody is earning a lot more than that, and let us say it is £20,00 a year even with the cap of £10,000, yes, they should be paying I.T.I.S. but if they are only getting £10,000 when they are used to £20,000 they are going to be suffering significant hardship. To put the burden of this amendment upon them at that time I think is inappropriate. The Tax Office has already said they have a mechanism to take it back when they get back into work and I accept once again Senator Le Gresley's argument that to do that is going to be punitive in the longer term. I would hope the Tax Office would not be punitive and to spread that repayment term over as long a period as possible in arrangement with the person involved, which I am sure they do now in other cases. So I think from the Treasury's point of view this is right to bring this amendment but it is wrong because it is inappropriate in the circumstances that

people find themselves in and the Treasury do not support the amendment. Thank you.

5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I did not know it was Senator Le Gresley's birthday either so I wish him very many happy tax returns, which are the words I was trying to get out. There seems to be 2 conflicting issues and as has been said already it seems that possibly the intellectual argument is with Senator Le Gresley but the more reasonable argument is with the Minister for Social Security. I just want to make a few observations first, if I may. First of all, it needs to be clarified whether or not by taking income tax at the time, rather than subsequently when the individual may be back in work the year later, whether that would slow up the process at all. Because initially the Minister said that the money needs to be given as quickly as possible and I think what he may have meant was that the money needs to be given in a maximum form rather than anything else. [Interruption] I take those points on board. But presumably I think the issue of speed need not necessarily be a factor because irrespective of whether or not the Income Tax Department should be sharing information with the Social Security Department or vice versa it seems to be that a mechanism could be put in place very quickly so that Social Security would know what liability is due, and that could be deducted at the same time as the social security element is deducted. So I think that is possibly a red herring in terms of speed. The other argument is if the Minister is saying that they need to be given as much money as possible, I think it is important to qualify at this stage that even with this legislation in place, employees who have been made redundant due to insolvency are going to be more likely, on the balance of probability, I would suggest, less well off than if they had been made redundant under a situation where the company was not insolvent. If we are saying that they need to be given the maximum amount of funds, then why is the social security contribution being taken at all? That could be waived or it could be paid later on. So it seems that if that argument is to follow it should be the same for both departments. I do find the comments of the Minister for Treasury and Resources slightly confusing because if what Senator Le Gresley has told us is correct, the comments seem to be suggesting that the Tax Department are saying they will waiver the tax; they just will not collect it because they feel sorry for the individuals who are in the situation. Whereas

in fact if we look at part 3 it says that nothing in this Article affects the liability under the Income Tax Law for the person who is receiving the benefit. So it seems that it is a question of whether it is preferable to collect the tax there and then at source when they have the money. I need clarification in my mind if, for example, the year later the individual is still unemployed and that insolvency money has run out, then presumably their tax liability will still be there. It is not simply a case of one waits until one is back in gainful employment until you have to pay that. It is not like tuition fees where you wait until you have a certain amount of income before you start paying it back. The income tax will be due irrespective a year later whether or not one is in employment. So the question has to be asked: is it not better to pay it there and then when that individual has the money, and, of course, it will be proportionate. The other point I want clarification of - and perhaps the Senator can address it when he sums up - is that surely the tax is either due or it is not due at the time under I.T.I.S. So if an employee is paying 5 per cent I.T.I.S. and they are made redundant, presumably they should carry on paying 5 per cent I.T.I.S. on the sum that they received for insolvency. That seems pretty clear and logical to me. It will be exactly proportionate and of course if they earn less, if they get less money through that insolvency payment, then they will be paying proportionately less, although it may not make up for the whole sum that they have lost if they are losing any money in the long term. The last point I would make is that while I completely endorse the sentiment of Deputy Southern and others in saying that perhaps the current law is not set up for the exchange of information between departments, what I would say is that surely it is all Government at the end of the day. We talk about joined-up Governments but when it comes to these kinds of issues we are saying that the Social Security Department and the Income Tax could not possibly talk to each other because that is personal information and that seems slightly strange. Of course, it would be inappropriate for the Income Tax Department to share your tax information with the media, with a third party, but when it comes to a legitimate reason for sharing information which is hopefully going to result in a more expedient Government, more expedient collection of taxes and hopefully to keep the costs for doing that administration down in the long term, I think as an Assembly we need to take a mature approach. Members in this Assembly will know that I am not one to trample on human rights by any means or on data protection issues but as a Government we have to take a sensible and balanced approach and I think sometimes we can use these arguments spuriously. We need to look in the long term as to whether appropriate information sharing between departments can be used in a more expedient way. That said, I do fall on the side of being sceptical of this amendment purely because I do not think that we are currently set up to deal with it and I think that the arguments on balance we do need to show more compassion for

those at a time when they are facing difficult periods in their life. [10:15]

If there is a risk that we are taking more than we should, or if there is a risk that it is going to extend that period that the individuals have to wait, then I prefer to err to the side of caution on this. But I think Senator Le Gresley has flagged up some important issues and that we can in future make some - I will not call them no-brainers - intelligent changes about the way we do business in government, especially between departments.

The Connétable of St. Peter :

May I make a point of correction for the last speaker? He did suggest in his speech that I had said we would waive the I.T.I.S. It is very clear in the fifth bullet point of the Treasury's comments, the last line: "The Taxes Office would contend that any arrears would be collected through I.T.I.S. when an individual finds new employment." Thank you very much.

6. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

In the absence of any compelling or convincing arguments from the Minister for Social Security or the Minister for Treasury and Resources I am minded to support this amendment because I think back when we introduced the Income Tax Instalment Scheme we did it for a number of reasons. One of those I can remember in the debate was to remove this situation where individuals had to find a lump sum - a large lump sum - as one does normally at the end of the year. That is why I.T.I.S. was generally welcomed. It was taken at source, one never had it in one's pocket or bank account and the income tax bill was sorted out with no major problem at the end of the year. Now this tax from the individual who has been made redundant is due and the Senator's amendment does not ask the Social Security Department to take more from that person's benefit than is due to the taxpayer, so it is due. Now if it is not deducted at source, in due course that person who has suffered the redundancy their circumstances might improve but they might deteriorate as well. Whichever scenario exists, that bill, £1,000, £500, whatever it might be, is still due to the taxpayer and at some point will be pursued by the Comptroller of Income Tax for that amount and it could be in a lump sum, the very thing we tried to avoid when we introduced I.T.I.S. So we could be putting a burden on this individual and much better for them I would have thought - and for the taxpayer generally but I am thinking of the individual concerned - to remove that debt at source before they get that money in their pocket when one day they have to take it out again to give it back to the taxman. It just seems to me this is quite a sensible amendment but I could be convinced otherwise but I think it is going to be very difficult.

7. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier :

I will be brief and, I, like the last speaker, need convincing by the Minister that this is not the way to go. I have never in my time as a States Member or since I.T.I.S. came in been told by anybody on the Island that they do not like it. When people are given redundancy money, if they are going to be taxed on that, surely it is better to pay it at source than have to pay it along with other tax when they get employment. Although I do know, because I did run my own business before I was elected to the States, that if an employee has to pay 35 per cent and they really are finding it very difficult because it is leaving them with not enough money, they can appeal to the Tax Office and if they can prove it they can get that reduced and pay it over a longer term. So I do know that for a fact. We are often saying that we have a silo mentality and that we do not share information and that is why departments do not work well. Surely this is one step to having a collective view and information sharing. The other thing I will ask if the Minister can clarify, in the new Migration Law that is coming forward there will be information sharing between departments. Surely this would be a first step in that information sharing.

8. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I will join the cacophony of good wishes to Senator Le Gresley for his birthday. I will not be so rude as to ask which one. We have had the example of one employee but what is the scale of the problem? What sort of level of income, what is the distribution of income levels that are affected by insolvency and what is the experience of the last couple of years? It also occurs to me that since I.T.I.S. is paid directly to the Tax Office by the company, is the Tax Office a preferential creditor for that I.T.I.S.? Will the tax be reclaimable from any assets realised by the insolvent company? I think we have to be careful in this instance. It seems to me that we could be in a position where the cost of collection through this amendment might possibly be more than the actual tax collected. Thank you.

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

I do understand where the Senator is coming from in bringing this amendment. But in my mind it creates problems because in Social Security the department and the staff there would not necessarily know what the I.T.I.S. obligation of an individual is. So what I would ask the Senator is this: is he suggesting that tax should be taken at 20 per cent of the actual monies that would be paid through the insolvency? Thank you.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Can I seek clarification of the last speaker? The Assistant Minister will know this from working at Social Security, is it not the case that one has a slip one can get from Income Tax and it says what

your effective rate is? So presumably could one not hand that slip over to Social Security and then the department would know exactly what rate they have to take.

Deputy A.E. Jeune :

That might suggest what their I.T.I.S. rate is but that is in relation to usually the previous year, I think, and may not have a bearing on the person's responsibility of the current year. But I am not a tax expert and perhaps somebody else can elaborate better than I.

10. The Connétable of St. Saviour :

Just a brief point. If after insolvency it may take a while for somebody to be re-employed, once that happens it is quite possible they will not be earning the same wage that they were before. The tax liability will still be there but if they are in financial difficulties it would be better for their payments on I.T.I.S. to be lower than taking the sum at source. Because I think the Minister is absolutely correct: they will be in difficulties; they need the maximum amount of money as soon as possible. I think to take the tax liability, which could be quite considerable, out of it is making people that are in difficulty suffer even more. I think this is a chance for us to be as helpful to these people as possible, even if there is a slight risk that some of the tax might be lost.

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

Like my colleagues on the Connétable s' benches I favour this proposition because I think that at the end of the day it gives the person who is involved some certainty. We have already, the Parishes, experienced some problems with the fact that the Social Security Department in its Income Support Scheme has an element towards the paying of rate bills. Now the rate bill comes as one lump bill in July/August of the year and many people by then have, for one reason or another, good or bad, spent that money which has come from Income Support before this bill has arrived. Then they come to us and they say: "We cannot afford to pay it" and we tell them: "Well you already had the money given from Social Security towards paying this bill, you should be able to pay it." I think this is exactly what the Senator is trying to avoid. The Senator is trying to avoid a situation where people who are in financial difficulties get this sudden large bill. If it has been taken, yes, it will in a way create a certain amount of hardship because less money is being given to them in the first place, but they will not, down the line, be faced with this one big bill and I will totally support this amendment.

12. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I was very seduced by Deputy Southern 's argument, then I started thinking about it and it was quite extraordinary because he was saying there should not a link between tax and employment whereas, as he will well know, of course, for example, the U.K. Pay As You Earn system is totally based on the fact that a number is given by the authorities whereby your employer has to subtract an estimated tax; its aversion. We never went that far with I.T.I.S. but obviously we went some of the way. There was total integration of the 2 systems: the tax system and the payment you receive from your employer. So this notion that you have 2 silos, you should totally manage on your own and it is entirely your responsibility to inform the tax authorities is not quite the case. Similarly his argument that - I do not know what facts he has to make this assertion - very few people leave the Island. Well, certainly one of the drivers of I.T.I.S. was this impression that lots of people were leaving the Island or arranging their affairs so as to only work for a certain part of the year, or they could only work for a certain part of the year, they would minimise their tax liabilities by departing from the Island and they would return for another season. So this idea again that very few .. I do not know where he has this evidence from. I do not think any of us have evidence unless we are at the harbour or the airport looking at people and working out what their residential status has been. The other point I would raise with Senator Le Gresley though, because it does worry me that this

may be a hammer to crack a nut, is he going to apply a similar principle to people who receive lump-sum payments for other reasons that there should be an immediate deduction from these lump-sum payments because it does have, in that sense, an element of unfairness.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? I call on Senator Le Gresley to reply.

13. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I think it is important for me to say what I am proposing is exactly what happens in the U.K. This is nothing original or I have dreamt it up or whatever. In the U.K. the Redundancy Payment Office which is responsible for dealing with insolvency payments deducts from arrears of pay, holiday pay, et cetera, an amount of tax at the basic rate in force at the time payment is made. Now, Deputy Jeune said am I proposing that the rate should be 20 per cent? I am not proposing that and if she reads my report I say: "I am not proposing that the Social Security Department deduct income tax at the basic rate as it should be relatively easy to find out the I.T.I.S. rate for each employee." So I am not suggesting that it is 20 per cent for every employee. I can understand the argument about feeling sorry for these people and I can assure you that I am bringing this amendment because I do feel sorry for these people. I have hands-on experience of dealing with people who have lost their jobs through the employer becoming insolvent. What I would say to people, there is a deterrent to returning to work if you know that you have a substantial higher I.T.I.S. rate in the offering. That is a danger, the route we go to, if we do not take the tax at source.

[10:30]

A number of people quite correctly have pointed out that is exactly why I.T.I.S. was introduced so as to remove the situation where people end up with a large bill. Now Deputy Southern made comment about sharing of information and I find this rather strange, because perhaps he has not been in the workplace for long enough or recently, since I.T.I.S. came in. But what he may not know is that every employer knows what the I.T.I.S. rate is of their employee. That is the way it works. An employee has to hand that slip to the employer when they start work. If the I.T.I.S. rate changes at any time during the year they have to hand that slip in. So every employer on this Island knows the I.T.I.S. rate for their employees. All I am saying is Social Security are stepping into the shoes of the employer who has gone into liquidation or bankrupt; they will have to. What a lot of people have forgotten is how are we going to know what their basic rate of pay is? We are going to have to find the books of the company or the ledgers to find out what is their basic rate of pay before we start to calculate the amount that they are due; and in finding that information out you will see what their I.T.I.S. rate is, because it is going to be there. So I do not really see that I am suggesting that Social Security are suddenly put in the position where they get information that every employer has on the Island about their employees. Deputy Southern said: "The rare occasion when somebody may leave the Island" and Deputy Le Hérissier picked up on this. I find that quite amazing.  Perhaps he does not know that you cannot get income support if you have not been continuously resident for 5 years. What happens when you have been here 4 years and you lose your job? You have got no support from the Government through benefits, so what do you do? You leave the Island  if you cannot find work. You cannot keep going if you have not got employment. So a lot of people do leave the Island if they find themselves in that circumstance. The Constable of St. Peter speaking on behalf of the Treasury says that he does not know that this would affect that many people, particularly those on minimum wage. Unfortunately I did not come with the information today, but the tax threshold for a single person, and hopefully somebody will have that information, is relatively low. People may remember I tried to get it raised, but that did not work either. But it is relatively low; so a lot of people are paying some tax. It may not be more than 1, 2 or 3 per cent I.T.I.S., but they are paying tax these days. We must be careful that we do not make an assumption that every company that might get into financial difficulties is employing people on the minimum wage. There are companies out there who may be paying salaries in excess of £50,000, £60,000 a year, but they get into financial difficulties. Perhaps there has been embezzlement or whatever. So there could be substantial salaries involved. I do recall that when we were dealing with Woolworths, there were people certainly at top management, who were on substantial sums of money and received substantial payments at the time. Deputy Tadier is quite correct; I do not think the case has been made by the Minister that taking tax will slow the process up in making payments. I think that is a complete red herring and we should not consider that at all. Deputy Tadier also asked me to clarify, are taxes due on insolvency benefit proportionate. I think I explained when I made the amendment that the first 3 elements of the components are taxable. It is only the redundancy pay in line with our statutory law which is treated by the Tax Office as not taxable. The more money that is owed in unpaid wages, et cetera, the more that those amounts will be taxable. Deputy De Sousa was also supporting this, which I am grateful for, and she says that people can appeal if they have a higher tax rate, that they cannot afford to pay the I.T.I.S. rates; and yes, there is an appeal process, but I can tell people that the Tax Office are very tough on this these days and you have to have a really .. just because you feel you cannot afford it is not a reason not to have the higher I.T.I.S. rate imposed on you. In answer to Senator Ferguson, I.T.I.S. is a preferential creditor, or the Tax Office is a preferential creditor for I.T.I.S. that has not been paid across by the employer to the Tax Department; because obviously I.T.I.S. is paid at regular intervals by the employer. So if at the date the company goes into liquidation then the tax that is due is a preferential creditor. I think I like what the Constable of St. Ouen said, only because he was supporting me. But he is absolutely right again about rate bills. We know that people on income support do not put money aside; it is a fact, and then they get a large bill for their Parish rates, and I believe the Ministers tried to come up with some arrangement with the Comité des Connétable s to try and help them in that situation. I hope I have covered most of the points. Deputy Le Hérissier was one of the final speakers and he asked me if this sort of taking of tax would apply for other lump sum payments. To the best of my knowledge there are not any lump sum payments paid by Social Security in the region of £10,000. The Minister may correct me. It could occur where there is a backdated claim for Income Support, but Income support payments are not taxable, so I do not see this arising in an issue with any other payments, although I remember hearing, I think it was Deputy Fox at the meeting I went to, suggested that he would like his old age pension with tax deducted. He said he would find that easier. I am not suggesting that today. But this is a large sum of money that is potentially going to be paid out, and I think we have a duty to help people and take it at source, and not wait until later when they are going to get into even more

financial difficulties. So I maintain the amendment, and ask for the appel. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Could I have a point of clarification? I did ask the Senator what was the scale of the problem that we were dealing with. Are we talking .. what was the distribution of incomes that he had seen coming in having problems?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

Fortunately we have not had, to my knowledge, that many insolvencies. The biggest one obviously is the Woolworths' one that we all knew about and which led to this new benefit. But I go back to the point I made before: any company could get into financial difficulties not just because their business is falling away. It could be that something is done incorrectly by directors and they are sued or whatever, and the scale of money that could be involved would depend on the range of salaries within that company.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I have 2 points of clarification that I would like to seek, but probably from the Solicitor General I think. He would be better placed. So if I could ask a question of the Solicitor General? The first one is I would like to know, in a situation, for example, where the employee has had deductions

taken out for I.T.I.S., so the employer has that money but due to financial difficulties the employer may not have paid those sums to Income Tax; who would be liable for those outstanding sums? Would it be employee? Would he or she be chased in the first ..?

Senator B.E. Shenton:

Could I object, because when a speaker has summed up I think it is wrong to restart the debate again? It is very unfair on the person who has brought the proposition and who has already summed up.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I am entirely with you, Senator. I was going to invite Senator Le Gresley to add anything if he wished to, having heard from the Solicitor. Do you have a second question, Deputy , for the Solicitor?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I am not sure if that comment was directed at me, but it was my understanding that at any point during the debate under Standing Orders, Members can ask clarification from the Solicitor or Attorney General. I do not think we have gone to ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , that matter is closed. Is there a second question you wanted to ask of the law officers? Deputy M. Tadier :

It is more a question of clarification I think. I think Senator Le Gresley could clarify and it would affect the way I am going to vote. It is, can the Senator clarify whether the effect of his proposition amendment if adopted would result in 2 lots of tax being paid; that is to say, that the I.T.I.S. from the previous year and the liability for that sum which would normally be taken the year after, or is it simply the tax liability for the previous year which is what I initially understood to be the case?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well. Solicitor General.

Mr. H. Sharp, H.M. Solicitor General: The employer remains liable.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Senator Le Gresley, do you wish to comment on anything the Solicitor General has said or answer or clarify the question from Deputy Tadier ?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley: No, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well. The appel is called for and I invite Members to return to their seats and ask the Greffier to open the voting.