States Meeting Transcript - 18/01/2011

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 18th JANUARY 2011

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS..........................9

1. Resignation of the Connétable of St. Peter from the Environment Scrutiny Panel, the Public Accounts Committee, and Waterfront Enterprise Board ........................9

1. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ..........................................................9
2. Senator B.E. Shenton:....................................................................9
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................9

2. Nomination of a member of the Public Accounts Committee ...........................9

2.1 Senator B.E. Shenton:....................................................................9

3. Nomination of a member of the Corporate Affairs Scrutiny Panel ....................10

3.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................10 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.......................................................................10

QUESTIONS.....................................................................................10

4. Written Questions.......................................................................10

1. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING FUNDING FOR THE ISLAND GAMES IN 2015:......10
2. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING FUNDING FOR THE ISLAND GAMES 2015:............11
3. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE RECIPROCAL HEALTH AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM:..................................................................11
4. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING A REVIEW OF TAXATION: ....................12
5. SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN THE ROYAL COURT:.........................................13
6. SENATOR F. du H. LE GRESLEY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE TIMETABLE FOR CHANGES TO SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTION LEVELS:..............................................14
7. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING ZERO/TEN AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM: ............................................................................15
8. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING A SITE FOR SKIP SORTING:......................16
9. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE STATES TUG: ................................17
10. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING CHANGES TO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE NAPIER REPORT:......18

11. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF STATES VEHICLES:..............................................................20
12. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS MADE AFTER THE RECENT REVIEW OF HIS DEPARTMENT:.......................................................................21
13. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING CALLS FOR JERSEY TO BECOME AN INDEPENDENT JURISDICTION:.......................................................................21
14. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING TAX INFORMATION EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS IN FORCE FOR THE LAST SIX YEARS: ................................................................................22
15. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE'S "REPORT ON THE ACCOUNTS OF THE STATES OF JERSEY FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 2009" (P.A.C.4/2010):...................................................23
16. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE REGARDING THE COMMITTEE'S "REPORT ON THE ACCOUNTS OF THE STATES OF JERSEY FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 2009" (P.A.C.4/2010):........................................................................25
17. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING COMPANIES SUBJECT TO ZERO RATE TAX:26
18. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING

DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ISLE OF MAN AND GUERNSEY REGARDING ZERO/TEN:............................................................................27

19. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE TOTAL REVENUE RECEIVED FROM DEEMED DISTRIBUTION PROVISIONS:...........................................27

5. Oral Questions...........................................................................28

1. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the establishment of a social responsibility fund:...........................................28 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):.............................................................................28

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................28
   2. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chairman for the Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding the implementation of reforms agreed in October 2010:......................29 Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):.....29

5.2.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:...................................................................29 5.2.2. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:.................................................29

3. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................30
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................30
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................30
6. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................31

3. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding the Island's compliance issues with the E.U. Code on Business Taxation:..............................................31 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................31

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................31
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................32

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................32
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................32

4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding Island Plan consultation: ......................................................................32 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................32

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................33
2. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................33
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................33
4. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St.Helier:...............................................33
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................33
6. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................34
7. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................34
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................34

5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the application of the Code of Remuneration for Board Members by Jersey Post International Limited:..................................................................35 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................35

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................35
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................35
3. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................35

6. The Deputy of St. John of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the provision of passenger information airside:.............................................36 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................36

5.6.1 The Deputy of St. John:................................................................36

7. Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding allegations against members of staff at the Education, Sport and Culture Department relating to historic abuse cases:....................................................................37 Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen (Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):..................37

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................37
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................37
3. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................38
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................38

8. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley of the Chief Minister regarding the Jersey Law Commission's review of the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990 (Social Désastre): .........................................................................................38 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................38

5.8.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................39

9. The Deputy ofSt. Mary of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the analysis of road traffic accidents:...................................................39 Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): .........................................................................................39

5.9.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................40

10. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the provision of free short-term parking areas at the Airport:...........................40 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur)...........40

1. Deputy A.K.F. Green:...............................................................40
2. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................41
3. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................41
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................41
5. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................41
6. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................42
7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................42
8. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:...................................................43
9. Deputy A.K.F. Green:...............................................................43

11. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chairman for the Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding the filming of Scrutiny meetings by citizen media': .........................43 The Connétable of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee) ..............43

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................44
2. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................44
3. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................44
4. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................45
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................45
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................45
7. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................45

12. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the recouping of corporate tax lost through Zero/Ten from foreign-owned non-finance companies: .............................................................................46 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (Minister for Treasury and Resources):................................46

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................46
2. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................47
3. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................47
4. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................48
5. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................48
6. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................48

13. Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Social Security regarding eligibility for the Food Costs (or G.S.T.') Bonus:..............................................................49 Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement (Minister for Social Security):..............................49

1. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................49
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................49
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................50
4. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................50

14. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the impact of restrictions on the duties of certain doctors:..................................50 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (Minister for Health and Social Services):......................50

1. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................51
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................51
3. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................52
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................52
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................52
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................52
7. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................53
8. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................53
9. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................53
10. The Deputy of St. John:............................................................53
11. Deputy M. Tadier : .................................................................54
12. The Deputy of St. Martin:..........................................................54

15. The Deputy of St. Mary of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding air, sea and surface run-off emissions from the Energy from Waste Plant: ..............54 The Connétable of St. Brelade (Minister for Transport and Technical Services):..............54

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................55
2. Deputy J.A. Hilton:..................................................................55
3. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................55
4. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier : .................................................55
5. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................55
6. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................56
7. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................56

8. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................56
9. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................57

16. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding revised waiting list targets: .............................................................57 The Deputy of Trinity (Minister for Health and Social Services):.............................57

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................57
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................57
3. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................58
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................58
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................58
6. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................58
7. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................59
8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................59 The Deputy of St. Martin:....................................................................59

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................59 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................59

6. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Housing ...................59

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................59 Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade (The Minister for Housing):..................................60
2. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................60

6.2.1 Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................60

3. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................60

6.3.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:..................................................................61

4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................61

6.4.1 The Deputy of St. John:................................................................61

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................61
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................62
7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................62

6.7.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................62

8. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................62
9. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................63
10. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................63
11. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................63
12. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................63
13. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................63

7. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Economic Development..64

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................64 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................64

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................65
   2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................65

7.2.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................65

3. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................65

7.3.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................65

4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................66
5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................66
6. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................66
7. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................66
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................67

7.8.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................67

9. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................67

7.9.1 Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................67

10. Deputy M.R. Higgins:..................................................................67

7.10.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:...............................................................68

11. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................68

7.11.1 The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................69

PERSONAL STATEMENTS....................................................................69

8. Personal Statement by Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré on his removal as Assistant Minister ...........................................................................................69

8.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................69

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................71

9. Statement by the Chief Minister statement regarding the Order of Justice put forward by Mr. S. Syvret................................................................71

9.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................71

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................72

10. Proposition to alter the order of debate ................................................72

1. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................72
2. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................72
3. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................72
4. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................73
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................73
6. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................73
7. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................73
8. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................74
9. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................74 10.10The Deputy of St. John:................................................................74 10.11 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................74

12. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence:.....................................................76
13. The Connétable of St. Mary:...........................................................78
14. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ..............................................................78
15. Deputy M. Tadier : .....................................................................79
16. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................80
17. The Deputy of Trinity :.................................................................80
18. Deputy T.M. Pitman:..................................................................80
19. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:.............................................................80

11. Canons of the Church of England in Jersey (P.179/2010)..............................83

11.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................84

1. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................84
2. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................85
3. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................85
4. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:.................................................85
5. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................86 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ..............................................86
6. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................86
7. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................86
8. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................87

9. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................87
10. Deputy A.E. Jeune :................................................................88
11. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ..........................................................88
12. The Connétable of Grouville :......................................................89
13. Deputy M. Tadier : .................................................................89
14. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:.........................................................90
15. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey:..........................90
16. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:............................................................94

12. Draft Employment (Amendment No. 6) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.143/2010) ..............96

12.1 Deputy I.J. Gorst (The Minister for Social Security):...................................97

13. Draft Restriction on Smoking (Warning Notices) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.156/2010)..............................................................................99

1. The Deputy of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):..................99

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................99
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.............................................................100
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ..............................................................100
4. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................101
5. The Deputy of Trinity : .............................................................101 The Attorney General:......................................................................102

2. The Deputy of Trinity :................................................................104

13.2.1 Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................104

3. The Deputy of Trinity :................................................................108

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:............................................................108
2. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................108
3. The Deputy of Trinity : .............................................................108

14. Official Report (Hansard'): retrospective removal of names (P.168/2010)..........110

14.1 The Connétable of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):......110

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:...........................................................112
2. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...............................................................112
3. The Deputy of St. John:............................................................112
4. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................112
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:............................................................113
6. Deputy G.P. Southern : .............................................................114
7. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ................................................................114
8. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..............................................................114
9. Senator J.L. Perchard: ..............................................................115
10. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ......................................115
11. The Connétable of St. Mary:......................................................115

15. Draft Amendment (No. 14) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.169/2010) ..........................................................................................118

1. The Connétable of St. Mary:..........................................................118

1. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................119
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.............................................................119
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : .............................................................119
4. The Connétable of St. Mary : .......................................................119

2. The Connétable of St. Mary:..........................................................121

1. The Deputy of St. John:............................................................122
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:............................................................122

3. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................122
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : .............................................................122
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:...........................................................122
6. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...............................................................123
7. The Connétable of St. Mary : .......................................................123

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................123

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

[10:40]

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS

1. Resignation of the Connétable of St. Peter from the Environment Scrutiny Panel, the Public Accounts Committee, and Waterfront Enterprise Board

The Bailiff :

We come now to F and the first is the resignation of the Connétable of St. Peter from the Public Accounts Committee and also from the Environment Scrutiny Panel.

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

As Chairman of the Environment Scrutiny Panel, can I say how sorry I am to lose the Constable of St. Peter from my panel. He has been one of the most active members that I have worked with over many years in Scrutiny, since the inception of Scrutiny, and he will be a great loss to my panel. I would like to thank him for the work he has done. While on my feet, I must say I am very disappointed in the Chief Minister not having had the courtesy to speak to myself and the Chairman of P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) about the appointment because he has left my panel with just 2 members and left P.A.C. with having to find another member at very short notice. The Chief Minister needs to look at the process in which appointments are made by his department and not leave other areas of government short of members. In doing so, I would like to thank the Connétable .

2. Senator B.E. Shenton:

Can I just, on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, thank the Constable of St. Peter for his excellent support and work on the Public Accounts Committee during his tenure. He has been extremely diligent in everything he has done in respect of the Public Accounts Committee and we will miss him, but I wish him well on his move to the I was going to say the dark side, but I cannot say that - to the other side of the Chamber.

The Bailiff :

Similarly the Connétable of St. Peter has notified his resignation as a States-nominated director of the Waterfront Enterprise Board.

3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I think it might be appropriate at this stage for me to thank the Constable for his services on the Waterfront Enterprise Board. He serves as one of the 3 States Members appointed to that board. As Members will be aware, we are in the process of transition from the Waterfront Enterprise Board to the States of Jersey Development Company and we shall be shortly seeking new appointments to that new function. In the circumstances, I do not intend at this stage to bring a proposition for a replacement to the Constable of St. Peter for such a short period of time. But I thank him for his services over the time he has spent on that board and the benefit which he has brought to the decisions that that board has made.

The Bailiff :

We come next to a nomination of a member of the Public Accounts Committee.

2. Nomination of a member of the Public Accounts Committee

2.1 Senator B.E. Shenton:

I have great pleasure in nominating Deputy John Le Fondré to join the Public Accounts Committee. The move is particularly useful at this time as we are in the middle of a review on property disposals by the States. [Laughter] I am sure that his insight will be extremely valuable. Can I just assure the Deputy that if he does not disagree with the committee we will not get rid of him. [Laughter]

The Bailiff :

Are there any other nominations? Very well, I declare Deputy Le Fondré nominated to the Public Accounts Committee. [Approbation]

3. Nomination of a member of the Corporate Affairs Scrutiny Panel

The Bailiff :

I understand there is also a nomination of a member of the Corporate Affairs Scrutiny Panel.

3.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

The Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel by unanimous decision invited Deputy Le Fondré to join the panel and we are delighted to say that he has accepted, obviously subject to the agreement of the Assembly. Deputy Le Fondré has a broad range of experience both in the Assembly and in the wider world beyond, and he will be a great asset to the panel. The panel would request the Assembly to agree to this appointment.

The Bailiff :

Are there any other nominations? Then I declare Deputy Le Fondré a member of the Corporate Affairs Scrutiny Panel. [Approbation]

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Maybe at this time it would be appropriate for me publicly to express my thanks to Deputy Le Fondré for the support he has given to me as Assistant Minister over the past 2 years, and indeed for 3 years prior to that as well in a different capacity. I shall miss his services but Standing Orders have certain restrictions on them, but I am sure he will be an excellent member of both the Public Accounts Committee and the Corporate Affairs Scrutiny Panel, and I wish him well in the future.

[10:45]

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

Just as a matter of procedure, I wonder if we needed a seconder on that? I would be glad to second him if that is the case.

The Bailiff :

Yes, I suppose technically we do as a nomination. You have seconded both, have you? Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

With great pleasure, Sir.

QUESTIONS

4. Written Questions

1. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING FUNDING FOR THE ISLAND GAMES IN 2015: Question

Given that during December 2010, there was concern about the Isle of Wight securing some £360,000 towards hosting the forthcoming Island Games, will the Minister confirm that sufficient funding is in place to support the Island Games in Jersey in 2015?

Answer

The Council of Ministers supported the bid for the Island Games in 2015 following a presentation to Ministers in January 2010.

Following the success of the Games bid, the Council of Ministers included initial funding of £100,000 p.a. from 2013 for Education, Sport and Culture as part of the CSR Part 2 growth allocation in P157/2010. This will provide funding for two full-time officers in the run up to the event, one of which will be the Games Director.

In addition, £583,000 has been included in the indicative capital programme for the FB Field Running Track Replacement project in 2013, which is critical to the success of the event.

Therefore I can confirm, subject to States approval, that funding has been put in place to support the current funding requirements.

In its presentation to Ministers, the Department for Education, Sport and Culture estimated the net cost of holding the Games in 2015 would be £1.2m. An organising Committee has been established which will be reviewing this estimate and investigating potential sources of income from official Island Games sponsors, competitor accreditation and corporate sponsorship.

Once the exact level of the additional financial support is known, the Council of Ministers will bring forward proposals to incorporate additional funding in the appropriate year's Business Plan.

2. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING FUNDING FOR THE ISLAND GAMES 2015:

Question

Given that during December 2010, there was concern about the Isle of Wight securing some £360,000 towards hosting the forthcoming Island Games, will the Minister confirm that sufficient funding is in place to support the Island Games in Jersey in 2015?

Answer

I have consulted both the Council of Ministers and the Treasury Minister and I concur with the written answer the Treasury Minister has provided in respect of this question.

3. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE RECIPROCAL HEALTH AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM:

Question

Following the statement by the Chief Minister on 6th December 2010, that the reciprocal health agreement with the United Kingdom "should be signed and completed before the end of this year", would the Minister advise why this has not happened and when she now expects it to be signed?

Answer

The previous Reciprocal Health Agreement between the UK and the Channel Islands ended on 31st March 2009. I took up post as Minister for Health and Social Services at the end of April 2009 and have been working since that time to reintroduce a new agreement between Jersey and the UK.

I can confirm that our officials are continuing positive discussions with officials from the UK Department of Health. From our side, these discussions are being taken forward by our Director of International Affairs from the Chief Minister's Department and the Deputy Chief Officer from the Health and Social Services Department. From the UK side, the discussions are being led by the Overseas Healthcare Team at the UK Department of Health (who also dealt with the new Isle of Man Reciprocal Health Agreement).

More recently, I wrote to Anne Milton MP, Parliamentary under Secretary of State, Department of Health on the 4th November 2010 regarding the reintroduction of a reciprocal health agreement between the UK and Jersey. I received a reply on the 13th January 2011 to which I have already responded. In her letter Anne Milton MP stated that she is happy to give her in principle support for the reintroduction of a bilateral health agreement. She informs me that she will write again shortly with a formal proposal for my consideration.

The next steps are for the Department of Health to consult with the devolved administrations regarding the agreement whilst officers from my Department and the Chief Ministers Department liaise with their UK counterparts with a view to having an agreement identical to that which the UK recently signed with the Isle of Man.

I am hopeful that a new agreement will be in place as soon as possible.

4. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING A REVIEW OF TAXATION:

Question

Was the review of all aspects of 1(1)(k) taxation by an individual with international expertise in wealth management' mentioned in the Minister's response to question 4996 on 8th December 2009 ever conducted and if so, by whom?

Given that in response to question 5228 on 23rd March 2010, the Minister advised the review would "encompass arrangements prior to 2005" when Article 135A of the Income Tax Law came into force, what advice has he received on the treatment of taxation of currently resident 1(1)(k) residents who obtained consents both before and after 2005 and why was no mention of arrangements prior to 2005 made in his 2011 budget speech?

Will the Minister clarify whether the £100,000 minimum 1(1)(k) tax contribution (raised to £125,000 in the 2011 budget) refers to Jersey income, foreign income or both?

Will the Minister give members details of the  "new high-value residents' regime for new residents" that he proposed in the budget to raise over £2m additional tax?

Will he detail the changes to tax revenues he expects from the decision to limit 1(1)(k) tax on worldwide income at 20% on £625,000, instead of 20% on £1m and 10% on the next £500,000 as at present?

Answer

The review of 1(1)(k)s is well progressed with some independent research undertaken during 2010 by a London based law firm. A report is being prepared, for publication by March this year, which will set out proposals for changes to the 1(1)(k) regime. The independent research contains tax sensitive information and for that reason will not be published. However the conclusions of that review and extracts from it will be referred to in the report currently being prepared.

I am also establishing a Ministerial advisory group including the Ministers or Assistant Ministers from Housing, Economic Development and Treasury to review the proposals. I intend to lodge draft tax law for debate before the Summer recess and to work with the other Ministers to develop other policies during 2011 to ensure Jersey attracts more wealthy individuals.

The independent advice was clear that if Jersey wanted to maintain and expand the tax contribution from its 1(1)(k) regime, no changes should be made to the tax rules that apply to existing 1(1)(k)s. Those who arrived before 2005 already pay 20% on all of their taxable income. To change the tax rules that apply to those already here would indicate instability and Jersey would struggle to attract more wealthy residents.

The £100,000 minimum tax contribution (now £125,000) refers to tax on both Jersey and foreign source income.

The £2m additional tax referred to was illustrative of the tax that could be raised if 15 new applicants were attracted under the new regime. As set out clearly in the Budget speech part of that regime includes a change to the tax rules but there will also need to be a focus on marketing to ensure people are aware that Jersey is open for business.

The purpose of the proposed changes to the tax law for 1(1)(k)s is to maintain Jersey's competitiveness and prevent the current practice of capping tax liabilities that sometimes occurs under the existing regime. The new regime is intended to discourage them from doing so and bring their business to Jersey rather than put it in another jurisdiction. The additional tax revenues likely to arise as a result will depend on how many Jersey successfully attracts. That will depend on many factors other than just the Jersey tax regime but it is important that the tax regime is competitive against such jurisdictions as Switzerland, Singapore, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

Further details of all of these aspects and any proposed changes in the regime will be provided in the report currently being prepared which will be published by March this year.

5. SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN THE ROYAL COURT:

Question

Does the Royal Court currently have the power to issue periodic payment orders in respect of personal injury claims and, if not, will the Chief Minster advise whether there are plans to introduce the periodic payment order option available in the UK whereby awards are made as a traditional lump sum;, a mixture of a lump sum and a periodic payment order or a provisional damages bolt-on to either of the aforementioned, and, if not, why not?

Answer

This question relates to the Royal Court's powers to award damages in very serious personal injury claims. By serious, it is understood that the injury is so significant and permanent that the plaintiff will continue to be materially disabled well after the conclusion of the civil action. Tetraplegia is an obvious example of such a condition.

In these cases, the plaintiff is entitled to future damages reflecting, inter alia, future lost earnings and costs of care over the plaintiff's remaining lifetime. At present, the Royal Court makes an award of such future damages as a lump sum, calculated by reference to established legal principles. The damages awarded for future loss can be considerable.

The Royal Court also has the power to award provisional damages pursuant to Article 3 of the Administration of Justice (Interim Payments and Damages) (Jersey) Law 1993. That it to say, the award of damages at the conclusion of a civil action is not necessarily final. If, as a result of the act or omission which gave rise to the cause of action, it is proven that the plaintiff may develop some serious disease or suffer some serious deterioration in physical or mental condition in the future, then the Court can order that the case be returned to the Court in the event of such an occurrence so that further damages can be awarded as appropriate.

In April 2005, the Courts in the UK were given the power to order the payment of periodic payments in respect of future losses. Previously, only the parties to an action could agree to such a course of action. As a result, the UK Courts can, when assessing damages in respect of future loss of earnings and care, order the defendant to make suitable annual payments over the plaintiff's lifetime to cover the plaintiff's annual losses rather than the payment of a one-off lump sum to the plaintiff to cover their entire lifetime.

At present, the Royal Court has no power to make periodic payments.

Periodic payments are not automatic in the UK not least because the Court is obliged by law to ensure that there exists sufficient guarantee and security that the payments will be made. There will still be cases in the UK when the order of a lump sum is appropriate and indeed there will still be cases when the plaintiff indicates that they would prefer a lump sum.

There is a practical consideration here. In the UK, there is an insurance scheme in place to protect the plaintiff in the event that the defendant or their insurer could not longer make the periodic payments. It may be that this could be extended to Jersey.

There are no plans at present to introduce the periodic payments option to Jersey.

6. SENATOR F. du H. LE GRESLEY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURYAND RESOURCES REGARDING THE TIMETABLE FOR CHANGES TO SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTION LEVELS:

Question

Would the Minister set out his timetable for the introduction of the additional 2% Social Security contributions above the ceiling from employees and employers and advise when he intends to consult with groups which represent the self employed, such as the Small Business Group at the Jersey Chamber of Commerce?

Has the Minister considered carrying out a further consultation exercise this year with the public and interested groups on the reform of our personal taxation system so as to have an alternative option available in the event that the required changes to legislation, to implement the proposed increase in Social Security contributions from 1st January 2012, were to be rejected by the States? Would the Minister set out his timetable for consultation with members of the financial services industry on the ISE fee structure, from which it is proposed to generate additional income of £2m in 2012?

Answer Social Security

All matters relating to progressing the policy of changes to Social Security contributions are the responsibility of the Minister for Social Security. The regulations to make changes to the contributions above the ceiling will be lodged by the Social Security Minister for States debate by July 2011 and introduction from 1 January 2012. Informal consultation, led by the Minister for Social Security, will take place with key stakeholders throughout the year as part of the ongoing development. This is in addition to an extensive Fiscal Strategy Review consultation which was undertaken last year, during which Chamber members and representatives of other employment groups attended meetings and sent in their responses to the green paper.

The proposals for 2011 and the rest of the strategy set out in the 2011 Budget to bring our finances back into balance by 2013 was approved by the States in December. The increase in Social Security contributions is a key part of the strategy, alongside the increase in GST and ISE fees.

There are no plans to carry out further consultation this year in order to develop an alternative to an increase in Social Security contributions. Detailed research was carried out in preparation for the Fiscal Strategy Review consultation, which identified the four tax raising measures which could raise the necessary level of revenue. However, longer term tax policy development is being looked at and there will be opportunities taken to consult on tax matters in future.

The possibility of reform of our personal tax system through other means such as the introduction of a higher rate of income tax was considered during last year's Fiscal Strategy Review consultation and discounted. If the changes necessary to increase Social Security contributions are not approved, then the alternatives would be to further reduce spending and/or increase other taxes.

ISE fees

The consultation process will take place in the spring and early summer of this year with the intention that specific proposals will be included in the 2012 Budget.

7. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING ZERO/TEN AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM:

Question

Following his response to an urgent question on 12th December 2010 on zero/ten, will the Chief Minister inform members what communication, if any, he or any of his Ministers have had with either H.M. Revenue and Customs, the UK Treasury or Lord McNally, the Minister responsible for relations with the Channel Islands and will he reveal the content of those communications?

If only the deemed distribution provisions are harmful, will he give members a full list of the mechanisms he and the Minister for Treasury and Resources have at their disposal to replace the "deemed distribution rules" that were proposed to recoup up to £15m of taxes from locally owned non-finance companies under the "zero/ten" regime?

Will he further inform members how such mechanisms would not breach Articles 1 and 2 of the Code in offering advantages only to non-residents and ring fencing those advantages from the domestic market?

Answer

Communications between governments are confidential and so will not be revealed. Members have however been provided with a detailed report setting out all of the issues in relation to the Code Group's assessment of our business tax system http://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=495 A copy of the briefing that was given to the Code Group when it met on 19th November 2010 has also been circulated. These two documents set out the information very clearly.

The deemed distribution rules were not introduced to "recoup up to £15m of taxes from locally owned non-finance companies". They were introduced as personal tax anti-avoidance provisions, with the support of the UK. Anti-avoidance measures apply in most countries where there is a difference in rates of taxes.

As stated in the response to the urgent question on 10th December 2010, the Code Group recommended, and ECOFIN agreed, to ask the High Level Working Party on tax issues to consider the scope of the Code and in particular the extent to which personal tax matters fell within that scope. We will be engaging with HM Treasury once the outcome of that review is known, to discuss what action Jersey should take.

Also once the outcome of that review is completed and we fully understand the scope of the Code and the implications to the 0/10 regime, we will be in a position to consider and if necessary develop realistic alternatives. It would therefore be unwise and a waste of resources to develop a list of speculative alternatives before knowing the constraints that we are expected to work within.

Whatever alternative measures are introduced, full consideration will be given to the articles within the Code, as well as the findings of the High Level Working Party, to ensure that such measures comply.

8. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING A SITE FOR SKIP SORTING:

Question

Could the Minister update members on the progress being made between his Department and Transport and Technical Services in locating a site for skip sorting for skip operators who are providing a service with little government support, and also give members a date when he and the Minister for Transport and Technical Services will notify the States that a site has been identified and ready for use?

Answer

Again I must thank the Deputy of St John for raising this important matter. Resolving the issue of the Island's aspirations for recycling with the delivery of an appropriate large scale skip sorting site is of great importance.

The work required from proposition P97/2010 is being led by officers from Jersey Property Holdings who will be consulting Transport and Technical Services and Planning and Environment in due course. Consequently responsibility is shared with the Constable of St Brelade and Senator Ozouf .

I understand that numerous sites are currently being evaluated from a property perspective. These will then be assessed from an environmental perspective and an operational perspective. I am assured that a report will be presented to the States in line with the six month timetable previously agreed.

I cannot at this stage answer the second part of the question as a site will have to be identified in the first instance. To make a site ready for use' requires a number of steps. The States needs to decide, either directly or through Property Holdings, that the site is acceptable and available.

A planning application needs to be made incorporating an Environmental Impact Assessment. A planning consent needs to be achieved and a waste licence applied for and consented.

9. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE STATES TUG:

Question

Further to questions in December 2010 regarding the States Tug, is the Minister in a position to provide a fuller explanation of the works undertaken and costs involved including staffing time and overtime, as well as advising which account within the Department is to pay for the repairs and give reasons why at the time of inspection of the vessel at the yard in Holland the works were not put in hand and why it was necessary for the vessel to return to Holland for this work to be undertaken?

Would the Minister provide details of the full costs to date (rather than estimates) of the replacement stand-in vessels including manpower charges and the costs of the Sealion'?

Could details of the ship's logbook be made available to members given the Minister has said that the vessel is in use on average 175 days per year?

Answer

I am told that in early November, routine checks of hydraulic oil samples on the  Duke of Normandy' revealed an unusually high content of contaminate. As all the hydraulic systems on the vessel are fed from a common tank, there was a high risk of equipment damage to various components therefore the system had to be isolated and urgent repairs carried out.

The problem had not occurred at the time of the inspection in May and would not have been apparent any earlier.

Equipment to carry out the repairs was not available locally and quotes were sought from yards in the UK and Holland. The quote from Damen represented best value for money.

The fault was traced to the failure of a single hydraulic pump which on inspection did not need to be replaced. The faulty pump was rebuilt using spare components available in the yard. An enhancement to the hydraulic system was carried out at the same time to ensure that any future such failure can be isolated.

The cost of the repair in total was £43,000 including overtime costs of £7,000.The tug is an asset of the Port of Jersey and costs were therefore charged to this account.

The replacement tug Goliath' cost £26,500 including the skipper. Jersey Harbours' staff made up the remainder of crew. The charter of Sealion' to carry out essential dredging work cost £17,800.

Logbooks are available for inspection on board the Duke of Normandy'. If any Member would like the opportunity to review these, an appointment should be made by request to the Harbour Master.

An operational summary for 2008, 2009 and 2010 is provided below, illustrating the number and types of task undertaken.

TASK 2008 VESSEL BERTHING ASSISTANCE* 108 BUOY MAINTENANCE 32 BEACON AND OFF SHORE MAINTENANCE 5 OUTSIDE CHARTER WORK 20 COMMUNITY / SPONSORSHIP / EVENTS 7 PILOTAGE TRAINING & EXAMINATIONS 19 HARBOUR MAINTENANCE 50 EMERGENCY EXERCISES AND TRAINING 5 SEARCH & RESCUE / SALVAGE / TOWAGE 1 TOTAL 247

2009 2010 52 57 42 22 12 11

4 0 14 10 12 6 36 21 16 2 8 1 196 130**

* Vessel  berthing  assistance  is  often  for  early  morning  arrivals  and  late  evening  shipping movements.

** Duke of Normandy was off station for two periods totalling 69 days in 2010 whilst statutory

survey work and repairs were carried out.

10. THE  DEPUTY  OF  ST. MARTIN  OF THE  CHIEF  MINISTER REGARDING CHANGES TO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE NAPIER REPORT: Question

With reference to the removal of part (d) from the Napier Terms of Reference will the Chief Minister inform Members –

1. why this was considered necessary when the former Chief Officer oftheStatesof Jersey Police had agreed to partake in the Review and, if he had not participated, would part (d) have been removed?
2. what was to be achieved by deleting part (d) and what date in April 2010 was it decided?
3. with whom did the Deputy Chief Executive consult before the decision was made and when was the Chief Minister advised?

4. why the Deputy Chief Executive did not consult with the Deputy of St Martin beforehand or inform him at the time the decision was taken?
5. why the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Executive ignored concerns raised by the Deputy ofSt.Martinregardingthepossible deletion a month beforethe publication of the Report, and why no explanation relating to the deletion from the Terms of Reference has been offered?
6. why he Chief Minister has not informed Members why part(d) was deleted and will he now agree to make a formal statement informing Members the reason this decision was taken?

Answer

1. During a discussion with Mr Napierat the time he commenced his review, the TOR were discussed andtherelevanceofparagraph(d),giventhatMrPowerhadconfirmed that he would fully participate in the review. Mr Napier's view on this particular clause is re-produced below and has already been provided to the Deputy ofSt Martin in a previous e-mail exchange.

"I too remember our conversation. But I am afraid I don't have a note of the date. It didn't, to be honest, seem an important point at the time. My recollection is that it seemed unnecessary to go into the affidavit since it had become clear that Mr Power was willing to talk to me."

Had Mr Power chosen not to participate, part (d) would not have been reviewed. The very reason this paragraph was put in at the outset (P9.COM) was to enable the Reviewer (at that time not known) to have access to Mr Power's version of events should he not wish to participate. Given that Mr Power or, one of his supporters chose to place the Affidavit in the public domain, it seemed reasonable that the Reviewer should have access to this document.

2. Itwasnot a caseofwhat would be achieved. It was a discussion with Mr Napieras he commenced his review that resulted in agreementthatas this was not the only evidence that he would receive from Mr Power.Asconfirmed,Mr Napier wasof the view that it seemed unnecessary to go into the affidavit.
3. The Deputy Chief Executive did not consult with anyone as it seemed reasonable that as Mr Napier would have access to more information than originally envisaged, it was not material. Given that Mr Power had chosen to participate, Mr Napier would have full accesstoany information thathe required inorderto complete hisreview. As it turned out, Mr Napier chose to make reference in his final report to the content of the affidavit, which demonstrates that he did use this document.
4. GiventhatMr Napier would haveaccessto more and better information than originally envisaged as a result of Mr. Power agreeing to participate, the need to consult was not seen as important or necessary.

5. Because Mr Napierhad access to everyone he askedto see and had full co-operation fromall participants, the issue of the deletion of para (d) did not seem relevant.

The document referred to by the Deputy of St Martin in August was R.39. It has subsequently been found to have had a reproduction error in it. When the Council of Ministers approved the appointment of Mr Napier and agreed that R.39 could be presented to the States, the Terms of Reference as approved had para (d) included. When the Terms of Reference were then transmitted to the Greffe for reproduction, the second page which contained para (d) was accidentally omitted.

6. The deletion ofthe paragraph referred to by the Deputy ofSt Martin has been fully investigated and Mr. Napier who undertook the review has confirmed that its deletion had no bearing on his investigation into the Suspension ofthe previous ChiefOfficerof Police. I tooam fully satisfied that the deletion of this paragraph did not in any way hamper Mr. Napier's reviewand I do not consider it necessary totakethe matter any further and I will not be making a Statement

11. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF STATES VEHICLES:

Question

What criteria, if any, are in place for assessing when a vehicle is due for replacement and what is the average age of the Transport and Technical Services vehicle fleet?

Answer

Jersey Fleet Management purchases, maintains and disposes of vehicles on behalf of Transport and Technical Services Department and several other States Departments. Currently there are 285 vehicles and mobile plant assets in this category.

Prior to purchase a decision is taken by Jersey Fleet Management and the user Department as to the expected economic life of the vehicle given its planned use, purchase cost, type of vehicle and likely residual value.

Once in service it is depreciated as a fixed asset' over that agreed number of years, usually between 6 and 10 however there may be operational, economic or environmental reasons to vary this period. Indeed, due to advances in vehicle reliability the trend in recent years has been to extend the life' of many vehicles within the States' fleet towards the upper end of this replacement age band.

A rolling three-year replacement plan is maintained by Jersey Fleet Management and each vehicle is assessed on its condition, current usage and future operational needs prior to a decision being made to dispose of it or not. Whilst mileage is a factor, it is often less significant than other factors given the size of the Island.

An example would be a school minibus that does not cover high mileages in its normal use but needs to be to current passenger safety standards and will be replaced within the previously stated age band. It is planned to be disposed of whilst it is still safe, reliable and can provide a good residual income to the trading fund.

With the growing awareness of environmental issues, specifically air quality, the Department has a responsibility to balance the economic life of its vehicle fleet with the advances in engine emission standards and as such the current replacement criteria means that the vast majority of the current fleet meet, or exceeds, the Euro 3 emission standard. Those that don't are currently being considered for replacement.

The average age of the vehicle fleet is currently 4 years old.

12. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS MADE AFTER THE RECENT REVIEW OF HIS DEPARTMENT:

Question

When does the Minister intend to implement the recommendations of the recent report into the internal workings of the Planning and Environment Department?

Answer

I thank Deputy Le Herissier for raising this issue.

The report's recommendations are divided into two types.

The first details operational improvements. Three of the key recommendations relate to increasing the amount and type of development that does not require planning permission, improving the IT systems in planning and reviewing and simplifying the fee structure. I propose to commence work on these immediately and will expect the first implementation by the end of March 2011.

The second section deals with recommendations for change in the mechanisms of determination. In this area I am concerned that we need to fully respect the very special nature of the expectations of Islanders in respect of the determination of planning applications. Furthermore Islanders have a justifiable expectation to have direct access to the Minister who is after all responsible for all decisions emerging from the Department. I believe that a wider group of politicians needs to examine the report's recommendations in this area and determine the best method of change. Consequently I  have decided to establish a small group of politicians to consider the reports recommendations in this area and work will begin in the next few weeks. I will not take a personal role in the group as it will be making recommendations about my role. It will be chaired by the Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment who will be pleased to receive expressions of interest from Members who would like to play a role in participating.

13. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING CALLS FOR JERSEY TO BECOME AN INDEPENDENT JURISDICTION:

Question

What is the current political stance of the Council of Ministers with regard to calls for Jersey to become an independent jurisdiction?

Answer

Jersey is already recognised as being autonomous in domestic affairs with an increasing need to participate in matters of international affairs. The 2007  Framework for developing the international identity of Jersey agreed with the UK recognises that Jersey has an international identity which is different from that of the UK, that UK will not act internationally on behalf of Jersey without prior consultation and that UK will seek to represent any differing interests when acting in an international capacity.

Increased independence could be realised through Jersey seeking to establish full international sovereignty separate from the UK. In 2008 the Council of Ministers received the report of the Constitutional Review Group, chaired by the former Bailiff , which explored as a precautionary exercise the steps that might be necessary if Jersey was obliged at some time to become more independent from the United Kingdom. During 2011, the Council of Ministers will be considering an update on progress in addressing the actions recommended in this report.

14. THE  DEPUTY  OF ST.  MARY OF  THE  CHIEF  MINISTER REGARDING TAX INFORMATION  EXCHANGE  AGREEMENTS  IN  FORCE  FOR  THE  LAST  SIX YEARS:

Question

Can the Chief Minister inform members how many Tax Information Exchange Agreements were in force at the beginning of 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010?

Can he further tell members, for each of those years, how many requests for information have been received, from how many countries they were received, and in how many cases was the information requested found and sent to the requesting authorities, and how many staff (FTE's) were employed in this work?

Answer

The number of Tax Information Exchange Agreements in force at the beginning of each of the following years on a cumulative basis is –

2005 – nil 2006 – nil 2007 – 1 2008 – 1

2009 – 2 2010 – 12 2011 – 15

In addition there was one Double Taxation Agreement with equivalent tax information exchange provisions in force at the beginning of 2011.

I am unable to provide members for each of the years the number of requests for information received and from how many countries they were received. Jersey has been requested by some of our treaty partners not to publish the number of requests received. Quoting figures for the earlier years would identify the number of requests received from the USA which is one of the countries concerned. What I can say is that for the period from 1 January 2007 until the 31 December 2009 there were 12 requests and for the year 2010 there were 27 requests. Over the period as a whole requests have been received from Australia, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the USA.

Of the total of 39 requests received by the end of 2010, two were subsequently withdrawn by the requesting authority and three have given rise to issues relating to the distinction drawn in the agreements between criminal and other tax matters, and the definition of what is a criminal tax matter, which issues we are currently seeking to resolve in discussion with the countries concerned. Otherwise all requests have been responded to within the forty days set by the Jersey competent authority (the Comptroller of Income Tax). This is significantly faster than is required by the OECD Model Agreement.

All the requests to-date have been dealt with by the Comptroller of Taxes personally as a normal part of his duties, and there are no staff specifically employed in this work.

15. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE'S "REPORT ON THE ACCOUNTS OF THE STATES OF JERSEY FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 2009" (P.A.C.4/2010):

Question

With reference to the PAC's Report on the Accounts of the States of Jersey for the year ended December 2009' (PAC.4/2010) can the Minister inform members of the following –

1. given that in his foreword the Chairman of PAC states: "The States overspent in 2009 by over £100 million compared to the 2005 estimate" but the Financial Report and Accounts for 2009 clearly show an underspend against budget of £7.6 million, can the Minister list the actual underspends against budget in the years 2005 to 2009?
2. given that net revenue expenditure was£100 million more in 2009 than was forecast in 2005, could the Minister explain to members precisely where the additional £100 million went?
3. does the Minister accept that in some way his Department was at fault for not anticipating that there could be unexpected expenditure arising from issues such as the credit crunch,the Historic Child Abuse Inquiry, the Williamson report and the Pandemic Flu?

Answer

1. The PAC report compares the indicative level of 2009 expenditure, as reported in the 2005 Budget against the actual level of 2009 spend. Much has changed during the intervening years and whilst the forecast level of expenditure has clearly increased, departments have not overspent – they have spent within their approved budgets. Part (b) provides further detail on this matter.

Departments' out-turn against approved 2009 budgets amounted to an underspend of £7.6 million. This position is reported in the States audited 2009 Financial Report and Accounts, specifically in the Treasurer's report and again in the Annex to the Accounts.

The departmental out-turn against approved budget is reported to the Assembly each year in the States Financial Report and Accounts. The out-turn for the years 2005-2008 can be found in the accounts for each year.

2. The level ofStates expenditure is debated in each year's Business Plan and the annual increases from the indicative level anticipated in the 2005 Budget through to the 2009 approved level of expenditure can be found in each year's business plan. I refer the Deputy tothe relevant Business Plans for the detail ofthe changes, but in summary, the movement from the £466m indicative level of 2009 expenditure shown in the 2005 Budget statement to the final approvedbudget (excluding capital servicing) for 2009 of £572 million is shown below.

2009 Level of Revenue Expenditure £ million * Indicative level of 2009 Expenditure  466 (as per 2005 Budget Statement)

Net Additional Expenditure Approved in 2006 Business Plan 14

Net Additional Expenditure Approved in 2007 Business Plan 27

Net Additional Expenditure Approved in 2008 Business Plan 24

Net Additional Expenditure Approved in 2009 Business Plan 11

Approved 2009 Business Plan budget  542 Additional States Expenditure Approvals 2008-2009  13

(as reported in 2009 accounts)

Transfers between capital and revenue budgets  12 (as reported in 2009 accounts)

Budgets carried forward to 2009  5 (as reported in 2009 accounts)

2009 Final Approved Budget (excluding capital servicing) 572

* all figures exclude capital servicing budget

3. During mytimeasMinister for TreasuryandResources I have made it one of my priorities to address the issue of essential unforeseen expenditure within a financial year. Beforethe 2011 Business Plan the States' resource allocation process did not fully address unplanned spending,apart from moving previously approvedbudgetsor bringing additional funding requests to the States. With the approval ofthe2011 Business Plan and Budget we, as an Assembly, have now recognised the need for contingency funding to be made available. I regard this as a significantstep forward in the maturity of our approach to financial management.

The 2011 Budget statement, aims to provide a mechanism for the financial management and control of unexpected, unforeseeable and unplanned events within total States spending limits. This has provided a relatively low level of central contingency funding to meet the cost of unexpected events in 2011 and is an essential element of the financial framework enabling the provision of essential public services whilst at the same time delivering significant savings through the Comprehensive Spending Review.

16. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE REGARDING THE COMMITTEE'S "REPORT ON THE ACCOUNTS OF THE STATES OF JERSEY FOR THE YEAR ENDEDDECEMBER 2009" (P.A.C.4/2010):

Question

Can the Chairman of the PAC –

1. provide for members thetextofthe press release which accompanied the PAC's Report on the Accounts of the States of Jersey for the year ended December 2009' (PAC.4/2010)?
2. can the Chairman give specific examples of –

1. the 'uncontrolled spending' which according to the Report (paragraph 21.4 page 11) is the result of 'lack of accountability' and;
2. the spending of considerable sums of public funds which cannot be accounted for' (paragraph 21.8 page 11)

3. can the Chairman tell members exactly what the additional "spend"was for as detailed in paragraph 3.5onpage12 when there was a disparity betweenthe predicted expenditure and the actual expenditure?
4. why was this information not in the Report?
5. how canthe underestimation ofspend within financial forecasts be regardedas a key finding (P.14 paragraph 4.8) when the discussion in the preceding 3 paragraphs is about estimating tax income?

Answer

The content of the press release for the P.A.C report on the Financial Report and Accounts 2009 dated 15th December 2010 was as follows:

There is no collective responsibility for States Spending, says Public Accounts Committee Report

The Public Accounts Committee's review of the States Accounts for the year ended 31st December 2009 identified a worrying lack of collective responsibility for overall cost control at both a political and civil servant level. The Committee concluded that the current system encourages a silo mentality whereby both Ministers and departments will tend to operate in their own best interests, rather than to the overall benefit of the Island.

The acceleration in public spending since the adoption of Ministerial Government and the implementation of the Public Finance (Jersey) Law 2005 should not be viewed as coincidental as the Public Accounts Committee found critical weaknesses in the overall oversight and management of the current arrangements.

Senator Ben Shenton, Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, stated:

" This Report highlights severe weaknesses in the current system and these need to be addressed with extreme urgency. The Committee established that lines of accountability for centralised States spending are unclear – indeed it proved impossible to identify who has overarching responsibility for states spending. This is exacerbated by ambiguities within the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005, and the lack of collective responsibility engendered by the Council of Ministers, where each Minister acts as a corporation sole.

We would like to stress that the aim of the Report is to highlight and eliminate any weaknesses in respect of the current system. It should not be seen as personal criticism of any individuals who are currently working to the existing guidelines, mandates, and controls. It is inevitable that any new system of Government will have flaws that require action. It is hoped that the executive, civil servants, and other States Members will accept these criticisms in the spirit intended and work with the PAC to correct them. It is doubtful, in our opinion, that Ministerial Government can successfully operate without collective responsibility at many levels."

The answers to the Deputy 's other questions are all contained within the PAC report itself, which contains numerous evidence based examples of uncontrolled spending and funds expended with no apparent accounting officer.

As regards the exact figures of the spend, the figures are contained within the States Report and Accounts themselves produced by the Treasury and signed by PWC and the Deputy Treasurer. It is not the PAC's job to produce the Accounts, it is our job to review them. If figures within the Accounts are missing or unclear, then this is a question for the Treasury to answer.

N.B The PAC acknowledges that the word spend' at point 4.8 (p.14) should have been income', this is a typographical error.

17. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING COMPANIES SUBJECT TO ZERO RATE TAX: Question

Will the Minister state how many companies are subject to a zero rate of tax in 2009 or 2010 and give a breakdown of how many of these companies are locally owned and potentially subject to "deemed distribution" and how many are foreign owned and would previously have been described as "exempt companies"?

Answer

In 2009 approximately 29,900 companies registered at the JFSC were subject to tax at 0%. Of these approximately 41% (c12,300) were wholly or partly owned by Jersey residents and would therefore subject to the deemed distribution rules, if they do not actually distribute their profits. Approximately 59% are foreign owned (17,600).

The data for 2010 has not been obtained but it would be expected to be similar.

18. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ISLE OF MAN AND GUERNSEY REGARDING ZERO/TEN:

Question

Will the Minister detail the dates of any meetings and telephone conversations that he and his Department or ministerial colleagues have had with their counterparts in Guernsey and the Isle of Man (including informal meetings at conferences etc) on the question of zero/ten, their attitudes to EU Harmful Tax talks, the UK Treasury stance on zero/ten or to possible successors to the zero/ten tax regime over the last two years?

Answer

I, and my ministerial colleagues, meet regularly with our counterparts in Guernsey and the Isle of Man to discuss all matters of interest between the islands, including zero/ten. It would be an inappropriate use of resource to list details of the dates of every meeting and telephone conversation. Officers of the three islands have also been in regular contact throughout this period.

I have kept Members informed of all matters relating to zero/ten including providing them with a detailed report setting out all of the issues in relation to the Code Group's assessment of our business tax system  http://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=495. A copy of the briefing that was given to the Code Group when it met on 19th November 2010 has also been circulated. These two documents set out the process very clearly.

19. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE TOTAL REVENUE RECEIVED FROM DEEMED DISTRIBUTION PROVISIONS:

Question

Will the Minister advise members of the total revenue received to date by the Treasury from deemed distribution provisions introduced under the zero/ten income tax regime, specifying clearly the tax years concerned and identifying the estimated loss of revenue that is likely to occur during 2011 and 2012 if the Island is forced to abandon this source of revenue?

Answer

Deemed distributions are a personal tax anti-avoidance provision. The question assumes that by removing this all of the related tax will be lost. There are other anti-avoidance provisions that could be used to prevent unacceptable tax avoidance and so mitigate any tax loss.

The number of assessments raised for the year of assessment 2009 in relation to deemed final dividends was 145. The amount of income assessed as deemed final dividends was £4,642,839. It is not possible to give an exact figure for the tax yield but, assuming an effective tax rate of 15%, the tax yield would be some £697,000.

It is not possible to give any figures for the year of assessment 2010 as the Tax Returns for that year are being issued to taxpayers this month. 2010 will be the first full year of assessment when both deemed interim and final dividends will be declared, so it is not possible to give an accurate picture of the tax revenues from this source until the figures for that full year are available.

By way of explanation, 2009 year of assessment was the first year that any deemed dividends would have been disclosed by shareholders under 0/10. In this first year only deemed final dividends have been disclosed as these are deemed payable immediately. No deemed interim dividends have been disclosed as these are deemed payable only at the end of the financial period following the 2009 financial period, ie, in 2010 year of assessment. A deemed final dividend in 2009 would have been triggered by a specific event such as the sale of the shareholding in the company, death of the shareholder or the shareholder leaving the Island.

5. Oral Questions

1. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the establishment of a social responsibility fund:

Will the Minister inform Members how many people have benefited from the programme of education, prevention, treatment, counselling and research which Members were assured during a debate on the Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 2010 (P.139/2009) it would be financed by the establishment of a social responsibility fund and is he content that the programme is providing value for money and if so, why?

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

Could I ask my Assistant Minister, the Connétable of St. Clement to answer that question?

Connétable  L.  Norman  of  St.  Clement (Assistant  Minister  for  Economic  Development  -

rapporteur):

I welcome this question but some might consider it to be a little premature because the Gambling Commission only came into being in October of last year and its staffing arrangements were only put in place some 2 weeks ago. But nevertheless the Commission has been busy in this area. The Social Responsibility Account has been established at the Commission's bank and requests for donations have been made to all bookmakers, both on course and off course and have received a positive response from the vast majority of them. Also the Public Lotteries Board have recommended that the Economic Development Department make a contribution to this fund from the reserves of the Jersey part of the Channel Islands Lottery, a recommendation which we are almost certainly going to accept. The Commission has undertaken 2 practical steps. The first is to engage Responsible Play, which is a U.K. (United Kingdom) based charity who are producing a website specifically for Jersey, which will offer a confidential service for clients both online and through the telephone and, after appropriate training, also we hope to have face-to-face availability. They have also established or will be establishing very shortly an independent social responsibility panel to advise the Commission on developing appropriate levels of education, prevention, counselling and research.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

Nothing to add, I am delighted that the question has raised the issue and I shall be monitoring the effect of the Commission's work.

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

Could the Assistant Minister tell us first of all whether the industry is going to be levied or whether it is just donations, as he seemed to indicate, and secondly, the size of the fund he expects to be established?

The Connétable of St. Clement :

The law does provide for a levy and that particular article in the law relating to a levy is very intrusive, as it enables the Commission to investigate the various companies' accounts. It is hoped that the donation route will be the most appropriate but the Commission will, I have no doubt, go down the levy route if that proves to be necessary. Originally with the Shadow Commission, we were talking about an initial fund of £30,000, but after consideration and taking advice they think that something like £15,000 for the first year would be sufficient, which would equate to approximately £500 per betting shop plus £1,000, as I mentioned, from the Channel Islands Lottery, will be sufficient for the first year. Then we would have to see how it goes.

2. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chairman for the Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding the implementation of reforms agreed in October 2010:

Would the Chairman advise whether the adoption by the Assembly of either of the propositions lodged by Senators Cohen or Ferguson would effectively prevent any of the reforms agreed in October 2010 from being implemented?

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

I believe that this question is fully addressed by the P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) comments issued in respect of Senator Cohen's proposition P.198/2010. In response to his suggestion that a referendum should be held, P.P.C. stated: "Members must be aware that if Senator Cohen's proposition is adopted all other aspects of reform agreed last October will be deferred for at least 3 years." The reasons for this statement are spelt-out at length in the comments which, for the sake of clarity, also confirm that I will not be able to propose P.176/2010, the Draft States of Jersey (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 201-, should P.198 be adopted. That draft law proposes a reduced number of Senators and can clearly not be proposed if the States have just agreed that there should be no reduction in the number of Senators before a referendum is held. The proposals agreed by the States in October 2010 for a spring election and a 4-year term of office will also fall away. Furthermore, the comments confirm that should Senator Ferguson's amendment to P.176 be adopted then the effect would be to maintain the current number of Senators in contradiction to the States decision of 13th October last. But the other reforms agreed on that date, namely the move to a spring election and the move to a common 4-year term for all Members, would not be affected.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Can I ask on a point of order please? Is it in order for propositions to be allowed to be tabled that negate decisions of the States without a rescindment having been brought?

The Bailiff :

Well, it has been lodged. I am sorry, I do not think we can have this theoretical debate at the moment. It has been lodged as being in order.

5.2.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Given a number of members of the public have contacted me about what many consider time wasting proposals, will the Chairman just clarify for the House whether the fact that the Senators evolved from a position from Jurats, that there is absolutely no reason or justification for there being 12 or indeed any research to back-up that the Island want 12 as opposed to maintaining some kind of Island-wide mandate?

The Connétable of St. Mary :

I think that really strays too far from the original question. The number of Senators is something the States has debated and our projet simply tries to enforce a States decision.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

It is a simple question.

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

I just want to ask the Chairman, she puzzled me with her first answer: how is it that if P.198 is passed and we proceed to a referendum on the number of Senators, how that can affect us voting through the measures to ensure the spring election and the 4-year term of office? Surely, they are dealt with separately in the regulations. They must be. Can she explain why all other aspects will fall, as she claimed, when I cannot see that the 3 things are necessarily connected?

The Connétable of St. Mary :

P.P.C. got to the stage of lodging the proposition P.176 as a result of the States adoption of a package of measures taken together. P.P.C. has always, in bringing reformed proposals, tried to evade piecemeal reform, so the package hangs together. The draft law proposes all the changes that the States agreed, and I am advised that the course of action is to not propose the law should the referendum be adopted.

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

Does the Chairman not accept that this rash of proposals on the constitution of the States has been brought about by this Chamber's refusal to accept the Clothier report in its entirety and the piecemeal approach adopted by her committee and previous committees to electoral and constitutional reform in this Island? Is it not time that she brought a proposal bringing forward a single type of Member in the States Chamber?

The Connétable of St. Mary :

I am afraid I cannot accept what Deputy Southern has said at all. We are at the situation where we are for having followed through numerous debates, numerous proposals, numerous opinion polls, numerous States decisions that have led us in one direction or the other, and the package of reforms that was adopted in October was not the first certainly to be presented by P.P.C. but it did gain the absolute majority of this House. The lodging of amendments to the legislation that enforces that decision of the House has nothing to do with anything else that has gone before, but merely, I would say, decisions of States Members who have questions about the decisions that they made or decisions that were made democratically about other Members.

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

Please can I ask that you do not take this question as in any way related to your decisions, it is not, Sir. It is just a general principle. I would like to ask the Chairman of P.P.C. whether or not she will undertake with her committee to look into this issue of the States decisions being superseded by propositions that are lodged that do not bring rescindments to States decisions that stand?

[11:00]

It seems that at a whim we are able to dismiss States decisions at the moment. We had it recently with Deputy Southern and numbers, and I think we are in danger, if the Chairman is not willing to do this, of making this whole process in the States Assembly seem absolutely and totally benign. Is she willing to undertake to look into it?

The Connétable of St. Mary :

Firstly I would like to say I do not believe there are exact parallels between the situation today and the situation with Deputy Southern 's recent piece of business where there was a question of an Appointed Day Act and various other things having come in. What P.P.C. has done is give effect, in draft legislation, to the States decision. The mechanisms for dealing with changes to States decisions are clear but, as Deputy Le Claire says, more often the States decides to, if it does not like a decision, attempt a rescindment. Certainly the way that this could be tackled in future is something that P.P.C. perhaps could put on its agenda for a future day.

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

Does the Chairman think that the 400 years it has taken to bring the revisions of the Canon law is likely to be matched by the achievement of government reform?

The Connétable of St. Mary :

I think that depends entirely now on the decisions of States Members today, whether they were going to change their minds from what they did last October. Certainly if I had my way, the reforms we had agreed would be in place by the end of the day.

6. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I thought it was going to take 400 years. Following on from Deputy Le Claire's point, could the Chairman advise us, does she feel there is a chance, if we carry on with these sort of vested interest- driven propositions, that in 3 months' time we may have a scenario where someone attempts to overturn a decision yet again and just make us look even more stupid than usual.

The Connétable of St. Mary :

It is not for me to second guess Members, but I have to say the Deputy asked my personal opinion, sometimes there are things that are brought to the floor of this Assembly that astound me. That is my personal opinion. But all I can say is the committee has worked hard with able assistance from the States Greffe and the Law Draftsman to put into draft legislation the decisions this Assembly took. I hope this Assembly will not shy away from enforcing those decisions. I hope that, but it is a matter for Members and it is a matter for Members' judgment as to how they treat this.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding the Island's compliance issues with the E.U. Code on Business Taxation:

Will the Chief Minister inform Members what communications he, the Deputy Chief Minister or his department have had with counterparts in other Crown Dependencies and the U.K. Government over the resolution of outstanding Zero/Ten issues, and if no meetings have taken place will he inform Members if and when meetings are scheduled to resolve the Island's compliance issues with the E.U. (European Union) Code on Business Taxation and if not, why not?

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

This information has already been requested in 2 similar written questions: one by the Deputy and the answer is the same. We will not be in a position to discuss what action we need to take to resolve outstanding Zero/Ten issues and ensure that our corporate tax system is code compliant until we see the outcome of the review of the scope of the Code being undertaken by the E.U. Council high-level working party. I have already provided full details of the current position on Zero/Ten in the briefing documents issued to States Members in December and nothing has changed since then. We have been in contact with the secretariat of the high-level working party to ensure that we can engage with the work of that group. I am also in regular contact with the Chief Ministers of Guernsey and the Isle of Man at which this and other matters of common interest are discussed. We have also met with the financial secretary to the Treasury and the Ministry of Justice Minister with responsibility for relations with the Crown Dependencies where these matters were discussed, and I intend to continue to meet with them - all Island officials - as appropriate. At this point in time there is no more information to give States Members than that previously and clearly set out in the briefing documents, which are publicly available, and I would respectfully ask the Member to be patient. I will update Members as soon as we know anything further.