States Meeting Transcript - 20th November 2012

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 20th NOVEMBER 2012

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

1. Written Questions.......................................................................10

1. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HANGAR AT JERSEY AIRPORT:....................................................................10
   2. DEPUTY S.S.P.A. POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE INSURANCE LIABILITY FOR CARS AND VEHICLES DAMAGED ON THE CAR DECK OF A CONDOR FERRY: ............11
   3. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE FLOODING RISK TO GREEN STREET CAR PARK:....................................................12
   4. DEPUTY S.S.P.A. POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE CURRENT HARBOURMASTER:............12
   5. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF AFFORDABLE AND SOCIAL RENTED HOMES TARGETS:...................................................................12
   6. SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE REBATES CLAIMED BY GENERAL PRACTITIONERS:......13
   7. SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE USE OF THE LIVERPOOL CARE PATHWAY IN JERSEY:...............................................................................15
   8. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE USE OF A STORAGE FACILITY AT LA COLLETTE: ...........................................................................16
   9. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF STAFF CAR PARKING NEAR THE GREEN STREET POLICE HEADQUARTERS SCHEME:..17
   10. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE POTENTIAL USE OF PUBLIC CAR PARKS TO PROVIDE STAFF SPACES FOR THE PROPOSED GREEN STREET POLICE HEADQUARTERS SCHEME:.....................................18
   11. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

REGARDING THE POLICE INVESTIGATION INTO THE REZONING OF AGRICULTURAL LAND: ............................................................18

12. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE ROLE PLAYED BY THE BAILIFF IN LIVE POLICE OPERATIONAL MATTERS:..........................................................19

14. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING THE PUBLIC'S LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO REPORT ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD ABUSE TO THE POLICE:..............................20
15. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN TO ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE DISCLOSURE BY BANKS OF SUSPECTED TAX EVASION:.......................................................................21
16. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE EXTENT TO WHICH ALLOWANCES OR SUBSIDIES FOR RENTAL/MORTGAGE COSTS HAVE BEEN USED TO RECRUIT OR RETAIN PUBLIC SECTOR STAFF:............................................................23
17. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS MADE WITHIN S.R.3/2011 REVIEW OF BENEFIT LEVELS':.....................24
18. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS MADE WITHIN S.R.3/2011 REVIEW OF BENEFIT LEVELS': ..............................................................................26
19. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING VEHICLES OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE:......................................................................27
20. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING WHETHER CROWN OFFICERS, OR ANY STATES DEPARTMENTS OR STATES APPOINTED BODIES HAVE BEEN PARTY TO OBTAINING ANY INJUNCTIONS IN THE LAST 3 YEARS: ............................................29
21. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF THE HISTORIC ABUSE REDRESS SCHEME TO INCLUDE VISITORS TO HAUT DE LA GARENNE AND OTHER CHILDREN'S HOMES:...29
22. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE NUMBER AND DETAILS OF PROSECUTIONS BROUGHT BY THE DATA PROTECTION COMMISSIONER UNDER THE DATA PROTECTION (JERSEY) LAW 2005 SINCE THE APPOINTED DAY ACT WAS ADOPTED BY THE STATES: .........................................................................................30
23. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING PROTECTIONS AFFORDED COMPLAINANTS WHO CONSENT TO THE USE OF CONFIDENTIAL MEDICAL OR COUNSELLING INFORMATION IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL:.................................................................30
24. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF THE INTERNAL REVIEW INTO PATIENT TRAVEL EXPENSES:....................................31
25. DEPUTY T.A. VALLOIS OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC SOCIAL

ASSESSMENTS:......................................................................31

26. DEPUTY T.A. VALLOIS OF ST. SAVIOUR OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING WHETHER THE EDUCATION (DISCRETIONARY GRANTS – GENERAL) (JERSEY) ORDER 2008 ALREADY PROVIDES THE ABILITY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OF A SEPARATED PARTNERS INCOME OR THAT OF THE NEW PARTNER:................................................................32
27. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AND PARENTS TO INFORMATION WHEN THE CHILDREN ARE UNDER THE CARE OF

AND/OR SUPERVISION OF THE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT:.......................................................................33

28. DEPUTY T.A. VALLOIS OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SOCIAL POLICY FRAMEWORK:34
29. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE FULL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE EDUCATION (DISCRETIONARY GRANTS – GENERAL) (JERSEY) ORDER 2008:..............................................................35
30. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO ELECTORAL CONSTITUENCIES:...................................................37

31. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE OPERATION OF THE EU SAVINGS TAX DIRECTIVE:.......37

2. Oral Questions...........................................................................38

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the source of the projected £250,000 savings figure for the Managed Print Service solution: ................................................................................38 Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):.............................................................................38

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................39
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................39
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................40

4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................40
5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................40

2. Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the views recently expressed on childhood obesity by the Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist from the Health and Social Services Department:.......................41 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):.................41

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................41
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................41
   3. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding the reduction of the cost of supplementation:...............................................41 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ..............................42

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................42
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................42
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................42
   4. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding his statement concerning the investigation of allegations against a former Senator in relation to planning corruption: ....................................................................43 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................43

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................43
2. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................43
3. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................43
4. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................43
5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................44
6. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................44
7. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................44
8. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................45

5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Chief Minister regarding the Terms of Reference for the Committee of Inquiry into Historic Child Abuse:................................45 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................45

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................45
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................46
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................46
4. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................46

5. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................47
6. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................47
7. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................48
8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................48

6. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the details of the drainage shaft project at Ann Court:........................49 Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): .....49
7. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the dismantling of the Bellozanne chimney:............................................49 Deputy K.C. Lewis (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):....................49

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................49
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................49

8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Chief Minister regarding the position of the Council of Ministers on the subject of a Channel Islands Confederation:...........................50 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................50

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................50
2. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................50
3. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................50
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................51
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................51

9. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the environmental impact of the development of housing on the headland at Plémont:................................................................................51 Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour (The Minister for Planning and Environment):.........51

1. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................52
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................52
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................52

4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................53
5. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................53
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................53
7. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................53

10. Deputy S. Power of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the funding of infrastructure and capital issues by the Jersey Electricity Company: ....................54 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................54

1. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................54
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................54
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................55
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................55
5. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................55
6. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................56
7. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................56

11. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding cases ofash dieback fungal disease in Jersey: ................................................57

Deputy R.C. Duhamel (The Minister for Planning and Environment): ........................57 2.11.1 The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................57

12. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the employment of consultants to report n the future of the Finance Industry:..............57 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................57

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................58
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................58
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................58
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................58
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................59
6. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................59
7. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................59

13. Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the £23,367 overpayment to Danwood for the Managed Print Service to schools:...................60 Deputy E.J. Noel (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):..............60

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................60
2. Deputy R.J. Rondel of St. Helier:....................................................60

14. Deputy M. Tadier of the Chief Minister regarding the pursuit of the proposition seeking to acquire the former Plémont Holiday Village (P.90/2012):............................61 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................61

1. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................61
2. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................61
3. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................61
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................62
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................62
6. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................62

15. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding the availability of options for withholding tax as a means of tax evasion: .............................................62 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................62

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................63
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................63
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................63

3. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture...................................................................................63

1. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................63 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. John (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):............63
2. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................64

3.2.1 The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................64

3. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................64
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................65

3.4.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:...................................................................65

5. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................65
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................65
7. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity :.................................................66
8. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin:...........................................66
9. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................66

3.9.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................66

10. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................66

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Health and Social Services 67

1. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................67 The Deputy of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):........................67
2. Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement : ........................................................67
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................67

4.3.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................68

4. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................68

1. The Deputy ofSt.Ouen:................................................................68
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................68

5. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................68

4.5.1 The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................69

6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................69
7. Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier:......................................................69
8. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................69

4.8.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:..................................................................70

9. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................70

4.9.1 The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................70

10. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................71
11. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................71

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................71

5. Ratification of the Agreement of the Exchange of Information Relating to Tax Matters between the Government of Jersey and the Government of the Republic of Austria (P.85/2012)......................................................................71

5.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):........................72

6. Draft Taxation (Exchange of Information with Third Countries) (Amendment No. 5) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.86/2012)...................................................72

6.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):........................72

7. Draft Debt Relief (Developing Countries) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.91/2012).............73

1. Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................73

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................74
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................74
3. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................74
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................74
5. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................74
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................75
7. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................75 Senator S.C. Ferguson (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):......................77

2. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................77

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................77 Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:..................................................77
2. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................77

STATEMENT ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY.........................78

8. Statement by the Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel regarding the Green Street Police Headquarters.......................................78

8.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon (Chairman, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):.........78

1. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................80

2. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................80
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................80
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................81
5. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................81
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................82
7. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................82

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption..............................................................82

9. Police station relocation: review of decision (P.92/2012) - deferral of debate..........82

9.1 Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................83

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................83
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................83
3. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................84
4. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................84
5. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................84
6. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................84
7. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................85
8. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................85
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................86
10. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................86
11. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................86
12. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................86
13. The Connétable of Trinity :..........................................................87
14. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................87

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................88 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................88

10. Police Station Relocation: review of decision (P.92/2012) - as amended...............88 Senator B.I. Le Marquand:....................................................................89

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................90

2. Police Station Relocation: review of decision (P.92/2012) - referral back to Scrutiny 95

1. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..........................................................95
2. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................96
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................97
4. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................97
5. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:....................................................98
6. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................98
7. The Connétable of St. Martin: .......................................................99
8. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................99
9. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................99
10. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.............................................................100
11. Deputy J.M. Le Bailly of St. Mary : ..............................................100
12. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:......................................................101

11. Draft Royal Court (Amendment No. 13) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.93/2012).............102

1. Senator P.M. Bailhache (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):......................102

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..............................................................102
2. The Deputy ofSt.Ouen:............................................................102

3. Senator L.J. Farnham : ..............................................................103
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ..........................................................103
5. Deputy J.H. Young: ................................................................103
6. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...............................................................103
7. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:.........................................................104
8. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................104
9. Senator P.M. Bailhache :............................................................105 Senator S.C. Ferguson (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):.....................107

2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ..............................................................107

12. Draft Incorporated Limited Partnerships (Annual Additional Charge) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.94/2012)...........................................................108

12.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):..................108

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..............................................................108
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois:...............................................................108
3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:............................................................109 Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin (Chairman, Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):.............109

13. Draft Separate Limited Partnerships (Annual Additional Charge) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.95/2012)...........................................................109

13.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):..................110

13.1.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:..............................................................110

14. Draft Limited Partnerships (Annual Additional Charge) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.96/2012)..............................................................................110

14.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):..................111

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..........................................................111
2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:............................................................111

15. Draft Gambling (Ancillary Services and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.98/2012)...........................................................112

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):..................112

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ..........................................................115
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..........................................................115
3. Deputy J.H. Young: ................................................................115
4. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:............................................................116 The Deputy of St. Martin (Chairman, Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel): ...................117

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:..............................................................117

16. Draft Gambling (Charitable and Membership Gambling Services) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.99/2012)...........................................................117

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):..................118

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:................................................................120
2. The Deputy of St. Martin : ..........................................................120
3. The Deputy of St. Ouen:............................................................120
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..........................................................120
5. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................120
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ..........................................................121
7. Deputy T.A. Vallois:...............................................................121
8. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:............................................................122

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:..............................................................123

1. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................123
2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:............................................................124

17. Draft Gambling (Jersey) Law 2012 (Appointed Day) Act 201- (P.100/2012).........126

17.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):..................126

18. Reform Day: 28th September 1769 (P.107/2012)......................................126

18.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:..................................................................126

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ..........................................130
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache :............................................................132
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : .............................................................133
4. The Deputy of St. John:............................................................133
5. Senator L.J. Farnham : ..............................................................135
6. The Connétable of Trinity :.........................................................135
7. Deputy J.H. Young: ................................................................135
8. Deputy S.Power:..................................................................136
9. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................136
10. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:.......................................................137
11. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...........................................................138
12. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ............................................................138

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ..................143

19. The Connétable of St. Helier (Chairman, Privileges and Procedure Committee): ......143

1. The Connétable of Trinity :............................................................143
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:.................................................................143
3. Deputy J.H. Young:...................................................................144

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................145

[9:30]

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

QUESTIONS

1.Written Questions

1.1.  THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HANGAR AT JERSEY AIRPORT:

Question

Further to the announcement about the construction of a new 55,000 sq. ft. hangar at the Jersey Airport, would the Ministers explain –

1. why it has been decided to build the hangar and who will be meeting the cost of construction, Hanger8 or the States?
2. whether the site was offered to Aviation Beauport and, if not whynot?
3. whether Hanger8 will be paying income tax in Jersey and, if not, what the real benefit to Jersey is?
4. how many companies tendered for this hangar and whether the department carried out due diligence searches on all the companies who tendered? Would the Minister give details of all tenders and financial appraisals and, if not, why not?
5. whether there is a risk that another operator at Jersey Airport will cause the demise of Aviation Beauport?

Answer

To address the specific questions:

1. The fixed based operation (FBO) to be developed by Hangar8 provides a new product, an expansion of services and significantgrowth in this market. Jersey Airport has been approached by a number of operators interested in establishing a FBO and the renewed interest by operators in recent times together with the information supplied by these parties has demonstrated that there is growth potential. Construction costsforthenewhangarwillbe met by Hangar8 and not through Jersey Airport's trading fund.
2. I can confirm that theexistingoperatorhadthe opportunity totender.However,the company was not shortlisted in the process as two other operators provided more compelling proposals.
3. Hangar8 will become a Jersey registered company and therefore, pay relevant tax and associated payments to the Treasury and Parish authorities. The company plans to recruit local staff and train them in handling and maintenance operations. Jersey Airport will also benefit from increased annual rents for the hangar, as well as landing fees income from growth in this market. It further provides Jersey with another product in the sector, which makes the Island a more attractive place for corporate aviation. As illustrated in our recent Report & Proposition for Incorporation, it is imperativethatthePorts identify and implement commercial projects that diversify its revenue streams and grow the business if it is to meet continuing costs and capital requirements. This is a positive example ofthePorts doing just this.

4. In late 2010, Jersey Airport undertook a formal Expressions ofInterest and tender process, resulting in five applications.From this tender process two companies were shortlisted and identified for further negotiation. As part of the tender process and negotiations, the shortlisted operatorsprovided comprehensive financial statements, in line with States of Jersey financial directions and procurement guidelines. All negotiations remain commercially confidential andnot for public disclosure. However, I canconfirmthatHangar8werechosen as the preferred operator asthey had the most competitive offering, including projections for aircraft movements and growth, their overall business development model as well as the likely rental income for Jersey Airport. Other key factors include:

• It is FTSE listed company, for which financial records are published;
• It already has a number of bases around Europe, Africa and the Middle East with its main base at Oxford Airport;
• It currently owns or operates a fleet of over 30 aircraft and has 13% in the UK charter and corporate jet market.

This process was overseen by the Ports of Jersey Shadow Board, who have also endorsed the recommendations to proceed with Hangar8.

5. We have been very clear from the beginning ofthe process that we were not looking to simply bring competition intothe market rather we are looking for significant market growth. Both the short-listed companies demonstrated their ability togrowthe market in Jersey, with Hangar8 providing the best overall proposition. The new FBO operates in different market sectors. Jersey Airport is ofthe belief that by creating a new facility it will allow the airport, the existing operator and Hangar8 to explore new commercial opportunities and improve the level of facilities we can offer the private jet market.

2. DEPUTY S.S.P.A. POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE INSURANCE LIABILITY FOR CARS AND VEHICLES DAMAGED ON THE CAR DECK OF A CONDOR FERRY:

Question

Can the Minister confirm the status of insurance liability for cars and vehicles damaged on the car- deck of a Condor ferry service during bad weather and whether the liability for damage falls on the ferry company or the owner of the vehicle?

Answer

Liability is governed by the contract between the passenger and the company, as explained in the company's Terms and Conditions. These are published on-line at www.condorferries.co.uk.

The Terms and Conditions state that they incorporate the International Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (known as the Athens Convention). The Convention makes the carrier liable under certain conditions unless they prove otherwise, but also limits the liability.

This is a specialist legal area and should properly be a matter on which a claimant or his insurance company should take legal advice.

3. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE FLOODING RISK TO GREEN STREET CAR PARK:

Question

Can the Minister advise whether his department still acknowledges that in the event of, for example, severe southerly storms coinciding with a high spring tide (as happened in October 1812), certain southern areas of the Island would become a disaster area' and, if so, would he further advise whether this area includes the Green Street car park?

Answer

I acknowledge that in extreme weather events which coincide with high tides, areas of the Island are susceptible to coastal flooding which can cause varying degrees of disruption and damage. This most recently happened along the southern coast in March 2008. Whether the results of these events are considered "disaster areas" is subjective and depends on the severity of the event.

The primary cause of coastal flooding is overtopping of the sea defence structures coupled with high flows in the surface water sewers and watercourses, and tide locked outfalls. These problems predominantly affect low lying areas close to the coast.

Whilst it is impossible to say that Green Street car park will never be affected by these types of extreme weather event, the likelihood of this happening is very low as the lower car park level at Green Street is some 4m above highest astronomical tide level so is unlikely to be affected by any overtopping issues. Furthermore, the adjacent sewers are at a high point in the network so are unlikely to cause problems for the Green Street site with regard to surcharging.

4. DEPUTY S.S.P.A. POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE CURRENT HARBOURMASTER:

Question

Would the Minister inform members who Jersey's current Harbourmaster is? Answer

The Group Chief Executive Officer (GCEO) for the Ports of Jersey was sworn in by the Royal Court as Harbourmaster in October 2011.

With the approval of the States Employment Board, a number of Acting Harbourmasters have also been sworn in to assume the same powers and functions in the absence of the GCEO.

5. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF AFFORDABLE AND SOCIAL RENTED HOMES TARGETS:

Question

Has the Minister or the Department given any consideration as to whether a parish-based social housing/affordable housing scheme (perhaps mirroring over 55s schemes) would be a feasible and desirable way of helping to achieve the target of the 1,000 new affordable' and social rented' homes alluded to in point 7.20 of the 2011 Island Plan?

Answer

I am not sure that the specific reference to the Island Plan in the question is correct, however, the Plan itself clearly demonstrates that the Parishes have an important role to play in the provision of housing. It is notable that we have recently seen very successful schemes being delivered by the Parishes of Trinity , St Peter and St Mary. I know that other Parishes have schemes planned and there are a number of other sites zoned for the development of homes for the over 55s approved in 2008 which are not presently being developed.

I certainly agree that the Parishes have an important role and I am keen to explore means of working collaboratively as we are already doing with the Parish of St Saviour.

Irrespective of who delivers the homes which we very much need; what we must ensure is that the delivery is coordinated and that the affordable homes built are targeted at those in the greatest housing need. That is why I am particularly proud of the Housing Transformation Programme which will place social housing provision on a more sustainable footing. I also look forward to the development in 2013 of the additional components of a long-term cross-tenure housing strategy which will include the provision of affordable homes to purchase.

The Affordable Housing Gateway has been in place for almost 12 months and is now the single waiting list for the social housing administered by the States and the Housing Trusts, ensuring that all social housing vacancies are allocated to applicants on a priority basis. The Gateway has also been used to allocate a tenant to a vacancy in a Parish development.

OTHER INFORMATION

Section 6 of the Island Plan 2011 deals with Housing and paragraphs 6.106 to 6.131 deals specifically with Affordable Housing.

Section 7 of the Island Plan 2011 deals with Social, Community and Open Space

At paragraph 7.20 the plan says:- Within existing secondary school provision in Jersey, there is a known deficiency in the extent of playing field provision available to Haute Vallée School: this is also evidenced by the Outdoor Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study(5). To address this deficiency, it is proposed that the western half of Field 1219, immediately to the south of the school and the existing playing field, is safeguarded for this purpose.'

6. SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE REBATES CLAIMED BY GENERAL PRACTITIONERS:

Question

1. How many rebates were claimed by GPs for the year 31st October 2011 until 31st October 2012 and at what cost?
2. How much of the cost was associated to referral letters?

3. What checks and measures were made to ensure only legally allowable claims were made? How frequently have these checks been made in the last 10 years and in what form? Has evidence of other practices been looked for or found? If so, what action was taken?
4. How many, if any, were found to be incorrect claims (e.g. requesting X-rays or "telephone consultations", etc) during the period October 2011 to October 2012?.
5. Are there any other doubtful claims for rebate payments being made? For example are two claims (one for the prescription and to administer it) being made to give one flu vaccine? If this has happened, what has been the cost to the Health Insurance Fund in total and per signature rebates? What action has been taken?
6. What measures have been taken in relation to false claims and what monies have been recovered?
7. If evidence is found that false claims have been made what action will be taken against such claimants?

Answer

Information has been provided for the period 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012. Whereas most rebate claims from GPs are submitted and paid within a few weeks of the consultation, a time period of up to six months is allowed for these claims to be submitted. The figures reported below represent rebates that have been processed up to the date of the data extract, and will be subject to change as additional claims are processed.

The rate of medical benefit between 1 October 2011 and 26 June 2012 was £19.59. Since 27 June 2012, the value of the benefit has been £20.28.

Currently, 409,000 claims have been paid at a cost of £8.06 million for the year to 30 September 2012

Of this total, the total costs associated with medical benefits provided for letters of referral was £0.99 million.

Claims are checked automatically using embedded business rules  within  the Department's IT system before processing and invalid claims are rejected, according to those business rules. These rules include automatically rejecting multiple claims for the same consultation and alerting the Department if a patient has more than one visit/claim within 24 hours from a single surgery. In the latter scenario, payment is not made unless the surgery can confirm that it is a genuine instance of 2 separate claims. When claims are rejected, this information is provided to the GP, as each batch of claims is paid.

In addition to these automatic checks which are applied to every claim submitted, the Department undertakes periodic random checks on claims by confirming details with the individual patient, by either letter or phone call. The Department also writes directly to surgeries, again on a random basis, to confirm details of claims. Checks are also specifically undertaken in respect of patients with high numbers of consultations.

A Medical Director has recently been appointed to lead the Primary Care Governance Unit and he has already undertaken a number of visits to local practices to ensure that best practice is being followed and has initially focussed upon practices with high levels of consultation or referral letters

Between 1 October 2011 and 30 September 2012 2,438 claims were disallowed.

The claims submitted by GPs include information on the identity of each patient and the date and time of their consultation. If a GP were to falsify claims, this might amount to fraud and could be referred to the Police for investigation accordingly.

7. SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE USE OF THE LIVERPOOL CARE PATHWAY IN JERSEY:

Question

1. What are the controls and procedures used for the Liverpool Care Pathway in Jersey?
2. How long has this procedure been used in Jersey?
3. In how many cases has this procedure been used?
4. Have there been any complaints and, if so, how were these resolved?

Answer

1. The controls and procedures used for the Liverpool Care Pathway in Health and Social Services are those recommended by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool.

The approach is endorsed by 22 separate organisations which include several of the Royal Colleges and National Bodies such as : The Royal College of Physicians, The Royal College of General Practitioners, The Royal College of Nursing, The National Care Forum, The British Geriatrics Society, Age UK and The National Council for End of Life Care.

The introduction of the Liverpool Care Pathway within Health and Social Services has been managed through a range of measures to ensure the correct procedures are followed and appropriate controls are in place to monitor its use, which include:

• A training programme for clinical staff, supported by resource packs containing guidance information available in the clinical areas. The training covers 4 main areas which are ( in bold)  communication and the need to discuss and engage with relatives at all times, to support a shared agreement in care, to provide support to relatives, to establish points of contact. To agree and understand advanced care planning, taking into account patient wishes, preferred priorities of care, aiming to support the patient to die in their place of choice. Medication - to strengthen knowledge and understanding in relation to the main medications used to manage common symptoms such as pain, agitation, nausea and chest secretions and to ensure medication is prescribed so it can be given when needed in order to minimise any possible suffering to the patient. Spirituality, ensuring that the beliefs of the patient are understood by all caring for them and appropriate plans in place. Continuous review, this is an important part of the training to ensure staff understand the fluidity and flexibility of the pathway. That care needs are regularly reviewed and appropriate interventions made to ensure that the patient is comfortable and their symptoms are managed.

• Clinical Guidelines - the Pathway is supported by number of clinical guidelines, which provide clinicians with information to support their decision making, these are available in the clinical areas.
• In addition to this there is guidance to support the decision making process in diagnosing dying and the use of the Liverpool Care Pathway supporting care in the last hours or days of life. These guidelines are part of the Liverpool Care Pathway package.
• Monitoring and Audit - In addition to the above the use of the pathway is monitored and audited.
• Liverpool Care Pathway Facilitator – through funding from Macmillan HSSD have been able to employ a registered nurse to fulfil this role. She works as part of the Palliative Care Team and has led on the introduction of the pathway.

The decision to start a patient on the pathway will be made by the multidisciplinary team caring for the patient, in agreement with the patient's family. The recording of this decision is the responsibility of the most senior doctor available and endorsed by the Consultant who is caring for the patient.

Initial and ongoing assessments of the patient will be done by doctors and nurses caring for the patient (i.e. more than one professional).

The pathway is intended as a tool to ensure all care needs are considered and appropriately met, regular reviews of the patient by more than one professional supports appropriate use and if clinically appropriate, patients can/do come off the pathway.

2. Health and Social Services have introduced the most current version oftheLiverpool Care Pathway during 2012.
3. To date 23 patients have been cared for using the Liverpool Care Pathway within the General Hospital
4. There have been no complaints since its introduction.

8. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURYAND RESOURCES REGARDING THE USE OF A STORAGE FACILITY AT LA COLLETTE:

Question

Further to his written answer on 6th November 2012 in which the Minister stated that archive and equipment storage, a garage and command vehicles would be located at the States-owned warehouse unit at La Collette, will the Minister -

1. explainwhat equipment will be storedat this location, statewhetherthegarageatLaCollette will be a forensic garage' and explain the function of a forensic garage';
2. clarify the reply that £30,000 per annum has been set aside for the securityofthis location;
3. give the total cost for this extra site;
4. explain where all the above functions are carried out at present?

Answer

1. The proposal is to locate archive storage, oversized vehicle parking and garage at a States- owned warehouse-type location at La Collette.

This facility will provide a secure forensic examination area for vehicles or other large items; garaging for up to 5 oversize vehicles (command vehicle, large PSV, emergency equipment van); storage for emergency equipment / signage etc; storage for public order equipment / shields etc; space for caged archive storage of papers and large exhibits.

A forensic 'garage' is a dedicated area specially constructed to provide a controlled environment in which the forensic / specialist examination of recovered motor vehicles or other large exhibits can be conducted. The facility should be dry, weather-proof, well-lit and be of sufficient size to enable good circulation space around a vehicle to enable specialist photography and other forensic examinations to take place. The facility will require a laboratory table / bench and cupboard storage for specialist equipment and materials.

It should be noted that the decision to locate archiving off-site was taken in 2009, before the current Green Street scheme had been considered.

2. For the sake of clarity, the £30,000 is not an annual sum; it is a one –off capital sum that has been included within the base budget ofthe scheme to set up the facility, including CCTV, security access control, storage racking and other minor works.
3. As a States-owned site, there will be an internal recharge for the facility. With the States of Jersey Police currently looking toreduce its archive storage requirement, it will not be possible to identify the likely level ofthis internal rechargeuntilthe amount of space required has been finalised.
4. The functions are currently carried out as follows:

1. Archive storage is currently located in a number of places, including the basement at Rouge Bouillon, on the top floor ofthe former factory at Summerland and under the car park at Minden Place.
2. The forensic garage is located alongside the Fire Station garage at Rouge Bouillon
3. Oversized vehicles are located on the Summerland site.

9. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF STAFF CAR PARKING NEAR THE GREEN STREET POLICE HEADQUARTERS SCHEME:

Question

Further to the statement made by the Assistant Minister at the lunchtime briefing on the proposed Police Headquarters on 7th November 2012 that the Police have been offered 40 dedicated car parking spaces for staff cars within a 100 yard walk of the new site, would the Minister please state where these spaces are to be located?

Answer

On the 1st September, 2012, a private landowner in the area wrote to the Chief of Police with the offer of secure off-road private parking which could be used for staff.

The landowner has requested that the details of this offer, including location, remain confidential for the time being, but has consented to a redacted version of his letter being provided in response to this question.

The attached letter is self explanatory.

An initial meeting has been held with the landowner.

10. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE POTENTIAL USE OF PUBLIC CAR PARKS TO PROVIDE STAFF SPACES FOR THE PROPOSED GREEN STREET POLICE HEADQUARTERS SCHEME:

Question

At a lunchtime briefing on 7th November 2012 concerning the proposed new Police Headquarters the Assistant Ministers for Treasury and Resources stated that the Police had now been offered 40 dedicated car parking spaces for staff cars within a 100 yard walk of the new site; will the Minister confirm that these spaces will not be in Green Street or Snow Hill car parks or in any other car park managed by the States?

Answer

I can confirm that the spaces referred to are not within any public car parks administered by TTS.

11. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE POLICE INVESTIGATION INTO THE REZONING OF AGRICULTURAL LAND:

Question

1. Further to the announcement on 16th October2012 by the Chief Minister that the States of Jersey Police had concluded their investigation on re-zoning of agricultural land issues and concluded that there was "no evidence to support the allegations" would the Minister state what form the police investigation took and inform members whether -

1. key witnesses were interviewed by the Police;
2. an investigating officer was found to be in e-mail correspondence with one ofthose allegedly involved in the alleged offences?

2. IstheStatesofJerseyPoliceawarewhetheroneofthosewhomade a statement tothepolice in what he believed was his public duty is now being subject to threatening letters by one involved in the alleged allegations and, if so, what comfort does he believe members ofthe public can have when reporting what they considertobecriminal actions or wrongdoings if intimidations of this type are allowed to take place?

Answer

The investigation was undertaken by officers of Detective Inspector rank reporting directly to the Deputy Chief Officer who was also involved in meetings with a number of witnesses. Legal advice was sought and obtained from the Law Officers' Department at various stages of the investigation and upon conclusion.

(a)

1. Yes, key witnesses were interviewed. This formed a part of the investigation which also saw the police search email accounts and obtain documents from different witnesses in order to reconstruct a detailed history ofthe relevant land transactions.
2. Yes, email correspondence had been entered into by an investigating officer with a person alleged of offences; communication between the police and subjects of investigations is not unusual.

(b)A number of people who made witness statements in this case did not provide those statements to the police. Rather, witness statements were made and then kept in a private safe. The police had to ask to see these witness statements when alerted as to their existence. In response to the police request, the witness statements were sent to the United Kingdom. As a result, it took the police a long time to obtain copies of them. This caused significant delay to the investigation.

The States of Jersey Police is not aware of any witness in this case being subject of threatening letters or similar. Should any complaints of such activity or similar forms of harassment or threat be received, the States of Jersey Police would investigate fully as they would with any other such complaint.

12. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE ROLE PLAYED BY THE BAILIFF IN LIVE POLICE OPERATIONAL MATTERS:

Question

Can the Minister clarify what role, if any, the Bailiff may play in live police operational matters and state whether there are any police procedures that would permit a complaint relating to allegations of corruption sent directly to the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police to be passed by the police to the Bailiff ?

Answer

The Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003 makes provision for the States of Jersey Police to, when deemed necessary during the course of an investigation, apply for search warrants and production orders. Production orders are required when the police need private information on an individual whom they are investigating and which is held by a company or other organisation. Search warrants and production orders require the authorisation of the Bailiff which may or may not be granted following a representation by the investigating officer. This is the only role played by the Bailiff in live police operational matters.

All complaints against police are overseen by the Deputy Chief Officer of Police and are investigated by the Professional Standards Department. Any complaint sent directly to the Chief of Police will be referred to his Deputy for consideration.

Criminal allegations of corruption are investigated the same as any other criminal offence. Neither the Chief Officer nor his Deputy are aware of any procedures which would permit complaints of corruption sent directly to the Chief being passed by the police to the Bailiff .

13. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING SO CALLED WILL KITS':

Question

Will the Attorney General inform members whether the will kits' that are widely available from retailers and used regularly in the United Kingdom are legal in Jersey and, if not, given that many older people do not have the disposable income to afford paying expensive legal fees to engage the services of a local lawyer yet still wish to put their affairs in order, what aspects of the law in Jersey would have to be altered to give Islanders the same rights and reduced expense available to their mainland counterparts?'

Answer

Jersey residents, as elsewhere in the British Islands, are at liberty to draft and execute a will without resort to a lawyer if they so choose. It is understood that the Jersey Citizen's Advice Bureau provides basic advice in respect of making a will. On 15th March 2011, Sir Philip Bailhache delivered a lecture "Making a will – a practical guide" as part of the Institute of Law's "Law Made Simple" series of public talks. The lecture can be downloaded (in either written or audio format) from the Institute's website.

There is no legal barrier per se to the sale of a will kit' in Jersey. It is a potential commercial product like any other. Obviously, any such product would need to accurately reflect Jersey inheritance law which is materially different to the UK law.

It is notable that the will kits' sold in the United Kingdom often feature a caveat and the purchaser of the kit is expressly advised to take legal advice from a lawyer. That is because the making of a will can often require careful and particular drafting in order to give full legal effect to the intentions of the maker. Moreover issues such as the mental capacity of the maker of the will or domicile might arise.

14. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING THE PUBLIC'S LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO REPORT ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD ABUSE TO THE POLICE:

Question

In the light of the revelations around the late entertainer Jimmy Savile and notwithstanding the fact that education and social institutions in Jersey now have in place policy guidelines explaining what employees' responsibilities in reporting suspected child abuse to the police authorities are, will the Attorney General outline whether actual legislation is in place to require employees or other members of the public to report allegations of abuse to the police and, in addition, what potential offences, if any, may be committed should people fail to do so?

Answer

There is no legal obligation on an employee in an educational or other institution to report suspected child abuse to the police. It follows that no criminal offence is committed in the event that someone does not report their suspicions.

As the questions acknowledges, employers place responsibilities on their employees and have established guidelines and best practice in terms of reporting suspected criminal conduct.

The Health and Social Services Minister has a statutory duty pursuant to the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 to investigate any reported concerns that might give reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm.

15. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN TO ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE DISCLOSURE BY BANKS OF SUSPECTED TAX EVASION:

Question

Does the Minister accept that the Jersey Financial Services Commission's (JFSC) implementation of the "highest standards of regulation" is reliant on disclosure by banks of suspected tax evasion, and that any UK resident who declines to have the interest sent to H.M. Revenue and Customs (HMRC), without evidence of declaration of total income, must be suspected of tax evasion and should be reported to the JFSC?

Will the Minister inform members when he expects to receive reports from the JFSC on the extent of breaches of Anti–Money Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) regulations reported in the recent US Senate investigation into the activities of HSBC Middle East and the reports in the Daily Telegraph on HSBC accounts?

Will the Minister give members details of:

1. JFSC's 66 on-site AML unit investigations reported in the 2011 Annual report, and
2. The shortcomings in prudential reporting, outlined on page 24 of the Report?

Will the Minister commission an independent enquiry into the powers and resources of the JFSC to investigate whether Jersey has delivered the highest standards of AML/CFT enforcement, not just on paper but in practice, and to make recommendations to improve future practice, and if not why not?

Answer

Each element of the question will be taken in turn:

Does the Minister accept that the Jersey Financial Services Commission's (JFSC) implementation of the "highest standards of regulation" is reliant on disclosure by banks of suspected tax evasion, and that any UK resident who declines to have the interest sent to H.M. Revenue and Customs (HMRC), without evidence of declaration of total income, must be suspected of tax evasion and should be reported to the JFSC?

As evidenced by the IMF assessment in 2009, Jersey has been found to have high standards of regulation. Defrauding the tax authorities is a criminal offence and the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (POC Law) apply to tax fraud. Where a client is suspected of committing tax fraud, institutions are required under the POC Law to make a report to the Police and Customs Joint Financial Crimes Unit (JFCU). The JFCU can and does share such reports with the JFSC to assist the JFSC in examining the anti-money laundering systems and controls of regulated and registered businesses. In addition, the reporting rates of such businesses are also monitored.

Will the Minister inform members when he expects to receive reports from the JFSC on the extent of breaches of Anti–Money Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) regulations reported in the recent US Senate investigation into the activities of HSBC Middle East and the reports in the Daily Telegraph on HSBC accounts?

It is too early to give an indication when the investigations being undertaken by the JFSC will be concluded. However, based on previous evidence, we can be confident that the regulator will act properly and decisively in accordance with its mandate.

The regulatory laws do not permit the release of an investigation report to Members or to the public. At the conclusion of an investigation the JFSC can, and frequently does, exercise a statutory power to issue a public statement setting out its findings, and these can be found on the JFSC's website at: http://www.jerseyfsc.org/the_commission/general_information/public_statements/public_statement s.asp.

Will the Minister give members details of:

1. JFSC's 66 on-site AML unit investigations reported in the 2011 Annual report, and
2. The shortcomings in prudential reporting, outlined on page 24 of the Report?

The following additional information has been published and is therefore in the public domain.

1. The summary findings ofthe themed on-site examination programme conducted by the AML Unit ofthe JFSC between 2008 and 2010 have been published on the JFSC's website and can be found at: http://www.jerseyfsc.org/pdf/2008_-_2010_AML_On-site_examination_findings_Sept_2010.pdf
2. The reference in the question should be topage26ofthe 2011 Annual Report – first section on Banking. This referred tothe summary findings of the themed on-site examination programme on prudential reporting conducted by the Banking Division of the JFSC. Thedetailsofthe findings of the Report are published on the JFSC's website at: http://www.jerseyfsc.org/pdf/2011_Prudential_Reporting_Summary_Findings_March_2012.pdf

The conclusion section of that document concluded that, "Overall, the Commission was pleased to note that banks generally were operating within the requirements of the relevant legislation, Codes and guidance. That said, this exercise has highlighted some potential areas for improvement and the Commission would therefore encourage all deposit-takers to consider the findings in this report in the context of their own business."

Will the Minister commission an independent enquiry into the powers and resources of the JFSC to investigate whether Jersey has delivered the highest standards of AML/CFT enforcement, not just on paper but in practice, and to make recommendations to improve future practice, and if not why not?

There is no intention to commission an independent enquiry into the powers and resources of the JFSC because that took place in the IMF assessment in 2008. In that review the IMF found that Jersey was largely compliant or fully compliant with 44 of the 49 FATF recommendations.

With respect to the powers and resources of the JFSC in relation to specific investigations, in addition to an Enforcement Division that has eight investigatory members of staff, the JFSC has the power to call upon external resources by appointing reporting professionals or Inspectors with a particular specialism in the field under investigation. Such powers are exercised on a regular basis and it is regarded as a valuable and effective means of calling upon sufficient resources when a specific need arises.

16. DEPUTY  G.P.  SOUTHERN  OF  ST. HELIER OF THE  CHIEF  MINISTER REGARDING  THE EXTENT  TO  WHICH  ALLOWANCES OR SUBSIDIES  FOR RENTAL/MORTGAGE  COSTS  HAVE  BEEN  USED  TO  RECRUIT  OR  RETAIN PUBLIC SECTOR STAFF:

Question

Will  the  Chief  Minister  inform  members  of  the  extent  to  which  allowances  or  subsidies  for rental/mortgage costs have been used to recruit or retain public sector staff over the first 6 months of 2012 to include -

1. the totals paid, by department;
2. the numbers and grades of employees concerned;
3. the monthly sums paid in each case, and
4. the periods over which the allowance was expected to last?

Answer

Set out below are the answers to the specific questions asked by Deputy Southern concerning rent subsidies/ allowances (employees are not entitled to receive subsidies or allowances specifically in relation to capital mortgage costs).

1. totals paid, by department;

2. numbers and grades of employees concerned;

3. monthly sums paid in each case, and

N.B The average for the 17 employee's has been calculated in order to prevent individuals from being identified.

4. periods over which the allowance was expected to last?

• For five of the employees; the subsidy/ allowance has ceased
• For eleven of the employees; the subsidy/ allowance will cease at the end of their contract or at the end of an agreed period specified within their contract

17. DEPUTY G.P.  SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER  FOR SOCIAL SECURITY  REGARDING  THE  CONSIDERATION  OF  RECOMMENDATIONS MADE WITHIN S.R.3/2011 REVIEW OF BENEFIT LEVELS':

Question

Further to the joint answer from three Ministers given on 6th November 2012, will the Minister, advise members what consideration, if any, has been given to recommendations 14, 16 and 17 of SR.3/2011 "Review of Benefit levels"?

Will he further state when he will publish his own report into the impact of Income Support over the first four years of its operation?

(for information –

Recommendation 14 (Page 95)

The  Minister  for  Social  Security,  in  his  own  review  of  Income  Support,  must  examine  the interaction between the level of the minimum wage and the overall cost of Income Support.

Recommendation 16 (Page 101)

The Ministers for Social Security and Treasury and Resources must work together to reduce the overlap between Income Support levels and Income Tax thresholds at the lower end of the earnings distribution in order to correct inefficiencies and report their findings within 12 months.

Recommendation 17 (Page 101)

The Ministers for Social Security and Treasury and Resources should pursue the potential benefit from improved modelling of the tax and benefit system to produce profiles similar to that produced by the UK Government entitled "Tax Benefit Model Tables" and report their findings within 12 months.)

Answer

Recommendation 14: The response of the previous Minister to Recommendation 14 identified the lack of evidence within the Scrutiny Report in respect of income support claimants receiving the minimum wage. The response also noted " it is known that the minimum wage is principally used in industries employing migrant labour. Seasonal workers are not eligible to receive income support. As accommodation is often included in the remuneration package, local residents often do not take up work in these sectors."

The Statistics Unit included information on minimum wage earners in its 2012 average earnings survey. This estimates that 6% of jobs filled in the last week of June (a seasonal peak) were paid at the minimum wage. The two sectors that showed the highest proportion of minimum wage jobs were agriculture and fisheries (29% of all jobs in that sector) and hotels, restaurants and bars (22% of all jobs in that sector).

The response to the scrutiny report also drew attention to the impact of minimum wage levels on youth unemployment. The Employment Forum undertook a review of this subject earlier in 2012 including consultation with employers, employees and young people and concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to support a separate, lower, youth rate.

The Employment Forum has recently recommended that the period during which the trainee rate may be paid to a new trainee should be extended from one year to two years. Its recommendations would provide the following rates to apply from 1 April 2013: a trainee rate of £4.90 per hour for the first year of training, £5.71 per hour for the second year of training and £6.53 per hour for the standard minimum wage.

These measures should improve the prospects of employment for, in particular, young local residents and the long-term skill base of islanders. The Department continues to look for opportunities to increase incentives to work and reviews income support levels for the unemployed against total household income levels for those that take up employment.

Recommendation 16:  Since the Scrutiny Report was published in March 2011, lower earners have benefited from an increase in the earnings disregard within the income support calculation. This has increased from 16.5% (plus 6% for Social Security contributions) to 20% (plus 6% Social Security contributions). This increases the incentive for low income families to take up and stay in work, whether or not they pay income tax.

Inevitably there are differences between income support and income tax as the two systems are based on different principles. For example, both systems acknowledge the number of adults and children in the household, but the income tax  system treats unmarried couples as individuals whereas the income support system treats unmarried partners as a single household.

More significantly, the income tax system makes no allowance for the cost of rental accommodation, compared to the income support system in which the cost of rented accommodation is a major factor. Likewise, the income tax system does not make any additional allowances for individuals with disabilities whereas these are taken into account within the income support system.

These differences between the tax and benefit systems at the margins, which are far from unique to Jersey, are bound to result in an overlap between the two systems in a minority of cases.

Recommendation 17:  The last publication of the UK government tax benefit tables was in November 2010. The UK government undertook a consultation exercise at that time to determine the public demand for these tables. There was a nil response to the exercise and the government took the decision to cease these publications. An Excel spreadsheet was published in 2010 providing details of UK benefits current at that time, but this has not been kept up-to-date.

The Social Security Department has issued an Excel spreadsheet in respect of income support calculations to interested States Members. This is kept up to date and is reissued following every change in benefit parameters. A web-based version of the calculator is currently undergoing testing and will be available shortly.

A full report on income support claims for 2011 was published on 19 October (R.126/2012). This report will now be published on an annual basis.

18. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS MADE WITHIN S.R.3/2011 REVIEW OF BENEFIT LEVELS':

Question

Further to the joint answer from three Ministers given on 6th November 2012, will the Minister inform members what attention, if any, has been paid to recommendations 16 and 17 of SR.3/2011 "Review of Benefit levels" as part of his review of the tax system and, if none, state why?

(For information –

Recommendation 16 (Page 101)

The Ministers for Social Security and Treasury and Resources must work together to reduce the overlap between Income Support levels and Income Tax thresholds at the lower end of the earnings distribution in order to correct inefficiencies and report their findings within 12 months.

Recommendation 17 (Page 101)

The Ministers for Social Security and Treasury and Resources should pursue the potential benefit from improved modelling of the tax and benefit system to produce profiles similar to that produced by the UK Government entitled "Tax Benefit Model Tables" and report their findings within 12 months.)

Answer

Recommendation 16 (Page 101)

Since the Scrutiny Report was published in March 2011, lower earners have benefited from an increase in the earnings disregard within the income support calculation. This has increased from 16.5% (plus 6% for Social Security contributions) to 20% (plus 6% Social Security contributions). This increases the incentive for low income families to take up and stay in work, whether or not they pay income tax.

Inevitably there are differences between income support and income tax as the two systems are based on different principles. For example, both systems acknowledge the number of adults and children in the household, but the income tax  system treats unmarried couples as individuals whereas the income support system treats unmarried partners as a single household.

More significantly, the income tax system makes no allowance for the cost of rental accommodation, compared to the income support system in which the cost of rented accommodation is a major factor. Likewise, the income tax system does not make any additional allowances for individuals with disabilities whereas these are taken into account within the income support system.

These differences between the tax and benefit systems at the margins, which are far from unique to Jersey, are bound to result in an overlap between the two systems in a minority of cases.

Recommendation 17 (Page 101)

The last publication of the UK government tax benefit tables was in November 2010. The UK government undertook a consultation exercise at that time to determine the public demand for these tables. There was a nil response to the exercise and the government took the decision to cease these publications. An Excel spreadsheet was published in 2010 providing details of UK benefits current at that time, but this has not been kept up-to-date.

The Social Security Department has issued an Excel spreadsheet in respect of income support calculations to interested States Members. This is kept up to date and is reissued following every change in benefit parameters. A web-based version of the calculator is currently undergoing testing and will be available shortly.

A full report on income support claims for 2011 was published on 19 October (R.126/2012). This report will now be published on an annual basis.

19. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING VEHICLES OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE:

Question

Will the Minister list in tabular form each vehicle owned and operated by the States of Jersey Police, stating the year it was purchased, the make and model, original purchase price, use (patrol car, CID, Crime Prevention, Senior Officer Transport etc), mileage, anticipated replacement date and anticipated cost of replacement?

Answer

The States of Jersey Police currently has forty nine vehicles, a reduction of ten since last December. We anticipate a further reduction in the coming year. Of the forty nine vehicles, twenty eight are marked and twenty one are unmarked.  The unmarked vehicles comprise of six vans, three bespoke dog vans and 12 cars, which are utilised by departments including firearms, roads policing, crime scene  investigation  and  plain  clothes  units  such  as  CID  and  financial  crime.  For  obvious operational reasons, the Chief Officer is unwilling to disclose any further details of the unmarked vehicles.  The Chief Officer does not have a private vehicle for transport, he utilises the roads policing vehicle for this purpose when required.  The States of Jersey Police also has six marked police pedal cycles which are used by uniform 24hour response departments.

Obtaining mileage for each vehicle is possible, however not within the time frame provided. The Fleet Manager has stated that on average marked vehicles usually do between 18,000-20,000 miles per year.  Due to the recent decision of centralised procurement of all States vehicles to be the responsibility of TTS, it may be more appropriate that the issue of anticipated cost of replacement be directed to them. Below is a table containing the details of the marked police fleet:

Marked Cars:

Marked Vans:

Motorcycles:

20. DEPUTY  M.R. HIGGINS  OF  ST.  HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY  GENERAL REGARDING  WHETHER  CROWN  OFFICERS,  OR  ANY STATES DEPARTMENTS  OR  STATES  APPOINTED  BODIES  HAVE  BEEN  PARTY  TO OBTAINING ANY INJUNCTIONS IN THE LAST 3 YEARS:

Question

Will  H.M. Attorney  General  advise  the  Assembly  whether  or  not  the  Crown Officers, or  any  States Departments or States Appointed Bodies, have been party to obtaining any injunctions of any type over the last three years, and if so, would he advise when, to whom and to what they related and the cost of these injunctions?

Answer

It is not clear to what extent, if at all, this question seeks information that is materially different to the answer provided by the Attorney General on 6th November 2012 in response to the Deputy 's earlier question in respect of injunctions.

In so far as the question does seek additional information, it is assumed that the Deputy seeks only information  that  will  not  subvert  any  court  order  that  might  exist.  Having  regard  to  that understandable desire, the answer is as follows:

The Solicitor General is seeking an injunction to prevent a convicted defendant from contacting a member of the jury. The proceedings are ongoing.

21. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF THE HISTORIC ABUSE REDRESS SCHEME TO INCLUDE VISITORS TO HAUT DE LA GARENNE AND OTHER CHILDREN'S HOMES:

Question

In relation to Historic Child Abuse allegations will the Chief Minister:

1. explain whether he will be extending the abuse redress scheme to cover visitors to Haut de la Garenne and other children's homes and also to those children in foster care and, if so, when;
2. explain whether or not he was aware of allegations that staff allowed people to stay in accommodation at Haut de la Garenne who were neither employed by the States of Jersey nor children referred to the home and under the protection of the States of Jersey and, if so, will he consider extending the redress scheme tocover these people should they be accused of child abuse?

Answer

(a) & (b)

A report from the Historical Abuse Redress Scheme lawyers is due to be considered by the Council of Ministers. The report is in relation to a number of claims for financial compensation that may not strictly fall to be dealt with under the terms of the Scheme currently in place. Those claims include allegations of abuse that took place away from the residential care home and/or where the alleged abuser was neither an employee nor a child-resident in the care home.

The Council of Ministers is meeting on 29 November 2012 to discuss the report.

The Council of Ministers will be reviewing whether the Scheme should be extended to abuse suffered when in foster care. The Council of Ministers is advised that different legal tests and considerations apply to foster care when compared to full-time residential care.

22. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE NUMBER AND DETAILS OF PROSECUTIONS BROUGHT BY THE DATA PROTECTION COMMISSIONER UNDER THE DATA PROTECTION (JERSEY) LAW 2005 SINCE THE APPOINTED DAY ACT WAS ADOPTED BY THE STATES:

Question

Will the Chief Minister list for the Assembly the number of prosecutions brought by the Data Protection Commissioner under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 since the Appointed Day Act to date giving details of each case, its cost and its outcome?

Answer

Prosecutions for offences contrary to the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 can only be brought by and require the consent of the Attorney General. In those cases into which the Data Protection Commissioner has conducted an investigation and which might be appropriate for a prosecution, the files are forwarded to the Law Officers' Department for their consideration. The Police may also conduct investigations and refer files to the Attorney General for consideration. It is not appropriate to provide details in relation to investigations which did not lead to prosecutions.

Details as to the numbers of prosecutions and any costs incurred arising from such prosecutions would be a question more appropriately directed to the Attorney General.

23. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING PROTECTIONS AFFORDED COMPLAINANTS WHO CONSENT TO THE USE OF CONFIDENTIAL MEDICAL OR COUNSELLING INFORMATION IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL:

Question

What protections, if any, are afforded a complainant who consents to the use of confidential medical or counselling information in a criminal trial?

How are they made fully aware of the implications of agreeing to the use of such information?

Answer

The Attorney General has already answered oral questions relating to this matter on 6th November 2012.

The prosecution has a duty to disclose material that might undermine its case or assist the defence. This duty of disclosure is key to providing a defendant with a fair trial pursuant to Article 6 of Human Rights Law. A failure to discharge this duty can result in an acquittal.

In order to discharge this duty, the prosecution will typically need to review any medical records that may relate to a complainant in order to determine what, if any, of that material undermines it case or assists the defence. The complainant will be informed, when consent is sought, that the material may be disclosed to the defence and used at trial.

The prosecution lawyers will consider the medical records having regard to the disclosure test. If (and only  if) the test for disclosure  is satisfied, then the prosecution must either provide the documents to the defence or offer no evidence and thereby stop the case.

There are limits to the discussions that can be had with a complainant on this issue. A complainant can be properly informed that the material might be used by the defence during the trial. What the prosecution must not do is highlight particular parts of the medical records to the complainant and warn them as to what questions might be put in cross examination.

24. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF THE INTERNAL REVIEW INTO PATIENT TRAVEL EXPENSES:

Question

When is the internal review into patient travel expenses and related matters currently underway expected to be presented to her, will this be made public and what action, if any, does the Minister intend to take in relation to the findings?

Answer

HSSD Officers are currently reviewing the existing patient travel policy. It is anticipated that, depending on the outcome of the review, an updated policy will be introduced in early 2013.

HSSD recognises that the costs associated with patient travel are a matter of concern for all Islanders. Our updated policy must support those in need of a travel subsidy whilst ensuring appropriate use of public funds for patient care is prioritised.

HSSD will therefore clearly set out both the changes to the policy and the basis on which those changes have been made.

25. DEPUTY T.A. VALLOIS OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC SOCIAL ASSESSMENTS:

Question

Could the Chief Minister advise whether the creation of a Strategic Social Assessment (as per Social Policy Framework 2007) which reviews social issues and trends and predicts their impact on services in the short and long term was ever implemented and, if not, why not and will he look at implementing this in the near future?

Further to page 31 of the Social Policy Framework 2007 which states that "Policy makers are less well placed to understand how economic growth impacts on social policy objectives", could the Chief Minister advise how the recommendations for action to rectify this statement have in fact been implemented?

Would the Chief Minister advise whether he is satisfied with the results and whether any improvements need to be made?

Answer

A Strategic Social Assessment has not been implemented as per the recommendation set out in 2007 Social Policy Framework.

However, the Chief Minister's Department will be reviewing and refreshing the 2007 Social Policy Framework, in partnership will all other Departments, during 2013, and an emphasis will be placed on ensuring actions are delivered.

As to the balance between economic policies and social policies, in many ways it is a false distinction, as is illustrated by our present issues with unemployment which is both an economic and a social issue. Indeed, as alluded to in the question, the objective should be to get the right economic policies to deliver both social and material well being. The 2012 Strategic Plan does this, most notably by emphasising priorities aimed at delivering improvements in areas like unemployment, health, families and children, housing and immigration, all of which have both economic and social impacts.

26. DEPUTY T.A. VALLOIS OF ST. SAVIOUR OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING WHETHER THE EDUCATION (DISCRETIONARY GRANTS – GENERAL) (JERSEY) ORDER 2008 ALREADY PROVIDES THE ABILITY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OF A SEPARATED PARTNERS INCOME OR THAT OF THE NEW PARTNER:

Question

Could H.M. Attorney General provide advice as to whether Article 4(1) of the Education (Discretionary Grants – General) (Jersey) Order 2008 already provides the Education, Sport and Culture Department with the ability to take into account a separated parent's income or that of the new partner?