States Meeting Transcript - 17/05/2011

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 17th MAY 2011

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANEL ............................8

1. Appointment of the Chairman and members of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel8

1.1 Senator A. Breckon: .....................................................................8

1.1.1 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :.........................................................8

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

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

1. DEPUTY A.E. JEUNE OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE STATES EMPLOYMENT BOARD AND THE POLICY RELATING TO VACANT POSTS:......................................................................9
2. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING SENIOR CITIZENS' LONG-TERM CARE:............................9
3. SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING PLANNING APPLICATIONS:.....................11
4. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING BARRIERS AT BONNE NUIT:............12
5. DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE REPORT ON P.97/2010:..........................................13
6. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING TRAINING FOR MINISTERS:.....................................................................13
7. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE CO- OPERATION OF THE FORMER CHIEF OFFICER OF THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE WITH THE NAPIER INQUIRY:.............................................14
8. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE PREDICTION OF TIDAL SURGES:.14
9. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING STREET WORKS: .........................14
10. DEPUTY D.J. DE SOUSA OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING AN INVESTIGATION INTO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES:............................................................................16
11. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING HOISTS AT THE HARBOUR:.....................17
12. DEPUTY R.G. LE HERISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE RESIDENTIAL STATUS OF SENIOR OFFICERS:..............................................................18
13. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING 1(1)(k) RESIDENTS IN JERSEY:................19
14. SENATOR F. DU H. LE GRESLEY OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING GAMBLING PERMITS:...............................................................20

3. Oral Questions...........................................................................20

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding pre-application advice given in respect of removing Field 528, St. Saviour from the Green Zone:...................................................................20 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................20

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................21
2. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................21
3. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................21
4. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................21
5. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................22
6. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................22
7. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ............................................22

2. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the establishment of a Coastal National Park:...........................................22 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................23

1. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................23
2. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:.................................................23
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................23
4. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................23
5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................24
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................24
7. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................24

3. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the

£21 million departmental underspends:.................................................25 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................25

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................25

2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................26
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................26
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................26
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................27
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................27
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................28
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................28
9. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................28
10. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................29

4. The Deputy of St. Mary of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee regarding debates on the Public Accounts Committee's report on the Accounts of the States of Jersey for the year ended December 31st 2009' and their update report: ................29 Senator B.E. Shenton (Chairman, Public Accounts Committee):..............................29

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................29
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................30
3. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................30

4. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................31
   5. Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding visits to listed Jersey houses to document the interiors:..........................................31 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................31

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................31
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................32

6. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding damage by a developer to properties or the foundations of neighbours' properties who had objected to the development:.......................................32

Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................32

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................32
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................32
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................33
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................33

7. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the administration costs of G.S.T. exemptions in respect of food and fuel: ...33 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................33

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................34
2. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................34
3. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................34
4. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................34
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................35
6. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................35
7. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................35
8. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................36

8. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the use of an area of the demolished former d'Hautrée School site to construct a new Good Companions Centre:..............................................................36 Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):.............................................................................36

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................37
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................37
3. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................37

9. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding vandalism at Springfield Stadium:............................................38 Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):..............38

1. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................38
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................38
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................38
4. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................39
5. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................39
6. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................39
7. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................40

10. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the investigation and evidence gathering by the States of Jersey Police in relation to a drugs case: ....................................................................................40 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................40

1. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................40
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................40
3. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................41
4. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................41

11. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Minister For Planning and Environment regarding the publication of revised new standards for residential development:......................41 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................41

3.11.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................41

12. Deputy A.E. Jeune of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding domestic violence towards men in Jersey:..................................................................42 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................42

1. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................42
2. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................42
3. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ..................................................42

4. Deputy D.J. De Sousa: ..............................................................43

13. Deputy M. Tadier of the Chairman of the Comité des Connétable s regarding warrant cards:...................................................................................43 Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen (Chairman of the Comité des Connétable s): .............43

1. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................44
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................44
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................44
4. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................44

14. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the establishment of a private sector rival to Ship2Me:.....................................44 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................44

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................45
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................45
3. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................45
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................45
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................46

15. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding the recommendations of the Review of the Roles of the Crown Officers':..........................................46 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................46

1. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................46
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................47
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................47
4. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................47
5. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................47
6. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................47

16. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Chief Minister regarding the workings of the Hay Evaluation system:......................................................................48 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................48

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................48
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................48
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................49

17. The Deputy of St. Mary of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding tax harmonisation:..........................................................................49 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................49

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................49
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................50
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................50
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................50

5. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................51

18. Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the introduction of a code of conduct for debt collection agencies:......................................51 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................51

1. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................51
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................52
3. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................52

19. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding Valerie Band House:............................................................................52 Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services - rapporteur):.............................................................................52

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................53
2. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................53
3. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................53

4. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................54
5. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................54

20. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Minister for Housing regarding maintenance issues at La Collette Flats:..........................................................................54 Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier (Assistant Minister for Housing - rapporteur):............54

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................55
2. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John:......................................................55
3. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................55
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................55
5. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................56

21. Deputy A.E. Jeune of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the Head of Nursing for Emergency and Unscheduled Care's contract:..............................56 Deputy J.A. Martin (Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services - rapporteur): ........56

1. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................56
2. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................57

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture Development....................................................................57

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................57 The Deputy of St. Ouen (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):....................57
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................57
3. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................58
4. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................58

4.4.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................58

5. Deputy S. Power:.......................................................................58

4.5.1 Deputy S. Power:.......................................................................59

6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................59

4.6.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................59

7. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................59
8. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................60
9. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................60
10. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................60

Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Health and Social Services ......61

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................61 Deputy E.J. Noel (Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services - rapporteur):...........61

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................61
   2. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................62

5.2.1 Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................62

3. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................62

5.3.1 The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................62

4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................63

5.4.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................63

5. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................63

5.5.1 The Deputy of St. John:................................................................63

6. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................64
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................64

5.7.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................64

8. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................64
9. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................65
10. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................65
11. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................65

12. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:..........................................................66

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

6. The Chief Minister - statement about racial intolerance in Jersey ....................66

6.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................66

1. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................66
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................67
3. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................67
4. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................67
5. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................67
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................68
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................68

8. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................68
9. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................68
10. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................69

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................69 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................69

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................69

7. Esplanade Quarter: deferment of works (P.24/2011)..................................69

7.1 The Deputy of St. John:................................................................70

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................70
2. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................71
3. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................73
4. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................73
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................75
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................76 Deputy K.C. Lewis :..........................................................................78 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ..............................................78
7. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................78
8. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................79
9. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................80
10. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................81
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................82
12. The Connétable of St. Ouen : ........................................................82
13. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................83
14. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................84
15. The Connétable of St. Peter:.........................................................84
16. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................85
17. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................86
18. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................86
19. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................87
20. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................87
21. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................88
22. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................88

8. Goods and Services Tax: exemption or zero-rating for foodstuffs, domestic energy and fuel (P.36/2011)......................................................................91

8.1 Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................91

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................97
2. Deputy J.A. Martin:...................................................................101
3. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:................................................................103
4. The Deputy of St. John:...............................................................103

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................106

[9:30]

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

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANEL

1. Appointment of the Chairman and members of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel The Bailiff :

The Assembly need to consider the appointment of the Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel. Are there any nominations?

1.1 Senator A. Breckon:

Could I propose the Deputy of Grouville as Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel?

The Bailiff :

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Very well, then I declare the Deputy of Grouville appointed as Chairman of the panel. [Approbation]

1.1.1 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :

Could I just thank my proposer and thank the other 2 members of the Scrutiny Panel, who are left, Deputies Wimberley and Maçon, for agreeing to continue to serve with me.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , you will, I think, need to nominate them because they have ceased to be members upon the chairman folding.

The Deputy of Grouville :

I am grateful for the fact that they have agreed to serve, so I hereby nominate them and I would welcome any interest from anyone else. In fact it has been quite disappointing the uptake that there has been with Scrutiny. People might believe that it does not work effectively but I really think this is the system of Government we have and while it is here we should be working within it. So, if anybody else is interested in serving with us, I would welcome any interest.

The Bailiff :

Sorry, your nominations were the Deputy of St. Mary and Deputy Maçon. Are those nominations seconded?  [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Very well, then I declare that those 2 Deputies are elected as members of the Scrutiny Panel.

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

I wonder if I might take this opportunity, as you are aware Standing Order 122 under paragraph 9 means that I now need to liaise with the President of the Chairmen's Committee and find a replacement representative of that committee on the P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee). I would like to give notice to Members that I will be doing that today, and with your permission making a recommendation tomorrow. So just to put Members on notice that they are aware of that.

The Bailiff :

Thank you, Chairman.

QUESTIONS

2. Written Questions

1. DEPUTY A.E. JEUNE OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE STATES EMPLOYMENT BOARD AND THE POLICY RELATING TO VACANT POSTS:

Question

Would the Chief Minister, as Chairman of the States Employment Board advise Members whether States Employment practices ensure that where vacant posts and/or re-graded posts occur these are subject to open competition' internally (within the States) and externally, both within the Island and elsewhere, as appropriate? If so, would he please identify the policy and if not, explain why?

Answer

A fundamental principle of recruitment and selection within the States of Jersey is that all vacant appointments advertised either internally or externally (on-Island or off-Island) must be made on merit, on the basis of fair and open competition.

The Recruitment Code of Practice clearly states that "those appointed should have the necessary skills, attitude and competencies for the job".

When considering appointments to public sector jobs, it is States' policy that preference is always given to applicants who are "locally qualified" under the Regulation of Undertakings and Development Law. In circumstances where it is not possible to identify suitable, locally qualified candidates it may be necessary to advertise off-Island.

The recruitment and selection policy, and codes of practice, are published on the Human Resources section of the States' Intranet site.

Exceptions to open recruitment  may be allowed  in certain circumstances such as secondment opportunities, restructuring or short-term appointments.

Vacant re-graded posts are subject to open competition and those already filled may be subject to open competition if substantial changes are made to the grade of the post. (A general guideline would be where the post has increased by two or more grades).

2. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING SENIOR CITIZENS' LONG-TERM CARE:

Question

Would the Minister advise the total number of senior citizens in long-term care within the Island who have never paid Social Security contributions in Jersey in their own right nor had them paid for by their spouse?

Who pays for the upkeep of these residents once a person has been in the Island for over 5 years and would the Minister provide details as to which fund the money comes from?

Would he provide a breakdown of the nationalities of those residents in long term care?

What action is being taken, if any, to get these people repatriated or to get funding from their country of origin to upkeep people in long term care?

Do the above receive free medication if it is required and, if so, which fund does the money come from?

What is the total cost to the Island or Social Security to keep the above in care annually? Answer

It should be noted that there is no connection between the Social Security contribution record of an individual and their eligibility to receive assistance with long-term care funding.

There is no central register of senior citizens in long-term care in Jersey. Individuals in long-term care may be funding the care themselves, or some or all of their care costs may be met by the Health and Social Services Department and/or the Social Security Department. Subject to data protection, the only way to obtain details of senior citizens in this position would be to collect information from individuals who are receiving care and, if necessary, cross-reference this against Social Security data.

In the time available it has been possible to examine Income Support and Old Age Pension records. The question refers to the payment of Social Security contributions. To receive an Old Age Pension, the individual (or their husband) will have paid at least 4½ years contributions. The individuals identified in this preliminary analysis do not receive an Old Age Pension but they may have paid some contributions, if so, it will be for less than this period.

From the preliminary analysis that has been undertaken a maximum of 43 individuals who are over the age of 65 and do not receive a Jersey Social Security pension have been identified and are receiving funding with long-term care costs.

Of these, 41 are recorded with a British nationality, one individual has EU nationality and one individual has a non-EU nationality. Jersey born individuals are of British nationality and are included within the 41 above.

As Long-Term Care is funded from tax revenues it would be more appropriate to assess the Income Tax history of these individuals. However, this cannot be done by Social Security; this information can only be obtained direct from the Income Tax Department.

As set out in the answer to question 5756, asked by the Deputy in November 2010, individuals who have been resident in Jersey for more than five years are eligible for Income Support if they are unable to meet the full cost of their care fees themselves. To receive assistance from Income Support, the individual must provide full financial details of their income and assets. If they have assets below £13,706, the Income Support system will meet the difference between their own income and the cost of the fees, allowing for a £31.36 weekly personal allowance. The cost of Income Support is met by general revenues, funded by the tax-payer, as opposed to the Social Security Fund, which is funded by contributions. Individuals who require nursing care and are placed in a nursing care bed by the Health and Social Services Department are not required to meet the full costs of their care but they are required to make a contribution of £456.40 per week. Again, if the individual has income/assets below a given level, the difference can be made up by Income Support. This system applies to all residents with five years' residence and is not dependent upon their Social Security contribution record.

When someone has been living in Jersey for more than five years, it would not normally be appropriate to seek to repatriate them to a separate jurisdiction where they had lived in the past. The repatriation of frail elderly people could create ethical and medical issues and would need to be considered extremely carefully. This is a matter for consideration by the Minister for Health and Social Services.

From the point of view of the funding provided by the Social Security Department, the Income Support Law is quite clear. If an individual does not satisfy the residency conditions for Income Support, they will not receive financial support from the Social Security Department. Once they do satisfy the residency conditions, they are entitled to apply for Income Support.

People who have lived in Jersey for at least six months and have paid any Social Security contributions due during that time are covered by the Health Insurance Fund. The Health Insurance Fund covers the costs of medicines prescribed by a General Practitioner and included on a list of approved medicines. The cost of medication provided directly by the General Hospital is met by the Health and Social Services Department.

The total annual Income Support cost for the individuals identified above is approximately £1,700,000 per year.

3. SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING PLANNING APPLICATIONS:

Question

Would an applicant have a legitimate expectation of compensation if a planning application is not determined in a timely manner? Can the Minister detail the five longest outstanding planning applications awaiting determination and give reasons for the delay in each case?

Answer

The Courts have made it clear that there is a duty on the Minister to determine planning applications in a timely manner. There have been no examples during my time as Minister where an applicant has had to revert to the Courts to precipitate a decision. I do not recall having come across any application that has been unduly delayed and as such, whilst every case should be judged on its own merits, I do not consider there should be an expectation that compensation should be paid in any form for the non-determination of an application.

Turning now to the five longest outstanding planning applications, they are listed below along with details as to the delay in determining the application and why they remain undetermined;

P/2004/2136 La Saline Quarry St. John – submitted 19/10/2004

RETROSPECTIVE: For stone splitting shed & generator room.

Protracted negotiations and currently awaiting additional information from the applicant

P/2006/0636 St Juste Merton Hotel St. Saviour -– submitted 31/3/2006

Demolish existing staff accommodation and construct indoor bowling hall with associated landscaping works.

AMENDED PLANS: Minor material and design alterations.

FURTHER AMENDED: Demolish modern extensions to 'St. Juste' and replace roof with thatch. Construct indoor bowling alley and associated landscaping. Erect tensile roof over existing tennis court for multi-purpose ball court.

FURTHER AMENDED PLANS: Demolish structure to north/east of site & modern extensions to

'St. Juste'; removal of three external support walls to east elevation of 'St. Juste'; replace roof with thatch. Construct indoor bowling alley to north/east of 'St. Juste'; associated landscaping. Erect tensile roof over existing tennis court for multi-purpose ball court.

Protracted negotiations and currently awaiting the completion of a Planning Obligation Agreement (POA) by the applicant to secure heritage assets (La Fantasie) on the site

P/2006/2367 12,14,16,18 Hilgrove Street & 8, 10 & 12 Halkett Street St. Helier – submitted 26/10/2006

Demolish existing buildings and construct new 3 storey retail unit and 1 No. 1 bed flat. Retain facades of 12 and 14 Hilgrove Street.

Protracted negotiations and currently awaiting further information from the applicant (requested April 2011) following significant and lengthy negotiations including deferral from PAP

PP/2006/2444 80 - 92 Bath Street (West Side), The Former Odeon Cinema & 14 – 28 James Street St. Helier – submitted 16/11/2006

Refurbishment & regeneration of the former Odeon cinema to form retail unit. Construct retail unit adjacent to cinema on basement & ground floor & multi storey carpark on first to fourth floor. Extensive hard landscaping and external works including enclosed service yard and plant compound. REVISED PLANS: Former Odeon Cinema removed from the scheme. Transport assessment and supplementary retail impact assessment submitted. Food store car park reduced in height.

The applicant has been in discussions with the former Director of Planning who agreed to hold the application in abeyance pending the progress of regeneration initiatives in the area.

P/2006/2562 Thorp House, Broadcasting House & Summerland St. Helier – submitted 16/11/2006

Construct new 4 storey Police Headquarters & refurbish existing facilities within Summerland. Provide 3.6m High Perimeter fencing/screening and improve existing parking. Alter vehicular access.

The application has been put on hold at the request of the applicant as the site is part of the ongoing rationalisation programme for States assets and accommodation. The development may not go ahead but the States wishes to keep all options open.

4. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING BARRIERS AT BONNE NUIT:

Question

Despite repeated requests the PVC barriers have yet to be removed from Les Charrières de Bonne Nuit and replaced by an Armco barrier or similar, could the Minister give a firm date as to when this work will be completed and advise whether this will be before the Bonne Nuit Water Carnival on 24th June 2011?

Answer

Work on replacing the PVC barriers has now started with on site trial holes being completed and detailed design being instructed.

It is unlikely that work will be able to start before early June. Should the construction period fall within the Bonne Nuit Water Carnival then TTS will ensure that operations are closed down for the period.

5. DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURYAND RESOURCES REGARDING THE REPORT ON P.97/2010:

Question

Following an e-mail from the Chief Executive Officer of Planning and Environment on 29th March 2011 stating that Jersey Property Holdings were leading on this project and hoped to present a response to P.97/2010 (Recycling of waste materials: identification of suitable sites) within a week or thereabout, will the Minister advise when the report will be presented so the residents of sites adjacent to skip sorting operations can be given some peace of mind?

Answer

Jersey Property Holdings prepared a draft report which was circulated on 15th April 2011 for comment by the Environment and Transport and Technical Services Departments. It is hoped that the report will be finalised and presented to the respective Ministers for their consideration by the end of the month following which the report will be released publicly.

6. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING TRAINING FOR MINISTERS:

Question

What training, if any, do Ministers receive?

Answer

The first two meetings of the Council of Ministers held in December 2008 were devoted to induction issues. These include the role of Ministers, recording of Ministerial Decisions, the initial work programme for the Council, the Strategic Plan and timetable, States Questions and the Code of Conduct for Ministers. As other matters of general interest have been identified they have been discussed at specific meetings.

In addition Ministers have been fully briefed by their departments on the policies of the previous administration, operational matters and other significant issues. The regular Ministerial meetings have also identified matters specific to their portfolios which are then addressed.

7. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE CO- OPERATION OF THE FORMER CHIEF OFFICER OF THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE WITH THE NAPIER INQUIRY:

Question

When the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police wrote to the Deputy Chief Executive on 31st March 2010 saying that he would cooperate with the Napier inquiry into his suspension, were there any qualifications or provisos made by him in that letter as to his willingness to co- operate with the inquiry?

Answer

The former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police wrote to the Deputy Chief Executive on 31st March 2010 saying that he would wish to assist Mr. Napier subject to clarification on aspects of the confidentiality and evidence obtained by Mr. Napier. The Deputy Chief Executive clarified these issues in writing on 16th April 2010 along with other practical matters regarding records, professional advice and accompaniment. Subsequently, the former Chief Officer did indeed co- operate with Mr. Napier in the inquiry.

8. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE PREDICTION OF TIDAL SURGES: Question

What work, if any, has the Department carried out with respect to the prediction of tidal surges and preventing damage to the Island from them?

Answer

The department commissioned HR Wallingford in 2009 to carry out a study to predict the effects of climate change on Jersey's coastal defences.

In order to assess overtopping and flood risk, the study determined the joint probability return periods for water levels and wave conditions at different sites around the Island. This calculation included a surge component.

TTS are working on a long term programme of projects designed to reduce future flood risk.

9. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING STREET WORKS:

Question

Can the Minister advise what measures, if any, are in place to ensure that the utilities should not only do their street works in a satisfactory manner and make good the road they have worked in if they do not but also that they should do those works in a timely manner so as to minimise disruption and traffic delay on our roads?

Can the Minister tell members what steps, if any, he is taking to ensure that the utilities are incentivised to complete their works speedily or be penalised if they do not, and will such incentives and penalties feature in the new Street Works Law which he is preparing, and if not why not?

Answer

Part 1a: The current legal situation generally favours Utility Company rights' over Highway Authority powers and provides few clear means of enforcing TTS (and Parish) requirements. TTS has nevertheless successfully  introduced a number of important measures since 2003 (using a consultative approach) intended to ensure that street works are carried out in a satisfactory manner, including the making good' of the highway. These include the introduction of:-

• Requirements with respect to training, qualifications and supervision for those carrying out street works. These requirements are fully in accordance with UK best practice as prescribed by the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991' (NRSWA) with qualifications being registered with the UK's Street Works Qualifications Register' (SWQR) .
• Safety at Street Works and Road Works – A Code of Practice' (UK), which sets out minimum signing, lighting and guarding requirements to ensure the safety of works in the highway. This has been introduced as an example of best practice rather than as an approved' local code, as current legislation does not support this.
• The Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in the Main Road', setting out minimum reinstatement requirements with respect to excavations, backfilling, types of materials to be used, depths, methods of laying and testing. The Specification is in accordance with best UK practice as recommended by the UK's Highway Authorities & Utilities Committee' (HAUC).

In addition TTS has in place an ongoing inspection regime covering both live works (in relation to safety and compliance with the reinstatement specification) and the ongoing monitoring of reinstated utility trenches.

Part 1b: Current legislation does not provide a clear means of issuing directions with respect to how and when street works are undertaken, nor does it specifically impose a duty on those undertaking such works to do so in an expeditious manner. Despite this TTS uses its moral' authority to ensure that works are properly planned and co-ordinated before going ahead and that total disruption is kept to an absolute minimum.

In recent years TTS has made significant improvements to its street works management regime, starting in 2005 with the introduction of a Street Works Manager' to specifically regulate activity on main roads and to provide a focal point for planning and co-ordination in the Island. For example, TTS hosts and chairs a monthly co-ordination meeting with representatives from the Parish of St. Helier, the Island's Utility Companies, Connex and Honorary Police,  looking at planning/co-ordination issues both in the short and long term (1 month to 5 years). In 2008 TTS also introduced its Directions for the Control and Management of Street Works', which provides Utility Companies with a clear framework for planning (with a strong emphasis on consultation) and implementing street works on main roads.

TTS continues to work closely with the Island's Utility Companies in developing the optimum solution as to when and how works are to be undertaken before permitting them to go ahead. For example, where there is flexibility to do so TTS ensures that works are carried out at low traffic volume times (i.e. early morning, between am/pm commuter peaks, in the evening or at night, or during school holidays where that is relevant). There is also an increasing emphasis on joint working (i.e. Utilities sharing road and lane closures or trenches where possible).

Part 2: The proposed Street Works Law which the Department is looking to bring before the States towards the end of 2012 (in partnership with the Parishes) will include both immediate and longer- term provisions intended to ensure that street works are undertaken in an expeditious manner.

The most basic control proposed by the new law would be the introduction of street work permits' which would give the Highway Authority (subject to the test of reasonableness) power to either refuse a permit or issue a permit subject to a combination of conditions, including timing (i.e. times, dates and durations). Changes to a permit's conditions, such as a significant time extension, would first need the Highway Authority's approval. Failure to obtain approval would be a breach of conditions and an offence would have been committed. The law would also provide for the future introduction (through Regulation) of measures intended to create financial incentives to expedite works on the Island's most critical roads.

10. DEPUTY D.J. DE SOUSA OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING AN INVESTIGATION INTO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES:

Question

Following recent reports in the media, would the Minister inform members as to whether she will commit to a full and independent investigation into the provision and delivery of services to adults with mental health and related conditions within the remit of Health and Social Services and, if not, why not?

Answer

A nursing staff review for all inpatient wards was carried out between 2007 and 2008. Although the review identified a shortfall of nursing staff within Old Age Psychiatry it did find the staff allocation on Beech Ward to be adequate at the time.

Since then the needs of this complex and vulnerable client group have continued to increase and the Ward is now facing a staffing challenge. This was identified within a 2010 report written by Dr. Lesley Wilson , Consultant Psychiatrist for Old Age Psychiatry and is also the opinion of the Jersey Alzheimer's Association.

Within the 2012 Business Plan HSSD has identified the need for an additional £750,000 for old age psychiatry services, of which £617,000 would be invested in nurse staffing. As an interim measure, the Department has reprioritised its existing budget and employed 6 additional Health Care Assistants in old age psychiatry services. This is however only a short term measure and funding will finish at the end of 2011.

The 2012 Business Plan also includes a £1.1 million capital bid to refurbish the Clinique Pinel facility which includes Beech Ward . This will be in addition to the fiscal stimulus monies already invested in improvements to the facilities in Rosewood House.

HSSD's Mental Health Services are currently accredited with the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) and College Centre of Quality Improvement (CCQI) through the AIMS scheme (Accreditation for Inpatient Mental Health Services). Orchard House is also accredited through this process and will be further reviewed during this year. The Memory Clinic is also audited through the Memory Services National Accreditation Programme, with accreditation awarded until 2014.

HSSD is also currently seeking accreditation with the Psychiatric Liaison Accreditation Network for our Liaison Mental Health Services. These services will also be reviewed through RCP & CCQI.

In addition to these formal review processes Mental Health Services also undertook an external nurse consultant lead review in 2008 and works closely with the Alzheimer's Association and the independent patient's advocacy service provided by Jersey FOCUS.

Mental Health Services are already subject to independent review through the accreditation processes. Any additional independent review process would simply serve to identify the problems that are already known in relation to the shortages and pressures in staff nursing and the poor state of facilities. The Department believes that resources would be better allocated to addressing these issues than to investing in another independent review.

It is always regrettable when it is perceived that an individual's care has fallen below expectations. As evidenced by recent media coverage however, it is very clear that our staff, who are all specially trained to work with people with dementia, care passionately for their patients and are committed to providing the highest possible standards.

11. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING HOISTS AT THE HARBOUR:

Question

Having received complaints from several boat yards and users over the last month regarding the 25- ton hoist being out of action for an extended period, as well as the 65-ton hoist over the week of the Boat Show, can members be advised–

1. the details of the breakdowns?

3. the reasons for lack of action in repairing the 25-ton hoist?
4. the age of both hoists?
5. the details as to the frequency of the servicing of the equipment?
6. who is responsible for ensuring that all cranes, hoists etcat Harbours are in good working order?
7. whether the 25-ton hoist was transporting a vessel at the time it lost its wheel, and, if so, were officers from the Health and Safety Inspectorate called to investigate and, if so what were the findings?
8. what measures were necessaryattheendofthe Boat Showtoputboatsinthewatergiven both hoists were out of action?
9. was this same service offered to local boat owners whose boats were left stranded in the boat park?
10. will the Department now put in place a proper maintenance programme to prevent this happening again?"

Answer

1. On the 7th April, the 25-tonne boat hoist suffered a catastrophic failure of a wheel bearing which completed severed one of the legs.

On the 28th April, the 65-tonne boat hoist suffered a fuel pump failure which put it out of action for six days. Four of these days were over the bank holiday weekend when suppliers were closed. The main agent was contacted, and the part identified and ordered as soon as work recommenced.

2. Immediate action was taken to repair the 25-tonne hoist. The failure was reported to the manufacturer, WISE, who madearrangementstocarryoutaninspectionthe following week. Whilst no responsibility has been accepted for the failure, WISE have agreed to supply new re-designed parts and bearings for both sides, complete with the steering arms that required cutting to free the wheel station. The manufacture ofthese parts has been placed with their engineering company, and we have been assured that they will take priority to limit downtime and inconvenience as far as possible.
3. The 25-tonne hoist was manufactured in 2008, and the 65-tonne in 1999
4. Both hoists are inspected monthly and serviced twice a year by Transport and Technical Services.
5. Jersey Harbours, supported by the Service Level Agreement with Transport and Technical Services, is responsible for ensuring that all port equipment is in good working order.
6. The 25-tonne hoist was transporting an abandoned vessel at the time. No damage was sustained to the boat. The Health and Safety Inspectorate were called and attended that afternoon. They also met representatives from WISE when they were in the Island. The broken steering pintle parts and bearings have been sent back to the manufacturer for material analysis we have not yet been advised of their findings.
7. Only three small boats needed to be lifted following theBoatShowsothey could be returned tothe UK by ferry. These were sailed tothe slip at La Collette and taken out ofthe water by trailer.
8. Alternative arrangements were discussed with marine traders, including the use of the smaller crane on the Victoria Pier. They were also advised on the progress of repairs. All those with lifts booked opted to wait until the 65-tonne hoist was repaired on Thursday 5th May. By Tuesday 10th, the hoist office was on schedule and up to date with all lifts.
9. Jersey Harbours already has a proper maintenance programme in place, in line with manufacturer's specifications. Both breakdowns over this period have no bearing on the maintenance schedule as neither failure would have been evident during recommended manufacturer's maintenance inspections.

12. DEPUTY R.G. LE HERISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE RESIDENTIAL STATUS OF SENIOR OFFICERS:

Question

Would the Minister advise how many senior officers of Health and Social Services, if any, reside in the UK, and who they are?

Answer

Two senior HSSD Officers, the Hospital Managing Director and the Director of Community and Social Services spend their working week in Jersey and return to their homes in UK for most weekends.

13. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING 1(1)(k) RESIDENTS IN JERSEY:

Question

Will the Minister clarify how many 1(1)(k) residents currently reside in the Island; further still, clarify with the latest tax year figures available how many of these paid less than the £100,000 benchmark and within this figure how many paid in the following lower brackets?

1. Less than £5,000;
2. Between £5,000 - £10,000;
3. Between £10,000 - £15,000;
4. Between £15,000 - £20,000. Answer

From latest figures available (Year of Assessment 2009) the number of high net worth individuals currently resident in the Island is 137.

Eighty-two of those individuals are paying less than £100,000 income tax per annum. The specific figures in the lower brackets requested by the Deputy are as follows:

1. Less than £5,000 - 17 individuals
2. Between £5,000 - £10,000 - 9 individuals
3. Between £10,000 - £15,000 - 6 individuals
4. Between £15,000 - £20,000 - 6 individuals

Current indications are that:

• for the 82 individuals each paying less than £100k the total tax payable will be approximately £2.25 million;

• for the 55 individuals each paying more than £100k the total tax payable is expected to exceed £9.5 million

The Minister will be announcing new 1(1)(k) legislation within the next 2 weeks.

14. SENATOR F. DU H. LE GRESLEY OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING GAMBLING PERMITS:

Question

Could HM Attorney General advise if the Gambling (Gaming and Lotteries) (Jersey) Regulations 1965, or any related Orders, enable the Minister for Economic Development to issue a gaming machine licence to a business which is not a licensed betting office? Could he also advise if the definition of a gaming machine in the legislation could include a server based, touch screen, lottery terminal?

Answer

Part 3 and the Schedule of the Gambling (Gaming and Lotteries)(Jersey) Regulations 1965 govern the use of gaming machines in licensed betting offices. Under the Regulations, "relevant licensed premises" means a licensed betting office in respect of which a licence under Part 3 is for the time being in force. The legislation does not provide for the licensing of gaming machines in respect of premises which are not (or cease to be) a licensed betting office.

The definition of a gaming machine is unlikely to include a server based, touch screen lottery terminal, noting the definition set out in Regulation 1(1) of the Gambling (Gaming and Lotteries)(Jersey) Regulations 1965.

In any event, Regulation 1(2) of the Gambling (Channel Islands Lottery)(Jersey) Regulations 1975 provides that for the purposes of any enactment, participation in the Channel Islands Lottery shall not be held to be gaming.

3. Oral Questions

The Bailiff :

We come first to oral questions and there are 2 questions brought over from last time at the request of the Minister, as he was away, and with the agreement of the Member concerned.

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding pre-application advice given in respect of removing Field 528, St. Saviour from the Green Zone:

What pre-application advice, if any, was given by the Minister and/or the department in respect of removing Field 528, St. Saviour from the green zone?

[9:45]

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

The pre-application advice relating to Field 528, St. Saviour, consisted of 2 pre-application meetings and a letter. Two meetings were requested by the Rotary Club to introduce its concept of relocating the Good Companions Club. While my department is supportive of providing assistance to the Good Companions Club it is clear that this particular site is a Countryside Zone and proposed Green Zone in the new Island Plan, and will require a States debate if it were to be rezoned. During those meetings it became clear that any proposals to develop the site would be contrary to the Island Plan and the Draft Island Plan. Written  formal advice was given to the Rotary Club regarding the relocation of the Good Companions Club by the department in a letter of 21st March this year. This letter advised the Rotary Club of the current zoning. The advice indicated that in these circumstances if an application was received for development it would be a departure from the Island Plan, and consideration of an application would likely result in a public inquiry. I conclude by saying that I will do everything I can to help the Good Companions Club find a new home.

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I thank the Minister for that answer. Could the Minister confirm that no oral advice was given, or if it was given, a note was taken to that effect? Would he also confirm that the Club was told in very strong terms that the chances of approval, given the procedures outlined, were likely to be very, very slim?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

All meetings with the Good Companions Club were with officers present and formal notes were taken and there is a record of those meetings. It was made clear to the Good Companions Club, as I have stated in my answer, that we regarded this as an application that was going to be contentious. While we were supportive of the principle of helping the Good Companions Club it was always made clear that this would likely result in a public inquiry and if the rezoning was to be taken forward it would be the subject of a States debate.

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

Can the Minister tell Members whether he has engaged in dialogue with the owner/developers of land rezoned in 2008 in St. Saviour to try and help Rotary establish a centre that they are trying to do. That land was rezoned for the sole purpose of providing senior citizens' accommodation.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

We are referring here of course to what is known generally as the Carter site, and I would dearly like to do as the Deputy has suggested, but it would not be appropriate as Minister for Planning and Environment for me to negotiate an arrangement between the Good Companions Club and the owners and developers of what we know as the Carter site. However, I believe that another Minister is taking that matter forward.

3. Senator J.L. Perchard:

Does the Minister recall informing the States Assembly some while ago that he would be sympathetic to any planning application within a Parish envelope brought forward by the Constable of the Parish? Will he please advise the Assembly as to exactly what he meant by "the Constable"? Did he mean the Constable as the individual or the Constable as a representative of his community?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I think what I said was that large applications for the rezoning of land for housing would, in most cases, be expected to have the enthusiastic support of the Connétable . Just because the Connétable wishes a particular planning decision to be made does not mean that it has to be made in the direction the Connétable wishes it to be made. But, of course, always the views of the Connétable - and indeed the Deputies of the Parish - are a most important matter in any planning application.

4. Senator J.L. Perchard:

Would the Minister then perhaps kindly consider rephrasing his advice to States Members and that he would be sympathetic to giving support to an application within the Parish envelope if it had the support of the Parish?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

Another, of course, important matter is the support of the Parish. The question is how does one ascertain whether the Parish is supportive of an application? That, in my view, must be through the views of the Connétable and the Parish Deputies. I am perfectly happy to dig out the previous comments that I have made in relation to this matter to review them, to alter and clarify them, if necessary, and circulate them to Members.

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

Does the Minister not accept that it is a perfectly simple matter to call a Parish Assembly and ascertain the depth or level of support for any development?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

As the Deputy knows perfectly well, it is not up to the Minister for Planning and Environment to call Parish Assemblies.

6. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

Would the Minister for Planning and Environment overall not admit now that it was a very silly decision he made when he said: "I will only put things into this zone and that zone" if he has agreement with Constables because we are doing the hokey-cokey. Some Constables agree, and some Constables do not. Absolutely ridiculous. Will he not now agree?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I am not particularly good at the hokey-cokey but [Laughter] what I will say is that I was very clear in relation to my clarification on this matter, and I am more than happy to circulate what I said to Members probably later in the day.

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

A point of order, if I might, the Minister did circulate in comments to all States Members ahead of a previous debate this year the legal advice he had received outlining his position, and that is available on the website. He has stated to us that he has to take into consideration under the Planning Law all matters, not just those of the Constable.

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

As we are dealing with this Field 528, would the Minister not agree that, as we have had a Parish Assembly, the result of that Assembly was very clear, and I had said at that Assembly that I would carry forward the view of that Assembly to the Minister; would he please bear that in mind should this ever come before him again?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

There is not currently an application on this site, and if there was to be an application I think it is probable that it would be dealt with by the Planning Applications Panel. [Laughter]

The Bailiff :

Some subtle delegation there, Minister, I think, is there?

Senator F.E. Cohen: No, Sir.

2. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the establishment of a Coastal National Park:

I welcome the Minister for Planning and Environment back. The Draft Island Plan in its present form proposes, in Policy NE6, on page 95 of the Draft Island Plan, a Coastal National Park; can the Minister confirm the manpower and financial implications that will arise if this proposal is approved and will he clarify whether more staff will be required at the Environment Department?

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

The Coastal National Park is a planning policy designation, and as such there are no cost implications. The designation is proposed by the new Island Plan Policy NE6 and is shown on the proposals map. If approved by the States, and it is only if approved by the States, it will provide a planning policy framework for the determination of planning applications in this area. There is also an aim to further the objectives of a national park to more common land management practises across the area. The draft plan sets out more detail for the development and adoption of a Coastal National Park management plan over the planned period. The aim is for greater engagement and co-operation of the public and private agencies, interest groups, landowners and farmers within the National Park area. This will harness existing resources and lead to a more common land management regime. The preparation of the management plan will be led and facilitated by the Department of Environment from within existing resources, it will therefore have no additional financial or manpower implications for the department as stated in my proposition.

1. Deputy S. Power:

If I may be allowed to ask a supplementary of the Minister. On the Coastal National Park proposals map, which is 2.4 on page 93, there is a large area along the north coast from St. Martin to St. Ouen and all the way down the west coast, and it includes parts of St. Brelade's Bay and Noirmont. Can the Minister assure the Assembly that with the increase including 2 valleys, that with this increase in area to be proposed as a Coastal National Park - including the outlying reefs - that he will not need further countryside officers?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

As I have just stated, this is a planning designation and therefore we will not be requiring additional officers to facilitate the implementation of the plan should it be approved by the States.

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

Does the Minister agree that it is not really extra resources that are required if we approve the Coastal National Park; what is required is sticking to the guidelines and the rules implicit within the park so that the park is really protected?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I could not have said it better myself.

3. The Deputy of St. Mary :

Will the Minister undertake to do this if and when we vote for the Coastal National Park? Will there be adherence to the policies within the Coastal National Park designation?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

As the Deputy is well aware, as he has studied the Draft Island Plan very carefully and lodged, I think, approximately 20 amendments, the Island Plan is very prescriptive and will require the Minister for Planning and Environment to adhere precisely to the terms of the Island Plan.

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

Would the Minister accept that the areas designated should just be left as a natural environment as they are now, not manicured, and not built upon? That is probably the most important aspect.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I would certainly concur that generally they should not be built upon.

5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Is any special consideration given to applications being currently made which will be constructed, if passed, that will be in the National Park zone?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I am not sure I entirely understood the question, but I think that the Deputy was asking whether current applications will be considered under the new Draft Island Plan. The fact is that while the new Draft Island Plan has weight and can be considered partially in terms of the planning determination, it is not the sole determining factor. Until the Island Plan is approved by this Assembly, if it is approved by this Assembly, it does not have the full weight of the Assembly.

6. Deputy M. Tadier :

Does that mean then, for example, any applications which are passed perhaps the day before the new Island Plan comes into force, which would be in the National Park will still get the go ahead and we will see perhaps large constructions in the National Park zone perhaps going on for a year or so, while that area is still being designated a National Park?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I certainly hope that is not the case but, in general terms, an applicant has a general right to have his application determined within the planning policies applicable at the time the planning application is received. Having said that, the new Island Plan can be given weight in any determination and indeed the Planning Applications Panel and I have both given weight in determinations recently to proposals in the Draft Island Plan.

7. Deputy S. Power:

One last question for the Minister: paragraph 2.64 on page 93 of the Draft Island Plan refers to areas within the Coastal National Park to be accorded the highest level of protection in the Countryside Character Appraisal. Could the Minister briefly explain the difference between what is proposed in the highest level of protection and what is the case now in the 2002 Island Plan?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

The principle is simply that by designating and titling the area "Coastal National Park", that it will raise the status of these particular areas and the policies themselves are fine-tuned to deliver better protection of the Coastal National Park area, that while not significantly greater than in some cases, the protection afforded presently will generally afford greater protection to the area designated. But I must stress that that is, of course, dependent on this Assembly approving the Draft Island Plan.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

On a point of order, Sir, could I ask you a question please? In view of the next question asking for so much detail, could you explain to us how you allow this as an oral question when you keep asking us to keep our responses very short and sweet?

The Bailiff :

The position is that Members are entitled to ask the questions. There is nothing in Standing Orders which says that the Chair can disallow it on the basis that it ought to be an oral question. If there were some questions perhaps would be disallowed on that basis.

[10:00]

Senator T.J. Le Main:

It would be easier for Members to have the answers of the Minister to all the details in this question than done orally.

The Bailiff :

I can well understand your being of that view, and it is up to Members ultimately to try and ask questions that are more suitable for oral than written questions.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I was a little concerned that the Senator was suggesting that I was not sweet. [Laughter]

The Bailiff :

I am afraid that remark passes me by. [Laughter] Just to say to Members too, that the first 2 questions were of course held over from last time so the 2 hours will start from now.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the £21 million departmental underspends:

Thank you for your kind permission to ask this question. Will the Minister provide Members with a breakdown of the £21 million departmental underspends showing how these were obtained, by department and service, and stating whether they were obtained by efficiency savings, increased charges, staffing reductions and/or reductions or cessation of service provision; and will he further indicate how the £13 million returned to departments will assist in delivering overall C.S.R. targets?

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

I will attempt to do it justifiably shortly and sweetly. The Deputy 's question has 2 elements where departments have underspent. There are a number of reasons why departments have underspent, for example, the Chief Minister's Department had an underspend of £168,000 relating to the timing of the Census work. There are lots of other examples, which is difficult to go through in an oral question. What I can say is that the States accounts will include, when they are published before the end of May, the most detailed account of expenditure that I think we have ever issued and it will answer a number of those questions. If the Deputy requires more information over and above that which is in the States accounts, then of course he can address them to individual departments. With the move towards medium-term financial planning, departments are, however I should say, being encouraged to have confidence in underspends that are going to be allowed to be carried forward in line with the proposed increased flexibility that departments will be given 3-year cash limits and then work within them. I also would like to ensure, if I may, that the Deputy does not confuse underspends and planned C.S.R. savings. While there are elements of early delivery of C.S.R. savings within the underspend discussions what I can say is that these do not materially contribute to the £21 million worth of underspends. The second half of the Deputy 's question referred to the carry forward process itself, which is overseen by the Treasury. Departments have had to justify why they need to carry forward any element of their budgets and these explanations have been scrutinised by the Council of Ministers before approval. The £13 million return to the department covers a number of initiatives, most are a result of timing rather than supporting the achievement of C.S.R. savings themselves, however some previously identified savings to be achieved over a longer period of time - like the reduction in schools' grants and fee-paying schools - are planned over a longer period. I can go into more detail if Members would wish but I think that most of the information is going to be in the States accounts.

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I thank the Minister for his answer and obviously there will be further material coming. In particular, I am concerned that there has not been involved any cessation or reduction in service provision, front line services in particular. Can the Minister assure Members that there has not been reduction or cessation of front line services and is he equally confident that in the C.S.R. stage 2 process, front line services will not be cut?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

The £65 million savings reductions will not lead to an absolute maintenance of all services that the States provides. There are political discussions about what are front line services, but generally speaking the £65 million worth of savings, of which I have a high confidence of being able to be presented towards this Assembly for this Assembly to make their decisions on, are reasonable, are appropriate, and where departments are stopping services and reallocating money elsewhere, I think that those matters should be supported by the Assembly. The Deputy does not believe that £65 million can be delivered. I think we can and we must.

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

I wonder if the Minister would undertake right now to clarify for both Members and the media that these underspends are not savings, they are underspends of departments that have been budgeted for, but for some reason the work has as yet not been carried out, so it is not savings, they are underspends of work that has not been carried out?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I do not think I understand the point that the Deputy is making. This Assembly sets budgets for departments. Last year departments underspent those budgets by £21 million. Some of that, not a large amount of it, were departments getting on with delivering C.S.R. savings. Other ones were elements of discretionary expenditure, which was delayed over a period of time. While I heard the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, it may have been taken out of context, saying that underspends were as bad as overspends: I congratulate departments. I congratulate Ministers, their chief officers and their Assistant Ministers on making sensible decisions in terms of timing of expenditure in order to deliver a more efficient public sector.

3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I might say that perhaps underspends are bad budgeting. But does the Minister not think that it was somewhat naïve to issue this plain amount without an explanation, and will he issue a written explanation to Members before the States Accounts are out, unless the States Accounts are going to be out this week?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I cannot do anything really about the timing of decisions. Ministers were certainly giving me pressure, understandably so, that they wanted to know what the Treasury decisions were about their carry forward as soon as possible because they wanted - we are now May - and they wanted to know whether or not they were going to get their underspends in order to manage their departments appropriately. The preparation of the States Accounts, as the chairman will know, take some time. While the Treasury has completed their work, the matters now are in the hands of the auditors and the States Accounts will be published imminently. I need, in the way that we run transparent administration in Jersey when I make a decision about carry forwards, that is published and I issued a fairly detailed report in respect of where the carry forwards were going, which accompany the Ministerial Decision.

4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I am sorry, I think the Minister did not understand my question. I said was it perhaps somewhat naïve to issue a press release just stating that there is a £21 million departmental underspend without any explanation of where the underspends had come from?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

The press release is just simply the indication that the Ministerial Decision has been made, all of which the detail of which is on easy media links now, one click away to look at the full report. If we had just published the Ministerial Decision then people might not have been aware of the fact that it would have been, and frankly I would be criticised either way. I think that I needed to make it clear that I was making the underspend allocations to carry forward and drawing the media and Members' attention to the fact that that has happened. Members, of course, will have the complete picture when they have the States Accounts, which are going to be published by the end of May or in very early June.

5. Deputy M. Tadier :

Point of order first, there will be a statement made later on by the Chief Minister to do with racial intolerance, will that permit oral questions, Sir?

The Bailiff :

Can we just concentrate on this at the moment?

Deputy M. Tadier :

The reason I am asking is because if not I will ask a question which covers both aspects.

The Bailiff :

I see. Any statement does have 10 minutes of oral questions.

Deputy M. Tadier :

That is fine. It will become clear later on. Thank you. The question in that case is, first of all, does the Minister accept that there is great unease about the way in which the money appears to have been reallocated to States departments in the guise, I would say, of savings, when in fact they are underspends? Secondly, does the Minister accept the fact that normal practice, I believe, is for the money to be returned to the Treasury and any subsequent spending would be brought back for the House to decide. There is an issue, I think, because Ministers are perhaps deciding priorities within the C.S.R. rather than the actual Members of this House.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

No, I do not. The decisions in relation to carry forwards, if departments are underspent .. this Assembly has given the T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) £20 million, for example, it probably has not had that, but just by way of example, at the end of the year if T.T.S. have come forward, of which they should be recognised and congratulated that they have come forward actually only having spent £19 million of their expenditure because they have deferred some expenditure, if the Treasury is content to reallocate that money, not in exceeding any expenditure limits, then I think that it is perfectly reasonable for the Minister for Treasury and Resources, after an appropriate discussion with the department, to allocate that underspend. This Assembly is living within its overall means, that is one of the key objectives is living with overall net expenditure control and that is the discussion that will happen in this Assembly in the Business Plan when we confirm, and I have back, the £65 million worth of spending reductions across the States departments.

6. Deputy M. Tadier :

Supplementary? But does the Minister accept that it is very difficult for Members to know what are genuine underspends or perhaps which is money that has not been allocated or not been spent because the programme itself may not have been fully rolled-out over 2 years? It is a completely different matter for money being earmarked for a project which is ongoing, or simply for the Fire Service not having been called out to so many fires this year, and therefore that money has not been spent. Does he agree that the 2 are different and that States Members and the public, until we see the figures, it is going to be very difficult for us to judge the validity of where that money is being spent?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I do appreciate that there is a difference between underspend and C.S.R. They are linked in some ways, in the way that I have described. I look forward to seeing the Deputy at lunchtime with the

update that we are going to have on the comprehensive spending review, it is this Assembly that makes decisions in relation to the comprehensive spending review and where those spending reductions are going to be allocated across departments. Those are going to be lodged in July and debated and confirmed by this Assembly in September. So if Members want, all the information is there. We have a very high transparency of information that is about C.S.R. and savings and I hope the Deputy attends at lunchtime.

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

I would like to ask the Minister for Treasury and Resources what is going on at Transport and Technical Services because we had the debate recently on green waste and the issues in relation to commercial charges being introduced because it is costing in excess of £800,000 a year. Nothing gets mentioned and then 6 weeks later, they spend £1.6 million. So we are spending £2.4 million minimum this year on composting green waste before we have even introduced a charging mechanism or the weighing machine for that. What is going on at Transport and Technical Services? What money were they given? Is it not a fact that we do not make decisions in this Assembly? We just rubberstamp what the Ministers are going to do and then once we have rubberstamped it, they go and change their minds and do whatever they want anyway.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am not an expert on all aspects. I can research the matter but it is a matter better addressed to the Minister. There has been a discussion in this Assembly about the introduction of waste charges and I just would remind the Deputy that one of the most important functions of this Assembly, on an annual basis and going forward on a 3-year basis, is to give departments an allocation and then it is up to the department as to how they allocate that, but Members are going to be persuaded on the makeup and the construction of those budgets. But we need to give departments some confidence that they have all [Interruption]

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

Could I ask a supplementary on that very briefly? How does that answer marry with his previous answer that there is a high level of transparency in this process?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

All the information is published and debated in this Assembly leading towards that decision but ultimately when the Assembly has confirmed an overall cash limit to a department, then they must work within it and we must have confidence in Ministers and their departments to do that work.

9. Senator B.E. Shenton:

Will the Minister concede that if you are trying to run a balanced budget that accurate forecasting is vital and will he furthermore concede that the lack of accurate forecasting in this case may have led to higher taxation on the public of Jersey than was in fact necessary?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I have just done a calculation, and outwith the £8 million that was underspend from Social Security in respect of various different matters, which had previously been discussed, that has been returned to the Consolidated Fund. The actual underspend across departments was, I calculate, in the region of 2 per cent. I think that is a fairly reasonable tolerance for departments to operate in and I wish sometimes that the Chairman of P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) who is rightly critical about administration of public finances, for once says: "Well done, well done to departments for managing expenditure properly and not working towards the end of the year and just spending your budget." [Approbation] So sometimes politics is difficult but sometimes say a nice thing, Senator Shenton, if I may say.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

Sir, could I just say: "Well done"? [Laughter]

[10:15]

10. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Notwithstanding the publication of the end of year annual report in which this material will be contained, will the Minister extract the details and publish them before, for the sake of Members of the States following-up with departments where these underspends have occurred, how they have occurred, as I wish to do in the next written questions session, which requires me to have that information before this coming Sunday? Will the Minister extract the data which fits this question and circulate it among Members so that they can do what they are required to do, hold Ministers to account for those underspends and to examine the way in which those underspends have occurred?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I would encourage the Deputy to wait for the States Accounts which will be published imminently. There is a huge amount of work that goes into the publication of the States Accounts and I would prefer to deploy Treasury resources to completing that work, getting that information out. If the information is not complete, then of course the Deputy can ask individual written questions to do it. I am sorry, I did not answer Senator Shenton's other question. No, this would not change anything in relation to this Assembly's decision in relation to the fiscal strategy. The public financial position of Jersey has improved, that is good, but nothing stops us from having to stick to the decisions on the savings programme and the taxation in order to rebalance our books.

4. The Deputy of St. Mary of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee regarding debates on the Public Accounts Committee's report on the Accounts of the States of Jersey for the year ended December 31st 2009' and their update report:

Given the importance of the Public Accounts Committee's report on the Accounts of the States of Jersey for the year ended 31st December 2009 and their update report, will the Chairman agree to take steps to enable a debate on the 2 reports and if not why not?

Senator B.E. Shenton (Chairman, Public Accounts Committee):

I think this is a very good question and we discussed it at the P.A.C. meeting briefly yesterday. The P.A.C. historically has, unlike the U.K. (United Kingdom) P.A.C we have brought propositions in our own right and we have been in quite detailed conversations with the Treasury about the Public Finances Law and the Chief Minister's Department about the States of Jersey Law. These negotiations and discussions will be ongoing. Perhaps the best promise I can make to the Deputy is that the States of Jersey Accounts are going to be published by the end of the month and we will be carrying out a full review of these accounts, which will include the underspends and other aspects. There is also a report coming out on States senior management salaries. Perhaps I could give the Deputy the assurance that we will liaise with P.A.C. and the Deputy himself about when this report comes out, which will be in a couple of months' time, that we will bring this to the Chamber in some format for full debate on the issues. In that way, it will be a report that will be hot off the press and will cover some of the questions that were asked with the previous questioner as well.

1. The Deputy of St. Mary :

Yes, the reason I asked this question was that the report I referred to in the question made some astonishing allegations about our public service and also about this Assembly about, for instance, uncontrolled spending and I quote: "Considerable sums of public money which cannot be accounted for." They also referred to an overspend of £100 million, which made a very good headline but it has turned out not to be true as in any normal version of English it was not an overspend. So that is why I am asking for this debate because I think these are very important issues and the Chairman of P.A.C. has not answered my question. He has offered a debate on a totally different report but that is not the point. The report about the 2009 Accounts had comments in it that should be debated on the floor of this House.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

I think unfortunately the Deputy has perhaps misread the report. The £100 million overspend was basically taking the 2004 estimate for what we would spend in 2009 and comparing it to what we did spend in 2009, which was about £100 million more than we estimated in 2004. So that is where that particular overspend came from. With regard to the control of finances, once we allocate funds to an individual Minister, how that Minister spends that money is down to the particular Minister. It is not down to this Assembly. We have no influence on how that Minister will spend the budget that he is allocated, and that was the point we were making. Furthermore, because certain Clothier reforms were not implemented, the Council of Ministers do not even have the power to pull a Minister into line if he deviates. So these were the points that we were making.

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Building on that very point that the Senator made, could the Senator say whether his committee has come up with ideas - which seem to have eluded almost every group that has studied the States and made recommendations - to enforce stronger accountability? We also had the Welsh Audit Report

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, Deputy , I think that is getting too far off the question which was whether there should be a debate on 2 pre-existing reports.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Could the Senator indicate whether in this debate he will be focusing on the lack of accountability and the lack of the ability to enforce accountability?

The Bailiff :

Still too far off, sorry, Deputy . [Laughter] Good try but Deputy Higgins and then the final question Deputy of St. Mary.

3. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

Recently there has been much discussion about Scrutiny Reports being debated on the floor of the House and otherwise being brought out into the open. The Deputy of St. Mary is basically asking for a debate on the reports you have brought out so that Members can not only go over the evidence you have found but also see the validity of it. Does the Chairman of the P.A.C. believe that his reports equally should be debated on the floor of this House in the same way that Scrutiny Reports should be?

Senator B.E. Shenton:

There is an updated report coming out fairly imminently and what I have offered is to work with P.A.C. about having a meaningful debate on that account containing the latest information. So the answer is going forward; yes. I cannot see the point of debating reports that have already come out because there is updated information and we have got the 2010 report and accounts out fairly imminently.

4. The Deputy of St. Mary :

Will the new report be a proper Public Accounts Committee report or will it be full of the spin and personal views of the people on the committee dressed up as a critique of the accounts because otherwise if it is not, then it does not help the Assembly very much. So will the new report be better

The Bailiff :

Do you have a question there, Deputy ?

Senator B.E. Shenton:

I think that is a subjective statement. I know that the Deputy did have some difficulty in understanding the report [Aside] [Laughter] and maybe the P.A.C. could take him to one side and educate him on the workings of the States finances.