States Meeting Transcript - 12/09/2011

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

MONDAY, 12th SEPTEMBER 2011

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

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

1. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE BENEFITS OFTHE FULFILMENT INDUSTRY:.................................................................8
2. SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING LOANS TO BUSINESSES:............................8
3. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING SAVINGS IN THE PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT:.........................................................9
4. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING CLINQUE PINEL: ..............10
5. SENATOR F. du H. LE GRESLEY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY

AND RESOURCES REGARDING A PROGRESS REPORT ON THE "WESTWATER" AND "ZEPHYRUS" PROJECTS:......................................10

6. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND

SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING CLINIQUE PINEL:................................11

7. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT FUND:.........13
8. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT

AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE COMPOSTING SCHEME:....................................................................................14

9. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR I.C.T:................15
10. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING STAFFING IN HIS DEPARTMENT:....................16
11. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR

SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE HOUSING COMPONENT OF

INCOME SUPPORT:........................................................................17

12. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE MINISTER

FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING COSTS INCURRED

IN RESPECT OF THE ESPLANADE QUARTER DEVELOPMENT:..................18

13. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR

SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS FOR

THE EMPLOYEES OF CHARLES LE QUESNE LIMITED:............................19

14. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR

TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE ADMINISTERATION

OF CHARLES LE QUESNE LIMITED:...................................................19

16. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR

SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING CHANGES TO REGULATIONS

GOVERNING INCOME SUPPORT:......................................................23

17. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING VACANT

TEACHING POSTS:........................................................................24

18. DEPUTY A.E. JEUNE OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE CHANNEL ISLANDS' BRUSSELS OFFICE:.....................24
19. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE JERSEY FIELD SQUADRON:..........................25
20. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING CONVICTIONS UNDER THE CRIME

(DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND HARASSMENT) (JERSEY) LAW 2008: ..........29

21. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE BANK DEPOSIT

PROTECTION BOARD:....................................................................31

22. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER THE MINISTER FOR

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

OF THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND:......................................32

23. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR

TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE JERSEY BANKING MODEL:......................................................................................39

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

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and

Resources regarding advertising expenditure with the Jersey Evening Post by

States departments in the last 12-month period:............................................40 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):..............................40

2. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John of the Minister for Treasury and Resources

regarding the use of an outside negotiator to negotiate the Lime Grove House

purchase instead of Property Holdings:.....................................................40 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):..............................40

1. The Deputy of St. John :......................................................................40
2. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :..........................................................41
3. Deputy T.M. Pitman:........................................................................41
4. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade :...........................................................42
5. Deputy A.E. Jeune :..........................................................................42
6. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :........................................................42

7. Deputy G.P. Southern :.......................................................................42
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:....................................................................43
9. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:....................................................................43
10. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:.............................................................43
11. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin :............................................................44
12. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :........................................................44
13. Deputy J.A. Martin: ......................................................................45

14. Deputy M.R. Higgins:....................................................................45
15. Deputy M.R. Higgins:....................................................................45
16. The Deputy of St. John :..................................................................45
17. The Deputy of St. John :..................................................................46

3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Chief Minister regarding the employment oftheChief Officer of the Fire and Rescue Service:........................46 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.....................................................46

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...................................................................47
2. Deputy A.E. Jeune :..........................................................................47
3. Deputy A.E. Jeune :..........................................................................47
4. Senator T.J. Le Main: ........................................................................47
5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :............................................................47
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:......................................................................47
7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:......................................................................48
8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...................................................................48

4. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Attorney General regarding allegations against the

former Minister for Housing:................................................................48 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:..................................................48 2.4.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:........................................................................48

5. Senator T.J. Le Main of the Attorney General regarding the costs incurred in

relation to the recent prosecution of a former States Senator for criminal

charges:.......................................................................................49 The Attorney General:..............................................................................49

1. Senator T.J. Le Main: ........................................................................50
2. Deputy T.M. Pitman:........................................................................50
3. Deputy A.E. Jeune :..........................................................................50
4. Deputy M. Tadier :............................................................................50
5. Deputy M. Tadier :............................................................................50

6. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources

regarding the failed attempt to purchase the Lime Grove House site for the

States of Jersey Police Headquarters:.......................................................51 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):..............................51

1. Deputy S. Pitman:............................................................................51
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins:........................................................................52
3. Deputy M. Tadier :............................................................................52
4. Deputy M. Tadier :............................................................................52
5. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :............................................................53
6. The Deputy of St. John :......................................................................53
7. The Deputy of St. John :......................................................................54
8. Deputy A.E. Jeune :..........................................................................54
9. Deputy A.E. Jeune :..........................................................................54

10. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:................................................................55
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:................................................................55
12. Senator A. Breckon:......................................................................55
13. Deputy S. Pitman: ........................................................................56

7. Deputy A.E. Jeune of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the

funding of trade union representatives:.....................................................56 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):..................56

1. Deputy A.E. Jeune :..........................................................................56
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:......................................................................56
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:......................................................................57
4. Deputy T.M. Pitman:........................................................................57
5. Deputy A.E. Jeune :..........................................................................57

8. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Treasury and

Resources regarding which States officer made the recommendation to him

that he should approve the Planning Obligations Agreement for the Esplanade

Quarter Development:........................................................................57 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):..............................57

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:...................................................................58
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:......................................................................58
3. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:...................................................................58
4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:...................................................................59

9. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Health and Social Services

regarding the growth fund to improve the hospital middle-grade doctor service:........59 The Deputy of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):..........................59

1. The Deputy of St. Martin :...................................................................60
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:......................................................................60
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:......................................................................60
4. The Deputy of St. John :......................................................................60
5. Deputy A.E. Jeune :..........................................................................61
6. The Deputy of St. Martin :...................................................................61

10. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding

the total cost of the negotiations for the purchase of the Lime Grove House

building:......................................................................................61 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):..............................61

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:................................................................62
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:.................................................................62
3. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary :..................................................62
4. The Deputy of St. Mary :..................................................................63
5. The Deputy of St. Mary :..................................................................63
6. Deputy A.T. Dupré of St. Clement :......................................................63
7. Deputy A.T.Dupré: ......................................................................64
8. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................64
9. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................64
10. The Deputy of St. John: ................................................................65
11. The Deputy of St. John: ................................................................65
12. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..............................................................65

11. Senator T.J. Le Main of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the

future of the Property Holdings Department:...............................................66 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):..............................66

1. Senator J.L. Perchard:....................................................................66
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:.................................................................67
3. Deputy M.R. Higgins:....................................................................67
4. Deputy M.R. Higgins:....................................................................68
5. The Deputy of St. Mary :..................................................................68
6. The Deputy of St. Mary :..................................................................68

7. Senator T.J. Le Main:.....................................................................68

12. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding

where the responsibility for the failure to purchase Lime Grove House lay: .............69 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):..............................69

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman:.....................................................................69
2. The Deputy of St. John :..................................................................69
3. The Deputy of St. Martin :................................................................70
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:.................................................................70
5. Deputy T.M. Pitman:.....................................................................70

13. The Deputy of St. John of the Minister for Economic Development regarding

an incident involving the States tug Duke of Normandy':................................71 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...........................71

1. The Deputy of St. John :..................................................................71
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins:....................................................................71
3. The Deputy of St. John :..................................................................72
4. The Deputy of St. John :..................................................................72

14. Deputy A.E. Jeune of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding an

alternate site to Lime Grove House:........................................................72 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):..............................72

1. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.......................................................................72
2. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................73
3. Senator T.J. Le Main:.....................................................................73
4. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.......................................................................73

15. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Comité des Connétable s regarding the integrity

of the electoral rolls:.........................................................................73 Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen (Chairman, Comité des Connétable s):....................73

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:.................................................................74
2. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................74
3. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................74
4. Deputy J.A. Martin: ......................................................................75
5. Senator A. Breckon:......................................................................75
6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:.................................................................75
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:.................................................................76

3. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Treasury and Resources.......................................................................................76

1. Senator T.J. Le Main: ........................................................................76 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):..............................76

1. Senator T.J. Le Main: ........................................................................76
   2. Deputy S. Power: ............................................................................76
   3. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:................................................................77

3.3.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:................................................................77

4. The Connétable of St. Mary :................................................................77
5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:...................................................................77
6. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :...................................................78

3.6.1 The Connétable of St. Helier :................................................................78

7. Deputy A.E. Jeune :..........................................................................78
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:....................................................................79

9. Deputy M.R. Higgins:........................................................................79

3.9.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:........................................................................80

10. Deputy S. Pitman:............................................................................80
11. Deputy A.T. Dupré:..........................................................................80

3.11.1 Deputy A.T. Dupré: ......................................................................81

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister..............................81

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...................................................................81 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.....................................................81

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...................................................................81
   2. Deputy T.M. Pitman:........................................................................81

4.2.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:........................................................................81

3. Deputy A.E. Jeune :..........................................................................82

4.3.1 Deputy A.E. Jeune :..........................................................................82

4.4. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...................................................................82

4.4.1 The Deputy of St. Martin :...................................................................82

5. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:................................................................82
6. The Deputy of St. John :......................................................................82

4.6.1 The Deputy of St. John :......................................................................83

7. Deputy M.R. Higgins:........................................................................83

4.7.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:........................................................................83

8. Deputy S. Pitman:............................................................................83

4.8.1 Deputy S. Pitman:............................................................................84

9. Senator A. Breckon:..........................................................................84

4.9.1 Senator A. Breckon:..........................................................................84

10. Deputy G.P. Southern :.......................................................................84

4.10.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :....................................................................85

11. The Deputy of St. Mary :.....................................................................85

4.11.1 The Deputy of St. Mary :..................................................................85

12. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...................................................................85

4.12.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:................................................................85

13. Deputy T.M. Pitman:........................................................................86

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS........................................................86

5. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :......................................................................86

1. Senator A. Breckon:..........................................................................87
2. The Connétable of St. Helier :................................................................87
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................87
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:......................................................................87
5. Deputy T.M. Pitman:........................................................................88
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................88
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:....................................................................89
8. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..................................................................90
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :.......................................................................91
10. Deputy A.E. Jeune :..........................................................................93
11. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :............................................................93
12. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................94
13. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier :............................................................94

14. The Deputy of St. Martin :...................................................................95
15. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :......................................................................96 The Bailiff :..........................................................................................96

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

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

[14:45]

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE BENEFITS OF THE FULFILMENT INDUSTRY:

Question

Does the Economic Development Department have an estimate, based on the last full year, of the net economic benefit of the fulfilment industry to Jersey and by how much this is offset by the cost of the social subsidy of any top-up benefits paid to employees by the States?

Answer

Based upon recent manpower figures, it is known that the sector currently employs around 900 people and if the sector had maintained its share of GVA in 2009 (the latest year for which figures are available), the sector would have been worth at least £45 million.

Social Security does not run reports identifying level of Income Support or other benefits paid to employees working in different industries or for individual employers, therefore it is not possible to calculate the overall net economic benefit, in the manner which the Deputy is requesting.

Fulfillment remains an important employment sector for the Jersey economy and my Department continues to liaise with the UK Government to ensure that the effects of UK Fiscal changes can be minimized.

2. SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING LOANS TO BUSINESSES:

Question

Will the Minister confirm whether the Economic Development Department, through Jersey Enterprise or any other body, provided a grant or underwrote any loans to Home Ideas and, if so, detail the date and amount of this grant or underwriting facility?

Will the Minister also advise the amount of grants paid by Jersey Enterprise to businesses, or loans underwritten to businesses that are no longer trading?

Answer

Economic Development Department provided support to Home Ideas Ltd with a Small Firms Loan Guarantee on 30th August 2007. The Guarantee was for 75% of a loan made available to the company from a high street bank. The amount of the original loan, and the current lower outstanding balance, is commercial confidential and must be treated as such during this difficult time for all concerned.

It is extremely unfortunate for the company, it owners and creditors that the business became a casualty of the tough trading conditions. The owners did everything they could to make the business succeed and only after taking professional advice was the difficult decision to stop trading made. The Directors declared the company en désastre and the Viscounts Department are currently dealing with the company's affairs and liquidating assets to pay creditors. Only after the assets have been liquidated and after all other

guarantees have been realised will Economic Department know if, or what value, any grant will become payable.

The nature of financial support, whether direct or by guarantee, to start up businesses involves an element of risk and it is therefore not unexpected that some businesses that receive such support fail. However it is this sector involving start up and small businesses that offer the greatest opportunity for growth and job creation.

Since 2007 Economic Development has paid out 331 grants with a value of £713,000 and underwritten 6 loans with an original value of £890,000. During this period 4 companies including Home Ideas Ltd are known to have stopped trading. To date the value of the grants paid to business that have stopped trading totals £16,000.

3. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING SAVINGS IN THE PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT:

Question

Given the rationale for expanding the Corporate Procurement Department, would the Minister identify the savings predicted and the timescales for achieving such savings by allocating savings and time scales to individual positions?

Answer

The recurring savings target for Corporate Procurement is £6.5m (plus £1.25m for Health and Social Services) to be achieved by the end of 2013.

Savings targets are not allocated against individual positions. Procurement staff work closely with the relevant departments and projects are prioritised and resourced accordingly.

The Procurement Department is currently recruiting a Category Manager for Professional Services and a Category Manager for Health & Social Services to increase its capacity and boost the teams' expertise. This is part of the overall plan for delivering the savings.

Corporate Procurement is currently conducting or advising on more than 80 procurements which are at different stages of completion. This work is monitored by a programme management plan and regular meetings with the Transformation Board, which includes 3 Chief Officers.

Savings have already been delivered by renegotiating electricity and gas tariffs, re- packaging facilities maintenance and re-tendering cleaning contracts. Tenders out at the moment include a travel management service, contingent labour, managed print and stationery.

The team is continuing to analyse spend, concentrating on the top 100 suppliers to the States of Jersey, in order to make the full £6.5m CSR savings by the end of 2013. This work will be enhanced by the expertise of the new Category Managers.

4. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING CLINQUE PINEL: Question

In the light of the statement of the Minister for Treasury and Resources that refurbishment of Clinique Pinel was only identified as a priority after a visit by the Minister and his Assistant Minister, would the Minister state how conditions in the department's facilities are monitored and refurbishment priorities established?

Answer

The need to refurbish Clinique Pinel was identified by the Health and Social Department (HSSD) in 2000 as part of an ongoing facilities management process (resulting in 2005 capital bid). After his visit to Clinque Pinel in August 2011 the Minister for Treasury and Resources subsequently stated that "it was apparent this work cannot be delayed". It was not claimed that the priority was only identified at that point.

HSSD facilities are monitored by respective managers on an ongoing basis with support from the estates management team. Where appropriate the estates management team will undertake repair and routine refurbishment. When major refurbishment needs are identified they are escalated to the appropriate management board for prioritisation both within HSSD and across other States Departments.

The chronology associated with the refurbishment of Clinique Pinel is outlined in the answer to Question 6531.

5. SENATOR F. du H. LE GRESLEY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING A PROGRESS REPORT ON THE "WESTWATER" AND "ZEPHYRUS" PROJECTS:

Question

As the Minister with political accountability for the States of Jersey Development Company Limited would he provide States Members with a progress report on the projects known as Westwater' and Zephyrus'?

Has the Minister, in conjunction with Jersey Property Holdings, considered the site of Zephyrus as suitable for office accommodation for use by the States rather than for the construction of more apartments and, if not, why not?

Would the Minister outline whether there are requests from some States Departments to occupy space at Maritime House on La Route du Port Elizabeth and can he advise if building work is scheduled, and budgeted for, to provide new office space above the Elizabeth Terminal for the Customs and Immigration Department?

Answer

Westwater and Zephyrus are building projects near to the Radisson Hotel site and are administered by the States of Jersey Development Company. Westwater is in the process of a slight internal redesign and Zephyrus awaits Building Control approval from the Environment Department. As soon as the residential markets for these proposed developments show consistent signs of improvement, they will be commenced. These two sites have excellent views over St Aubin's Bay and have been designed to provide high quality apartments on the waterfront that will complement other existing residential apartment sites.

The Westwater and Zephyrus sites have not been considered for use as States offices. These are very valuable sites which are entirely inappropriate for States office use. There are a number of sites more suited to office accommodation which would provide better value to the States.

The relocation of  departments to Maritime House has been considered as a way to support the vacation of the South Hill site for its future disposal. Whilst this work has been at concept stage, such a scheme would clearly be dependent on the relocation of those currently occupying Maritime House. Both Harbours and Customs and Immigration agree there may be both operational and financial benefit to co-location at the Harbour Terminal. Whilst some preliminary work has been undertaken, a full feasibility study is required before any such move could be confirmed and I expect this to begin in the very near future.

6. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING CLINIQUE PINEL:

Question

In order to provide members with the background to the request for additional funding for Clinique Pinel in the draft Annual Business Plan 2012 and in Amendment (10) to the Plan, would the Minister give members a brief complete year-by-year timeline of reports, assessments and evaluations of Clinique Pinel since its construction, together with a list of funding bids, to which bodies these bids were made, and how they were dealt with?

Would the Minister please give precise references to any documents or bids and state whether members can access them and, if so, where?

Can the Minister confirm whether the head of mental health services stated, in August 2009 when economic stimulus money was allocated for improving conditions for elderly dementia patients, that the state of the facilities was not affecting the level of care?

Answer

1998 – Health & Social Services Committee considered a report dated 24th November 1997 requesting planning votes for a number of projects including Clinique Pinel refurbishment. This was approved 7th January 1998 - Advanced planning votes 38/1/3/12(31)

1998 – Health & Social Services Committee approve report and proposition for £859,000 Capital project for Clinique Pinel upgrade on 16th November 1998. This was lodged "Au Greffe" with the States and subsequently approved.

2000 – Building contract subsequently awarded and signed 1st August 2000 and works carried out and completed by June 2001 (Work consisted of internal alterations/redecorating, replacement of windows and roof covering plus new insulated cladding to external walls of building).

2000 – Strategic brief produced for expansion of Clinique Pinel approved by Health & Social Services Committee requesting feasibility funding of £20,000 to produce bid for capital funding for 2005. Scope of work to be extension to provide space for 20 additional patients and refurbishment of existing building not upgraded in 2000 project.

2004 – Health & Social Services Committee make request to Finance & Economics Committee for funding in 2009 Capital Programme (Request approved by H&SS Committee in its Act No. A12 dated 4th February 2004).

Scope of proposed project "An extension to Clinique Pinel at St Saviours Hospital site to cater for the projected demographic increase in elderly mental health patients. The extension will provide an additional 22 beds with all necessary washing, toilet and lounge facilities. The existing kitchen will also be upgraded." Estimated total cost of project £3,630,000.

2005 – 2009 States of Jersey Resource Plan (page 22) included the Clinique Pinel Extension to take place in 2009 with an allocated sum of £4,556,000.

2006 – 2010 States of Jersey Business Plan (page 32) H&SS committee deferred the Rosewood House and Clinique Pinel Projects beyond 2010 for other H&SS projects following a fundamental review of H&SS capital requirements.

2007 – Survey carried out to identify potential legionella risks. Tender for remedial works issued August 2007 and works completed March 2009 (Approx value £30,000).

2008 – Infection control report September 2008 identified risks due to flooring, bathroom tiling, fixtures and fittings.

2009 – Present Minister for Health and Social Services invited the Minister of Treasury and Resources to visit St. Saviour 's Hospital in July 2009 and requests that proposal be put forward for refurbishment of Rosewood House and Clinique Pinel as a fiscal stimulus project.

Scope of works produced and fiscal stimulus project for Rosewood House agreed and this work is currently in progress (included in this project was use of McKinstry ward at Overdale Hospital as a patient decant area).

Clinique Pinel refurbishment became ineligible for fiscal stimulus funding as the work could not be commenced until late 2011/early 2012 due to the need to use McKinstry ward as a decant ward. McKinstry was not available due to work on Rosewood House.

2011 – Capital bid for essential safety works only made by Health & Social Services Department on 23rd March 2011. Bid for work to be carried out in Clinique Pinel during 2012 includes:

• Improved fire safety by installing sprinklers, fire doors, and improved fire escape stairs at both ends of the building.
• Improved infection control by replacing ceilings and flooring throughout the building to comply with infection control standards.
• Increase the number of bathrooms and shower facilities as currently each of the wards only have one bathroom and no showers for their patient group.

Members may approach the Service Manager for Older People who will be able to arrange for them to view the above documents.

In 2009 the Directorate Manager of Mental Health stated that "although the care offered at the wards (Beech and Cedar) is of a high standard, the building needs work". He went on to say "we are able to provide good nursing care within a safe environment, however the environment does not provide the best possible standards that we should be striving for. Patients are not at risk here at this moment in time."

7. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT FUND: Question

Can the Minister provide members, in tabular format, the following information relating to the Tourism Development Fund for the last 6 full years, namely 2005 to 2010 -

1. the total amount available to the Fund at the beginning of each of the last 6 years;
2. the total amount distributed by the Fund in each of the last 6 years;
3. the amount of any additional sum(s) made available to the Fund in each of the last six years.

Answer

The Economic Development Department produces an annual report on the work of the Tourism Development Fund each year and this report is distributed to all States members.

The reports are also available on-line on the Jersey Tourism website

http://www.jersey.com/business/marketing/tourismdevelopmentfund/Pages/AnnualRepor ts.aspx

and copies going back to 2003 are available to interested parties.

8. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE COMPOSTING SCHEME:

Question

In view of the cost of the composting operation of around £800,000 per annum, would the Minister -

1. provide details ofthe quality control and/or accreditation scheme(s) now in place for the compost made by TTSand state when this was set in placeand how it is carried out;
2. statewhetherthecompostis currently soldthroughallislandgardencentresand,if not, why not?
3. state whether the compost has been sold through all island garden centres for the last 3 years consistently and, if not, why not?
4. provide sales figures for the compost over the last three years, both to retail end- users and to trade users?
5. inform members what plans TTS has for selling this compost in the future?

Answer

1. The compost made by TTS is Soil Association Approved'. The Soil Association issued the current certificate of registration on14th February 2011and this is valid until 31st March 2012. A Soil Association Inspector visits the TTS composting site annually toconductan inspection and audit operations. The compost produced by the States ofJerseyhas continued to meet this standard since composting was conducted by the Agriculture and Fisheries Committee.
2. TTS Compost (otherwise known as Genuine Jersey Soil Improver') was withdrawn from local garden centres in 2009 as it no longer provided the department with value for money as the cost to produce, package and deliver the product significantly exceeded the revenue it generated. Therewasalso an impactontheoperationasitrequired a 4 monthmaturationperiodtoproduce, affecting the

department's capacity to process the tonnages that arrive on site every day. Compost for agricultural use is produced in a third of this time. There is also a link between the longer processing time and the generation of site odour which the department has been working hard to monitor and control.

Recent improvements to the site and operation have alleviated some of these issues hence steps now being taken to increase availability of Soil Improver product.

3. TTS Compost has not been for sale in garden centres since March 2009.  Soil Improver  is  still  available  to  the  domestic  market  however  via  commercial  users  of  the  La Collette

composting  facility who purchase the product  in  bulk bags or loose and manage the onward

delivery to householders.

4. As full year figures for 2011 are not yet available, sales figures for TTSCompost (Soil Improver) 2008-10 are shown below:

2008 Retail sales (litres) 262,400 Trade sales (litres) 1,032,000

Total litres sold 1,294,400

2009 2010 86,400 (Jan-Mar) 0

975,000 2,165,000 1,061,400 2,165,000*

* 2010 figure includes large batches produced for projects such as the EFW landscaping works.

5. TTS is currently running a trial with HMP La Moye to produce 40 litre bags of TTS Compost (Soil Improver). This is now for sale to the general public at the household green waste site at Bellozanne with the aim of increasing availability to a number of TTS recycling  sites.  Working  with  HMP provides  an excellent  solution  to  identifying meaningful work for the prison community and maintaining reasonable production costs a partnership that both sides are keen to sustain and expand.

Sales to trade customers continue to be strong and work is underway to identify more large volume outlets for the product such as engaging with landscaping projects like the Town Park development. The indications are that sales of compost to trade customers and domestic sales through small bags on TTS waste sites will expand the output to beyond historic levels yet maintain cost efficiency.

9. THE DEPUTY OFST.MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR I.C.T: Question

In order to provide the background to the requests for additional funding for Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in the draft Annual Business Plan 2012, will the Minister provide details of allocations to ICT in the last 10 years, both allocations which were to a central ICT function, and allocations which were specifically made to departments, with the details to include the amount, what the money was for, how much of the allocation was spent, how much retained as a carry forward and how much was returned in some way as unspent.

Answer

The ICT budgets for certain Departmental services are held at a Departmental level. Gathering the information requested in the question has not been possible to do in the time available. The information will be provided to all States Members as soon as possible.

10. THE DEPUTY OFST.MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING STAFFING IN HIS DEPARTMENT:

Question

Can the Minister inform members of the number of full time equivalents working in the Treasury and Resources Department (or in its relevant predecessor department) in the areas shown in the table below, on the dates shown in the table (or equivalent ranges of dates for which information is easily available), adding any notes of explanation which he feels useful or necessary?

ISD HR Treasury Procurement

2005 June 1st 2005 December 1st 2006 June 1st 2006 December 1st 2007 June 1st 2007 December 1st 2008 June 1st 2008 December 1st 2009 June 1st 2009 December 1st 2010 June 1st 2010 December 1st

Answer

ISD HR Treasury (including

Procurement)

2005 December 31st 2006 December 31st 2007 December 31st 2008 December 31st 2009 December 31st 2010 December 31st

N/A N/A 99

73 52 98 73 53 99 70 59 96 78 58 103 87 60 96

Notes:

1. Withinthetimescale for the response, theabove figures havebeenprovidedfrom the  States  Annual  Performance  Reports  and  are  reported  as  actual  full  time equivalent posts filled on31st December each year i.e. itisnot the budgeted establishment.
2. These Reports do not provide the mid year figures, nor a breakdown of 2005 figures for IS and HR.
3. In  the Annual  Performance  Report  the Treasury  Figures reported  include Procurement numbers as the function was within Treasury until 2010.

11. DEPUTY  M.  TADIER  OF ST. BRELADE  OF  THE  MINISTER  FOR SOCIAL SECURITY  REGARDING  THE  HOUSING  COMPONENT  OF INCOME SUPPORT:

Question

Will the Minister state the total amount of the Housing component of Income Support paid out by Social Security in 2009 and 2010?

Answer

As members will be aware, Income Support is a unified benefit and the value of each claim  depends  on  the  balance  between  the  needs  and  the  income  of  an  individual household. It is not possible to allocate a definitive total value to each component as the amount paid depends on the income of the household receiving it.

To estimate the split between different components, a formula needs to be applied to the value of the total benefit. This can be done in a number of different ways. Any formula needs to be applied to payments made on a specific date.

It is possible to give an estimate of the cost by considering the daily rate at the end of each year, and using a simple pro-rating method. At 31 December 2009 the allocation of Income Support to accommodation components would give an annual equivalent value of £22.7 million. At 31 December 2010 the allocation of Income Support to accommodation components would give an annual equivalent value of £24.1 million.

It should be noted that it is not possible to compare these figures with the previous costs of rent subsidies as they are based on a wholly different benefit system.

12. DEPUTY J.A.N. LEFONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING COSTS INCURRED IN RESPECT OF THE ESPLANADE QUARTER DEVELOPMENT:

Question

Could the Minister identify the cost per year since 1 January 2006 that has been incurred by or on behalf of the States / WEB (now SOJDC) in respect of the Esplanade Quarter and related master planning exercises? Could the Minister also identify the advisers, consultants, architects, etc that have been utilised to either design or advise on the scheme (including in respect of values and/or contracts) and (where not bound by confidentiality) the total fees paid to each firm in each year?

Answer

In 2008 WEB commissioned Hopkins Architects to produce Design Codes for the Esplanade Quarter. These Design Codes were subsequently adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance. The costs of the Design Codes were £45,000.

WEB engaged Hopkins Architects in 2010 to prepare a submission to amend the adopted Esplanade Quarter Masterplan to allow six buildings together with an associated basement to be constructed as Phase 1. This work included an animated fly-through to illustrate how the scheme would look. The costs were £43,249.

SoJDC is undertaking detailed designs to implement Phase 1A of the amended masterplan the costs of which will be recorded in its audited accounts in due course. The contractual terms are confidential.

The Planning and Environment Department paid Hopkins Architects a total of £268,000 for their work on the Esplanade Quarter Masterplan between May 2006 and 2008. The Planning and Environment Department has also paid £26,000 in 2008 and £9,000 in 2009 to Davis Arnold Cooper (Lawyers) to assist in the preparation of the Planning Obligation agreement which was an integral part of the outline planning consent for Esplanade Quarter. Chris Shepley and Associates were paid a total of £53,682 in 2008 for the Public Inquiry held into the two applications for the Esplanade Quarter.

The total planning fees received for the two applications to date for Esplanade Quarter are £397,000

The Transport and Technical Services Department (T&TS) incurred the following costs in relation to the Esplanade Quarter:

• Eversheds - £155,907
• Capita Symons - £278,663
• Parson Brinkerhoff - £23,090

For the amounts spent by T&TS £232,000 was recovered from Harcourt. The balance of c£234,000 had to be written off and absorbed by the Department.

13. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF CHARLES LE QUESNE LIMITED:

Question

Following the appointment of administrator for the building company Charles Le Quesne Ltd, will the Minister inform members:

1. how many employees were made redundant ?
2. what payments were made to those made redundant ?
3. how many of these employees have applied for assistance from his department ?
4. whether these employees are eligible for statutory redundancy payments and, if so, what estimated total he has for these payments ?

Answer

The department is aware of a small number of employees that were made redundant from Charles Le Quesne Limited. To publish the details requested in this question in respect of such a small number of individuals raises privacy issues and would be inappropriate.

14. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE ADMINISTERATION OF CHARLES LE QUESNE LIMITED:

Question

Following the statements made by the Minister and the Minister for Housing about the administration of Charles Le Quesne Ltd, will the Minister -

a)inform members under what regulations and in what circumstances a company can

continue to undertake work for the States whilst it is in administration?

b)state the value of the bonds deposited by the company as part of the Clos

Gosset/Grainville School contracts and what the status of these bonds is under administration?

c)state what information the Minister has concerning the sums owed to sub-

contractors in the month preceding the appointment of administrators?

d)inform members whether he is aware if those sub-contractors attached to the States

contracts in the run up to administration were fully paid whereas other sub- contractors were not, and if so, what conclusions he draws from this?

Answer

The States has no role in the protection of sub-contractors or other parties in the event of a company going into administration. Detailed answers to the Deputy 's question are as follows:

1. The contract conditions applicable to Grainville School Phase 4 and Clos Gosset Refurbishment were, JCT Standard Form of Building Contract 1980 Edition Local Authorities with Quantities incorporating local amendments and JCT IFC 84 incorporating local amendments, respectively. Both contracts deal with the bankruptcy ofthe Main Contractor in broadly similar terms. The relevant clauses are 27.3.3. (JCT 80Contract) and 7.2 (IFC 84 Contract). Both clauses statethat in the event of bankruptcy or a winding up.

"The employment of the Contractor under this Contract shall be forthwith automatically determined but the said employment may be reinstated if the Employer and the Contractor shall so agree;"

On 27th July 2011 the Royal Court ordered that:

"Charles Le Quesne (1956) Limited ("The Company") shall be placed with immediate effect into Just and Equitable Winding-Up under Chapter 3 of Part 21 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991;"

This order granted specific powers to the appointed Joint Liquidators including under Item 2 (iv) and (v).

4. "to exercise any of the powers ofthe Company as may be required for its beneficial winding up, having regard to the creditors including (without limitation) carrying on its existing business, transferring its business to another company and/or individual, making payments, assigning rights and interests, charging assetsandincomingliabilitiesin the ordinary courseofits business;
5. tocarryontheexistingbusinessofthe Company inordertoenableanorderlywinding up of the Company;"

The option to reinstate the employment of Charles Le Quesne (1956) Limited (In Liquidation) was therefore legally and contractually viable. The advice received and the recommendation made was that the reinstatement of the Contractor's employment under the same terms and conditions offered the best arrangement for the States of Jersey, in terms of these two contracts, and for the creditors as any profit arising out of completing both contracts would be made available through the Joint Liquidators for the benefit of the creditors.

2. Both Contracts were in excess of £1million and as a consequence there was a requirement for each to have a contract guarantee bond in a sum not exceeding 10% of the Contract value. The bond amount for Grainville School Phase 4 was £327,267.47. The bond amount for Clos Gosset Refurbishment was £393,584.00.

As it was the employment of the Contractor which was automatically determined and not the contract itself the bond would remain in place. Written confirmation of this fact has been received from Charles Le Quesne (1956) Limited (In Liquidation). The act of going into liquidation does not automatically trigger a claim on the bond. A claim can only be made when the actual loss is known.

3. Under the terms of the Contract there is no responsibility for domestic sub- contractors. There is however a responsibility for Nominated Sub-Contractors underthetermsoftheJCT80Contract. As part of thecontract administration the Architect issues a notification advising each ofthe Nominated Sub-Contractors the amount dueto them whichhasbeen paid to the Main Contractor. In the month prior to27th July 2011therehadbeen no written notification of any failureto pay appropriate amounts to Nominated Sub-Contractors. The position with domestic sub-contractors is not known.

The position under the terms of the IFC 84 contract is different in that there are no nominations. As a consequence sub contractors, although named, are domestic to the Main Contractor. In these circumstances the amount paid to sub contractors would not be known.

4. In the run up to 27th July 2011, as explained in Item c) from a contractual perspectivetheposition regarding payments to domestic subcontractorswouldnotbe known. With Nominated Sub-Contractors the Main Contractor has a duty to make payment in accordance with the Conditions of Nominated Sub-Contract. There was no indication that such payments were not made.

In the period between 27th July 2011 and the signing of the Agreement to reinstate the Contractors employment on the two contracts on 26th August 2011 assurances were given that all sub-contractors on the two contracts had been fully paid in order that work could continue without a break.

The only conclusion to be drawn is that the contract conditions upon which the parties agreed have been applied in a fair and equitable manner. The terms under which domestic sub-contractors operate with the Main Contractor is a matter for these two parties and are not known to the Employer.

1.15DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING NURSING STAFF:

Question

1. Will the Minister inform members what vacancy rates for nurseshave existed in Jerseyovertheyears2008 - 2010alongwithnumbersof applicants for vacancies and the comparable corresponding figures for the UK as outlined in her briefing paper of February 2011 for the States Employment Board (SEB)?
2. Will she further inform members of the levels ofnursing staff turnover and the impact of retirement projections on the predicted vacancy rates and supply ofnurses over the next decade?
3. Will the Minister explain to members where the "extra funds" required to "fund additional nursing posts" as outlined in the Human Resources proposals to representatives of States nurses is to be found in the draft Annual Business Plan 2012 which, on page59ofthe Annex, show a rise of only 0.4% for Staff Costs from £126.4m to £126.9m?
4. What is the Minister's assessment ofthe impact on recruitment and retention ofnursesfollowing the refusal oftheSEBto implement the recommendation of the independent IDS report of January 2011 for a 5%increasefornursinggrades 5 to8?

Answer

1. Theaveragenumberofnursesandmidwivesvacanciesin2008was 12.53 full time equivalents (1.9% of the registeredworkforce). In 2009 the number was 32.22 (4% of the registered workforce) with the average number of vacancies in 2010 rising to 48.93 (7.4% of registered workforce).

The average number of applicants for vacancies was nine in 2008, three in 2009 and four in 2010.

The UK target for vacancies is around 2.5% of the workforce, a target which was achieved for three consecutive years and temporarily rose to 3% for 9 months of the year in 2009

2. Since 2008 the turnover of Registered Nurses hasbeen greater than 10%per year (up to 10.66%). This turnover rate will increase over the next 5 – 10 years due to retirement levels. In 2011 around 34 nurses aged 60or over will be eligible for retirement ifthey choose. This number isset to continue by around 13 nurses per year until 2016 when there will be a further increase.

HSSD pre-registration nurse training programme is set to provide 15 nurses in 2013 and 18 nurses in 2015 (note: this does not allow for pre-registration programme attrition rates, which are generally around 15-30%).

There may potentially be minimal change in turnover rates if retention of existing staff is improved and pre-registration training provides sufficient nurses to replace those who are retiring. Turnover will inevitably increase however if HSSD is unable to train nurses in sufficient numbers to backfill the ageing workforce and ensure an adequate skill mix of experienced and junior nurses is in place.

3. The£800k funding allocated by SEBis outlined on Page 60 of theAnnex to the Draft Business Plan 2012. This includes £500k for changes to pay scales and £300k to manage the increased risk within Older Peoples Mental Health services by increasing their nursing establishment.
4. NeitherSEBorHSSDacceptedalltherecommendationsoutlinedinthe IDS reporton differing grounds. HSSD believe that a targeted approach to recruitment and retention is more appropriate than a percentage increase across the board on the basis that the issues associated with recruitment and retention differing for eachGrade.

SEB has subsequently accepted alternative recommendations put forward by HSSD that outline targeted revisions to existing pay structures. HSSD believe that these proposals, will better support recruitment and retention.

16. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING CHANGES TO REGULATIONS GOVERNING INCOME SUPPORT:

Question

Will the Minister explain to members how the change to the regulations governing Income Support is justified either morally or legally, in the context of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000, and in the commitments contained in the Strategic Plan 2009 – 2014 and in the States determination to act in a non-discriminatory manner in that -

For over 19s both employed and unemployed are eligible for income support; for under 19s living independently, the employed are eligible, but if they become unemployed they become ineligible; and for under 19s living in their parents' home, both employed and unemployed are ineligible for income support as any benefit goes to the parents.

Answer

I can reassure members that the Income Support legislation has been confirmed as human rights compliant.

Tax funded benefits will always need to be targeted to specific groups. This does not necessarily create any issues of discrimination. For example, we currently provide a television licence benefit to people aged over 75, and general health benefits to those aged over 65.

It is appropriate for the Income Support Law to provide support at different levels for individuals of different ages. For example adults in Income Support households receive a higher value component than children. These rules ensure that public money is targeted appropriately.

The example provided in the question does not fully reflect the current legislation. The accurate position in respect of those under 19 years of age is that:

• Under 19s meeting the Income Support conditions for living independently, in education, employed or unemployed, are eligible for Income Support in their own right.
• A young person under 19 living in their parents' home, in full time employment, is not included in the benefit claim of their parents. The young person is theoretically able to apply for Income Support in their own right but, in reality, will never qualify for a benefit as their earnings will always exceed the value of the benefit available in that situation.
• Other young people under 19 living in their parents' home, in education or unemployed, are ineligible for Income Support in their own right as they are included in the benefit claim of their parents

NB. Young people with disabilities are subject to separate rules.

17. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING VACANT TEACHING POSTS:

Question

Will the Minister inform members how many teaching posts in the Island's secondary schools are vacant or filled by non-specialist teachers and in which subject areas at the start of this new academic year?

Answer

I can confirm that at the beginning of the new academic year there is 1 vacant teaching post and 2 teachers who are in a post which are not within their specialist subject within our secondary schools. In all cases the subject area is Maths. The vacant post has since been filled and the teacher will take up their position shortly.

18. DEPUTY A.E. JEUNE OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE CHANNEL ISLANDS' BRUSSELS OFFICE:

Question

Following the comment in R.107/2011 (Ministerial visit to Brussels: June 2011) that "We are discussing with our Guernsey counterparts how Members in both Islands can be kept informed of the work being undertaken by the Channel Islands Brussels Office", would the Chief Minister update members on the progress of this and state whether this is also being considered for other overseas offices such as those in London and Hong Kong?

Answer

After discussion with our Guernsey counterparts it has been agreed that the Channel Islands Brussels Office (CIBO) will produce six monthly written updates. These reports will be circulated to all States Members and the first such report will be produced in January 2012. In addition, the CIBO Director and Deputy Director would be happy to provide additional oral briefings to interested States members. Arrangements will be made for the next briefing to take place during one of planned visits to Jersey by the Director and/or Deputy Director in the first quarter of 2012.

With regards to the overseas offices in London and Hong Kong, I presume that Deputy Jeune refers to the Jersey Finance offices in those locations. Unlike CIBO these offices do not involve cooperation with Guernsey; therefore similar discussions have not taken place.

19. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE JERSEY FIELD SQUADRON:

Question

Will the Minister -

1. Produce two tables -

1. showing how much the States have paid each year as a defence contribution since the Jersey Field Squadron (TA) was created, breaking the information down into how much has been spent locally, and how much has been spent in the United Kingdom, on staffing, equipment, accommodation and other budget headings
2. showing annually from the date of the establishment of the JFS/TA -

• the official establishment agreed for the unit with HMG, setting out the number of Officers, NCOs and Other Ranks to be recruited in Jersey and the number of British Army supplied training staff broken down by into Officers, NCOs and Other Ranks;
• the actual number of Regular Army Officers, NCO's and Ordinary Ranks (Training Staff) and Jersey JFS/TA recruited Officer, NCO's, and Ordinary Ranks;

2. List all residential properties occupied by Regular and JFS/TA recruited personnel (anonymising them as A, B, C etc for security reasons) detailing how much money has been spent annually on these properties breaking the figures down to show the costof any purchase, rental, maintenance orhousing subsidy paid to oron behalf of any JFS/TA or Regular staff?

Answer

1. (i) See Appendix 1

(ii) The 8005 Army Establishment Table AF C8005 (2008) is a restricted document. However, Deputy Higgins can review it at the TA Centre, Mount Bingham should he wish.

• The number of permanent staff can be disclosed. As per a previous question from Deputy Higgins (30 June 2009) it is unchanged and is as follows:

Two (2) regular soldiers (3 if no TA OC available); two (2) non-regular permanent staff (NRPS) and four (4) States of Jersey civil servants. The Squadron uses the Transport and Technical Services Department to maintain all its vehicles and as such pays for a civilian TTS fitter as required.

2. See Appendix 2

JERSEY FD SQN RE (M)

These figures are taken from the MAS(A) reports prepared at the end of each financial year covering all expenditure incured by the Jersey Fd Sqn. Detailed information is not available prior to these dates.

Summary - of total annual expenditure

Expenditure Expenditure Year Total Jersey UK

1999 864,309 518,787 2000 936,531 569,919 2001 884,728 476,813 2002 942,532 511,938 2003 904,882 461,586 2004 919,412 431,242 2005 1,043,792 469,264 2006 1,015,759 443,765 2007 823,620 428,337 2008 884,792 436,866 2009 921,837 454,527 2010 889,603 455,699

345,522 No detailed breakdown available 366,612 No detailed breakdown available 407,915

430,594

443,296

488,170

574,528

571,994

395,283

447,926

467,310

433,904

Local Expenditure

 Civilian Pay  Military  Equipment  Capital

Year Jersey  Allowances  Unit Costs Costs  Costs  Indirect Cost

2001 118,996 2002 121,022 2003 119,130 2004 122,710 2005 130,837 2006 134,300 2007 139,224 2008 133,280 2009 140,632 2010 144,207

19,767 233,742 33,206 300,183 23,650 242,667 26,637 217,626 26,892 250,004 25,132 215,952 22,397 204,871 23,770 212,821 23,516 230,439 23,879 215,041

47,058 55,214 43,398 11,328 71,549

60,379

57,450

64,330

57,364

62,624

55,546

67,815

2,036 476,813 2,801 511,938 4,590 461,586 3,890 431,242 4,081 469,264 4,050 443,764 4,481 428,337 4,371 436,866 4,394 454,527 4,757 455,699

UK Expenditure

 Military Pay  Equipment  Capital

Regular  Military Pay TA Unit Costs Costs  Costs  Indirect Cost

Year

2001 214,373 112,750 9,554 3,163 21,881 46,194 407,915 2002 218,121 130,252 25,168 4,342 52,711 430,594 2003 214,070 97,492 23,234 8,266 38,623 61,611 443,296 2004 188,419 124,388 63,814 14,238 52,947 44,364 488,170 2005 225,118 147,779 62,095 29,273 59,859 50,404 574,528 2006 224,705 162,047 54,303 15,593 66,665 48,682 571,995 2007 232,862 115,481 17,446 - 9,909 29,843 9,560 395,283 2008 212,732 171,792 17,695 - 7,729 48,469 4,967 447,926 2009 207,475 154,201 44,188 18,000 40,506 2,940 467,310 2010 186,589 171,512 40,400 17,412 15,237 2,754 433,904

JERSEY FIELD SQUADRON - ACCOMMODATION COSTS

Costs of lease hire for one property and related expenditure.

2001 12,420 2002 19,211 2003 20,289 2004 21,344 2005 21,710 2006 25,132 2007 22,397 2008 23,770 2009 23,516 2010 23,879

Married Quarters Costs - Maintenance

The four properties are owned by the States of Jersey and therefore do not carry any rental costs.

MQ1 MQ2 MQ3 MQ04 Total 2001

2002 17,479 3,549 990 9,647 31,665 2003 Data unavailable   33,272 33,272 2004 10,908 5,245 12,978 624 29,755 2005 11,465 3,470 1,910 4,050 20,895 2006 553 1,797 954 1,270 4,574 2007 1,403 15,369 718 1,048 18,538 2008 36,300 3,535 2,455 1,075 43,365 2009 7,150 6,254 6,245 5,981 25,630 2010 1,715 1,558 5,486 5,438 14,197 86973 40777 31736 62405 221,891

20. DEPUTY  M.R.  HIGGINS  OF  ST.  HELIER  OF  THE  MINISTER  FOR HOME AFFAIRS  REGARDING  CONVICTIONS  UNDER  THE  CRIME (DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND HARASSMENT) (JERSEY) LAW 2008:

Question

1. Following the enactment of the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law 2008 would the Minister state how many convictions there have been and how many orders have been issued under the Law?
2. Is the Minister satisfied that the correct procedures are being followed by the States of Jersey Police in implementing the legislation and would he inform members -

1. whether the States of Jersey Police, after receiving a complaint made to them by the complaining party that another person is harassing them, always check the facts or validity of the complaint or question the person alleged to be conducting the harassment before taking action under the Law; and

2. whether the Police are issuing orders stating that they are not judging the issue but then warning the recipient that they must cease taking the actions that are causing the problems and that if they do not that they will face prosecution, without stating what the actions are that are the cause of the complaint?

Answer

1. Since the enactment ofthe Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law 2008 (the Law') 41casesofharassmenthaveled to alleged offenders either being chargedorservednotice of intended prosecution. Ofthese,31wenttoCourt and 10 to Parish Hall Enquiries. It should be noted that sanctions imposed at Parish Hall Enquiry do not count as convictions.

In respect of orders, the courts are responsible for issuing restraining orders under the Law and this information is not held by the Home Affairs Department. However, the Deputy may be referring to the Police Information Notices (Allegation of Harassment), which are issued by the States of Jersey Police. The States of Jersey Police have issued 67 of these notices since the enactment of the Law.

2. The Minister for Home Affairs is satisfied that the States of Jersey Police leadership havesetup the correct procedures when implementing the legislation. Whether thosecorrectproceduresarecorrectly followed in all cases would require a detailed examination of eachcase.

1. When dealing with complaints of harassment, officers establish whether this isthe first incident which hasallegedly caused the victim harassment, alarm or distress. If it is the first incident and there is no other evidence to corroborate the allegation and, unless there is evidence to the contrary, officers may consider giving words of advice to the alleged perpetrator. The purpose of such words of advice is to bring to the attention of the alleged perpetrator that a complaint has been made and that what the alleged perpetrator has done has upset someone. In so doing, an officer does not make any finding as to the validity of the complaint.

If there is corroborative evidence available, then officers must include this in the victim statement detailing, seizing and exhibiting any corroborative evidence, such as -

• Independent eye witness statements, detailing the harassment / behaviour involved
• Forensic evidence such as letters or photographs
• Evidence from telephones, answer phones and computers.
• CCTV footage

2. Onserving a Police Information Notice (Allegation of Harassment) the States of Jersey Police specify that harassment can take several forms and they advise the alleged perpetrator that they may be liable to prosecution if theydonotcease any behaviour towards the individual concerned that may cause them further harassment. Again, no finding of factismadebythe officer and the purpose ofthe Notice is the same as for words of advice.

The subject is informed of the allegation that has been made. However the written Notice given to the subject makes it clear that the States of Jersey Police makes no comment as to the truth, or otherwise, of the allegations at the time the Notice is served. Neither words of advice, nor a Notice have any legal effect.

The Notice is issued in the spirit of crime prevention, to ensure that the subject is aware that what they may consider to be reasonable behaviour is actually causing alarm and distress to the individual concerned. The intention behind the giving of words of advice or the service of a Notice is to seek to avoid the situation escalating to the stage where consideration of prosecution will be necessary. If that stage arrives then the Police will prepare a file in the normal way for the consideration of a prosecutor.

This is how the correct procedures should be followed. Whether they are in each case would require a detailed examination of each case.

21. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE BANK DEPOSIT PROTECTION BOARD:

Question

Following the enactment of the Banking Business (Depositors Compensation) (Jersey) Regulations 2009 will the Minister explain to the Assembly -

1. How many times the Jersey Bank Depositors Compensation Board has met;
2. What administrative arrangements have been made, in detail, to meet the claims ofdepositorsin the event of a bank failure and in particular to make an interim payments to depositors of up to £5,000 within 7 working days and the balance of compensation within 3 months;
3. What steps have been made to improve the flowofinformation from Home Regulators to the Jersey Financial Services Commission (JFSC) regarding the health of bank branches and subsidiaries located in Jersey;

4. What research or actions have been taken by the Economic Development Department, JFSC or any other person or public body in Jersey to overcome the problems associated with cross-border insolvency?

Answer

1. TheJerseyBank Depositors Compensation Board has met on five occasions since the members were appointed by the States.
2. Detailedworkhasbeenundertakenwith a majorbusiness(alsoengagedbytheUK deposit compensation scheme) to implement a system to enable a swift payout in the event of a default. This work is ongoing but is expected to be completed by the endof this calendar year. Once concluded, EDD will host a seminar to inform States members of the detailed arrangements.
3. The JFSC has stated that there are already Memoranda of Understanding in place between home regulators and the JFSC with the aim of ensuring that information flows where necessary. The JFSC is in the regular habit of proactively liaising with relevant home regulators and inviting their ongoing input in light of changing circumstances.
4. The issue of cross-border insolvencies was considered by the Economic Development Department when the scheme was set up and is reviewed on a regular basis. The issue surrounds the interlinking of multinational bank operations and the potential riskscausedbythelackofring fencing national entities. As far asJerseyis concerned, the main factor is the stability of parent banks. Other interlinkage risks are minimal due to the lack of capital market activity. All indicators suggest that there is an increasingdrivetowards ring fencing where that is possible and in improving international cooperation where and when crises hit inorderto ensure that defaults are managed in an orderly fashion - allof which isgoodnews for the security of deposits.

22. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND:

Question

In light of the current turmoil in international money and capital markets, the problems in the Eurozone, the United States economy and elsewhere, will the Minister inform the Assembly whether all the recommendations of the International Monetary Fund in their report on Jersey entitled IMF Country Report No. 09/282 - Jersey: Financial Sector Assessment Program UpdateFinancial System Stability Assessment' dated September 2009 have been accepted, and, if not, why not, and would he also give members a detailed update on the progress to date of implementing each of the recommendations that have been accepted?

Answer

IMF Country Report No. 09/282 – Jersey: Financial Sector Assessment Programme Update – Financial System Stability Assessment includes a list of the main recommendations arising from the International Monetary Fund's assessment of Jersey in the last quarter of 2008. Recommendations are also made in other reports:

• IMF Country Report No. 09/280 - Jersey: Financial Sector Assessment Program UpdateDetailed Assessment of Observance of AML/CFT

• IMF Country Report No. 09/281 - Jersey: Financial Sector Assessment Program UpdateDetailed Assessment of Observance of the Basel Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision

• IMF Country Report No. 09/283 - Jersey: Financial Sector Assessment Program UpdateDetailed Assessment of Observance of the Insurance Core Principles

Action plans for all of the recommendations made in these reports were published on the website of the Jersey Financial Services Commission (the "Commission") in March 2010.

It is clear from the published action plan for report 09/282 (attached to this response) that action was agreed for each of the main recommendations. Good progress has been made with implementing these recommendations. An updated action plan is expected to be published before the end of 2012 and this will provide further detail on progress as requested by the Deputy .

Action taken to date in addressing the main recommendations includes:

• Continued proactive dialogue between the Commission and other regulators, including the attendance of regulatory colleges. The Commission also continues to provide other supervisors with details of banking business undertaken in Jersey and related regulatory issues and seeks assurances that relevant developments will be proactively advised to it by other supervisors.

• Consultation by the Commission on proposals to withdraw the blanket exemption from its large exposure reporting regime of inter-bank exposures under 12 months' duration. These proposals will be finalised soon.

• Commissioning a report on developing the Island's capacity to assess wider financial system risks affecting Jersey.

• Publication by the Commission of more data on the performance of Jersey's banking sector.

• Consultation by the Commission on proposals to improve the availability of financial information on banks, which proposals are expected to be finalised later this year.

• The introduction of a depositor compensation scheme and requirements to disclose its applicability.

• Initial work by the Commission designed to form the basis for consultation over proposals allowing the Commission to impose civil penalties for breaches of regulatory requirements.

• A themed examination programme conducted by the Commission on the adequacy of credit provisioning, the findings of which were subsequently published.

• More formalised dialogue between the Commission and auditors of banks.

• The commencement of a "root and branch" review of the Commission's sensitive activities policy, intended better to highlight those higher risk activities where enhanced due diligence measures will be necessary.

23. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINSOF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE JERSEY BANKING MODEL:

Question

Will the Minister explain to members -

1. the impact of continued and likely low interest rates on bank deposits up streamed from Jersey banks to their head offices and money markets on local bank profits and therefore States revenues;
2. whether proposed changes to bank liquidity requirements being put forward by the UK Financial Services Authority will affect the Jersey banking model and, if so, how?
3. how worries over bank and sovereign debt insolvency are affecting Jersey bank's desire to upstream funds to the money markets and the likely impactonbank profits and future States revenues;
4. what impact, if any, the requirement for banks to have living wills will haveon the Jersey banking model and economy; and
5. what other risks to the Jersey banking model he can detect either from what is going on in the markets or being discussed by world leaders, the EU, OECD, World Bank and other economic bodies?