States Meeting Transcript - 21st February 2012

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2012

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

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

1. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND HOPPA'-STYLE SERVICES FROM THE BELVEDERE 9OLD JERSEY DAIRY) AND CHASSE BRUNET SITES:....................................8
2. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE OPERATION OF THE ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF GUERNSEY WASTE:.................................................................................9
3. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE ST. AUBIN TREATED SEWAGE OUTFALL:.....................................................11
4. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE PLANNED CESSATION OF OPEN-AIR COMPOSTING:........................................12
5. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING RECENT STATES OF JERSEY POLICE ACTIVITIES AT THE GERMAN CONSUL'S PROPERTY: ............................................14
6. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING COMPETITION IN THE POSTAL MARKET:.....15
7. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE PRICE OF DOMESTIC HEATING OIL:......15
8. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS CLAIMING INCOME SUPPORT:.....................................................16
9. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE NUMBER OF PRESCRIPTIONS AND G.P. CONSULTATIONS:...................................................................18
10. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING ACTION TO PROMOTE THE RIGHT OF ISLANDERS TO WORK IN THE EUROPEAN UNION:............................................................20
11. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE SUDDEN DEATH OF A FORMER PATIENT OF THE GENERAL HOSPITAL:..........................................21
12. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING WARRANT CARDS:..........................22

13. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REPORT BY THE HOWARD LEAGUE FOR PENAL REFORM:....................................................22
14. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HEALTH, SOCIAL SECURITY AND HOUSING SCRUTINY PANEL REGARDING INCOME SUPPORT HOUSING REBATE:......................................................32
15. THE DEPUTY OF GROUVILLE OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE REDUCTION IN INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE LOW EMISSION VEHICLES:........................................32
16. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING FORMAL MEETINGS WITH THE FORMER CHIEF OFFICER OF POLICE:.......34
17. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE RETIREMENT DATE OF THE FORMER CHIEF OFFICER OF POLICE: ...............................................................................34
18. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS IN CONNEXION WITH THE HISTORIC ABUSE ENQUIRY:.......................................................35
19. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CASINO IN JERSEY: 36
20. DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE INTERIM REPORT' OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE INTO THE HANDLING OF THE HISTORIC ABUSE ENQUIRY: ..........................37
21. DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING WORK UNDERTAKEN BY MATT TAPP ASSOCIATES:...........................38
22. DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE COMMISSIONING OF MATT TAPP ASSOCIATES WITHOUT A FORMAL CONTRACT:..........................................................................38
23. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE MILLENNIUM TOWN PARK: ......39
24. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER JERSEY COLLEGE FOR GIRLS SITE:.........................................................42
25. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT POLICY:...............................................................................44
26. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING

THE ENGAGEMENT OF MATT TAPP ASSOCIATES: ..............................47

2. Oral Questions...........................................................................47

1. Deputy R.J. Rondel of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the amount received by the Treasury from G.S.T. placed on food items for the years 2010 and 2011:.........................................................................47 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................47

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................47
   2. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the delay in making compensation payments to the victims of abuse at Haut de la Garenne:.................48 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................48

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................48
2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................48

3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................49

3. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the establishment of a Committee of Inquiry into historical child abuse:.......................................49 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................49

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................49
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................49
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................50
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................50

4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Connétable of St. Clement , rapporteur for the Comité des Connétable s regarding the processing of applications for Sunday Trading licences:50 Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity (Chairman of the Comité des Connétable s):..........50 Connétable L Norman of St. Clement - rapporteur:...........................................50

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................51
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................51
3. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................51
4. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................51 The Connétable of St. Clement:..............................................................51
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................52
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................52
7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................52

5. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the rights of the public to be informed by the police if their neighbours keep weapons in their homes: .........52 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................52

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................53
2. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................53
3. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................53
4. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................54
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................54
6. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................54
7. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................54
8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................55
9. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................55

10. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................55
11. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John:..................................................55

6. Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the staff at Indigo Lighthouse:......................................................................56 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................56

2.6.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................56

7. The Connétable of St. John of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the warranty for the works undertaken on the Airport road:..................56 Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): .....57

1. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................57
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................57

8. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the residency requirements for the recruitment of an Economist in the public sector: .................57 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................57

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................58
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................58

9. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding the reduction of G.P. consultation rates:......................................................................58

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ..............................58

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................59
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................59
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................59
4. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................59
5. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................59
6. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................60
7. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................60
8. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................60
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................60
   10. Deputy J.A. Hilton of the Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services regarding compulsory drug testing for parents with drug addiction:...............................61 Deputy J.A. Martin (Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services - rapporteur): ........61

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton:..................................................................61
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ..................................................61
3. Deputy J.A. Hilton:..................................................................62

11. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the increased risk to the organisation' caused by pharmacy services cuts:..................62 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):.................62

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................63
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................63
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................63
4. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................63
5. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................63

12. Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the costs of court action relating to the abolition of low value consignment relief:..................64 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................64

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................64
2. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : ..................................................65
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................65
4. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................65
5. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................66
6. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................66
7. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................66
8. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................66

13. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chief Minister regarding the raid on the German Consul's home last year: .........................................................................67 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................67

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................67
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................67
3. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................67

14. Deputy M. Tadier of The Minister for Home Affairs regarding the reasons for the suspension of the former Chief Officer of Police: ......................................68 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................68

1. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................68
2. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................68
3. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................69
4. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................69
5. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................69
6. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................69

7. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................70

15. Deputy S. Pitman of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding the cost of damages caused by vandals at Springfield Stadium:....................................70 Deputy P.J.D.Ryan of St. John (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):.............70

1. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................70
2. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................70
3. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................71

3. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Housing....................71

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................71 Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier (The Minister for Housing):..............................71
2. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................71

3.2.1 Deputy S. Power:.......................................................................72

3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................72

3.3.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................72

4. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................73

3.4.1 The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................73

5. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................74
6. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter:........................................................74

3.6.1 The Deputy of St. Peter : ................................................................74

7. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................75

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Planning and Environment ...........................................................................................75

1. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................75 Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour (The Minister for Planning and Environment):.........75
2. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................75

1. Deputy J.A.Hilton:.....................................................................76
2. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................76
   3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................76

4.3.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................76

4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................77
5. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................77
6. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................77
7. Deputy R.J. Rondel:....................................................................78
8. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................78
9. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................78
10. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................79

5. Urgent Oral Questions..................................................................79

5.1 Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding a survey into the possible introduction of a youth rate' set below the minimum wage in Jersey commissioned by the Employment Forum:.............................................79 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ..............................79

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................80
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................81
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................81
4. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................81
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................82

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................82

6. Draft States of Jersey (Transfer of Functions No. 5) (Economic Development to Chief Minister) (Jersey) Regulations (P.196/2011) ............................................82

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................82 6.1 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):...........................82 6.1.1 The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................83

7. Draft Civil Aviation (Amendment of Law) (Jersey) Regulations (P.197/2011)........85

7.1 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):...........................85

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................85
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................85
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................86
4. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................86

8. Draft Social Security (Amendment of Law No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations (P.1/2012) ...88

8.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ........................88

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................89
2. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................89
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................90
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................90
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................91

6. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................91

9. Manual Workers' Joint Council: Employers' Side Membership (P.3/2012)..........93

9.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (Chairman, States Employment Board):..............................94

10. Law Revision Board: Appointment of Member (P.7/2012)............................94

10.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):......................94

11. Draft Fire and Rescue Service (Jersey) Law 2011 (Appointed Day) Act 201- (P.9/2012) ...........................................................................................95

11.1 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): ...........................95

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................95 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................95

12. Strategic Plan 2012 – Green Paper: in Committee debate (R.5/2012) .................95

12.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minsiter):................................................96

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................99
2. Deputy S.Power:..................................................................101
3. Senator I.J. Gorst : ..................................................................101
4. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:.............................................................102
5. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................104
6. The Deputy of St. Ouen:............................................................106
7. Deputy J.H. Young: ................................................................107
8. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin:....................................................109
9. Deputy T.A. Vallois:...............................................................110
10. The Deputy of St. Peter:.........................................................111
11. Deputy J.M. Le Bailly of St. Mary : ..............................................111
12. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:..........................................................112
13. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:......................................112
14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...........................................................114

15. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...............................................................119
16. Senator A. Breckon:.............................................................120
17. Deputy M. Tadier :...............................................................123
18. The Deputy of St. Ouen : ........................................................125
19. The Deputy ofSt. Martin: .......................................................126
20. Senator I.J. Gorst :...............................................................126

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ..................127 The Bailiff :..................................................................................127

13. Deputy M. Tadier :....................................................................127

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:.................................................................127
2. Deputy M. Tadier :....................................................................128

1. Deputy S.Pitman:..................................................................128
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache :............................................................128
3. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...............................................................128

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :................................................................130
4. Deputy J.A. Martin:...................................................................130

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................130

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

[09:30] QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND HOPPA'-STYLE SERVICES FROM THE BELVEDERE 9OLD JERSEY DAIRY) AND CHASSE BRUNET SITES:

Question

Would the Minister give details of the conditions, if any, agreed by the developer of the Belvedere (Old Jersey Dairy) and Chasse Brunet sites in respect of the provision of public transport and Hoppa'-style services from the sites and state when the consultation as agreed in P.156/2011 (as amended) will be commencing?

Answer

The following conditions exist or are being progressed with the developer in relation to the following two planning applications:

Application RP/2010/1116

Jersey Milk Marketing Board and Field 530A, Princes Tower Road, St Saviour

Condition 2 of the issued permit states:

• The Developer is to design, seek planning approval, procure and install 2 bus shelters on La Grande Route de St Martin and Bagatelle Rd at bus stops to be agreed with Transport and Technical Services Highways (TTS). The bus shelters shall be provided prior to first occupancy of the development.
• The Developer is to design and build a road side footpath along the southern edge of Princes Tower Rd, between a point immediately to the north west of the Jersey Dairy site to a point immediately to the south east of the zebra crossing on Prince's Tower Rd near the Five Oaks Roundabout. (A distance of approximately 146m and an area of footpath of approximately 210m² including vehicle crossings). The design and construction is to be carried out to a standard and by a consultant and contractor approved by TTS. TTS will provide the required Ministerial Approval once a design has been provided to enable a recommendation to be made to the Minister for TTS to approve the construction of the afore mentioned road side footpath.
• The footpath shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and transferred to the public prior to first occupation, with the developer bearing all costs associated. - The Planning Obligation Agreement shall contain a negotiated financial sum to a minimum of £185,000 to include the provision of a hoppa bus and service charges/maintenance provision for a total of 2 years. The agreed financial sum will be in the form of a bond/guarantee and provided prior to first occupation of the development.
• The Developer shall appoint a Travel Plan Co-Ordinator to carry out all the actions listed in the Peter Brett Associates (PBa) Travel Plan dated 16/03/2010. The Travel Plan Co-ordinator will advise TTS of the progress of the Travel Plans every 6 months for a period of 5 years from the date of occupation of 50% of the dwellings on the Development. On completion of the site, or at 50% occupation, the roles and responsibilities of the Travel Plan Co-Ordinator will be transferred from the of the Management Company for the Development.

A draft Planning Obligation is currently under negotiation and is not publically registered. Application P/2010/1901

Field 516, 517 & 518, La Rue de Patier, St Saviour

The issued permit states:

In addition, the representations raised to the scheme have been assessed. Consideration has been given to the character of the area and the potential harm to the amenities of the neighbouring residents and on balance these issues were found not to be unreasonable, and the Minister has by conditions imposed upon this permission and a 'Planning Obligation Agreement' sought to control and mitigate any potentially unreasonable impacts.

The Planning Obligation Agreement was registered in the Royal Court on 17 November 2011 and the following were agreed with the developer:

Erection of 2 bus shelters along with all required infrastructure and ancillary works to be carried out by TTS Minister on St Saviours Hill - locations to be agreed by both Environment

& TTS Minister. - these should be in place no later than the date which any dwelling is first occupied

New Bus Shelter Land Infrastructure Works with a financial contribution towards bus shelter facilities- these should be in place no later than the date which any dwelling is first occupied

Travel Plan - Appointment of a travel plan co-ordinator - prior to more than 50% of the dwelling units being occupied

Community Transport Service ( 2 Minibuses plus a financial contribution of £11,000 to start up the Management company to benefit residents at this development and that of Belvedere Five Oaks (former JMMB site) - no later than the date upon which 72% of the Private cottages are first occupied

In relation to the last part of the question, Transport and Technical Services (TTS) have confirmed the following:

TTS has recently selected its preferred tenderer for the new bus contract to commence in Jan 2013. A hoppa service for the town and its environs in accordance with P156/2011 will be prioritised as part of the second and final stage of the tender process to be carried out this year, and the process to develop an appropriate hoppa service will include consultation with the community in the proposed catchment area.

2. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE OPERATION OF THE ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF GUERNSEY WASTE:

Question

1. With regard to the Energy from Waste Plant (EfW) at La Collette would the Minister advise -

1. whether it is now operating satisfactorily and, if not, why not;
2. whether flue emissions are now entirely within forecasted safety limits;
3. whether any wastefrom Guernsey has yet been brought to Jersey;
4. why it is now being suggested spare capacity could accommodate Guernsey's waste when the argument all along for a plant of this size was that it was necessary to allow for maintenance and outages;
5. whether his department have made it clear to the Guernsey authorities that Jersey has made no decision whether or not to accept their waste.

2. Has the Department considered the feasibility of importing Guernsey's waste and, if so, would the Minister advise where it is proposed to unload, by what means it would be transported to the EfW, what arrangements,  if any, have been discussed regarding ash disposal and how any dustor smell from the exercise would be avoided?

Answer

1. (i) As with any complex piece of machinery, there are a number of areas that need to be optimised. TTS and the contractor have been fine tuning the process over the last few months aiming to ensure that the plant uses chemicals efficiently, minimises site electrical consumption and maximises the export of electricity to the JEC. There are contractual performance guarantees which the contractor has to demonstrate the plant can meet, so this fine tuning process is working towards ensuring that these are met.

2. The flue gas cleaning system is efficiently cleaning the flue gas from the process. The daily emission averages are below and in most cases significantly below the daily emission standard required under the plant's operating licence. All the emissions data is reported to the regulator, as required under the operating licence.
3. No waste has been brought from Guernsey to Jersey.
4. The capacity for any Energy from Waste facility needs to be calculated based on the predicted waste arising over the life ofthe plant (25 years). This showsspare capacity over the first years of operation. In addition the Department has noted a drop in the waste aligned to the economic conditions within the Island which will provide more spare capacity. Our waste model includes down time relating to plant maintenance and outages.
5. Any decision to accept waste from the other Channel Islands will be made by the States Assembly as agreed in P.17 / 2010.

2. TTS working in conjunction with Guernsey are looking at the feasibilityof the importation of waste. The key elements of the feasibility works includes:

• Costs / Income
• Capacity
• Environmental Regulation (shipping)
• Environmental Regulation Jersey
• Logistics of importation of waste
• Environmental benefits
• Ash solutions

No firm decisions have been made and all options are currently under consideration. Logistics options include roll on roll off from the Elizabeth Terminal and lift on lift off from Victoria quay. Ash options for Jersey are currently under development and this work will assist in finding the most appropriate solution for Guernsey residual ash. Dust and smell will need to be avoided for the importation to be successful, once on the plant the current controls for dust and smell abatement will be utilised for the Guernsey waste.

3. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE ST. AUBIN TREATED SEWAGE OUTFALL:

Question

Would the Minister advise, with regard to the St Aubin treated sewage outfall, whether it complies with environmental requirements by not reaching to low water level and whether any action has been taken by his department since this issue was discussed by the Public Services Committee twelve years ago?

Answer

The position of the outfall in St Aubin's Bay does comply with environmental requirements. The discharging effluent is fully disinfected by means of Ultra Violet Treatment (UV) ensuring the receiving waters are safe for recreational water users. I am aware that prior to the first UV plant installation in 1992 there was discussions as to whether the outfall should be extended or should a form of disinfection be introduced. The Public Services Department at the time made the environmental decision of installing UV disinfection facilities prior to the final effluent's discharge through the outfall – the first of its type in the British Isles. Since then, the sewage treatment works has been upgraded over the years in an attempt to serve the increasing population and meet the additional effluent quality requirements being imposed.

The Transport and Technical Services Department in conjunction with the Environment Department is currently in the process of developing the Liquid Waste Strategy for sewage treatment works and sewerage network to serve the needs of the Island over a twenty-year period. It is anticipated that the level of sewage treatment and the length of outfall will be investigated with a view to arriving at an optimum solution. Due consideration will be given to anticipated legislation and best practice.

4. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE PLANNED CESSATION OF OPEN-AIR COMPOSTING:

Question

Would the Minister update members on the planned cessation of open-air composting and the move to in-vessel operation and give the latest time-scale?

Would the Minister further advise of the present throughput tonnage, whether the end-product is selling satisfactorily and the approximate operational profit?

Answer

The Transport and Technical Services Department's (TTS) current position is that the green waste composting operation will remain open-air. This decision was reached after a detailed technical review of current best practice for industrial composting operations, discussions with the relevant regulators and the implementation of process improvements to abate odour nuisance from the site.

History

A Statutory Abatement Notice was served on the Minister for Transport and Technical Services in November 2007 to abate nuisance arising from the emission of odour from the Green waste collection and composting sites at La Collette. This abatement notice was subsequently put into abeyance in February 2008, on the understanding that site improvements would be carried out to demonstrate that odour release from the site had been reduced to acceptable levels.

At this time the Department was investigating the options for an in-vessel composting system. Following extensive searches there were no enclosed composting facilities identified that only composted commercial and public green waste. All were dealing with a mixture of organic waste including food.

Off-island site visits were carried out during 2008/2009, to review various enclosed compost site solutions and to inform whether this approach would be suitable locally.

The outcome of this review was that even fully-enclosed facilities employing Best Available Technology and with good site management practices had noticeable on-site and occasional off - site odour complaints. These could partially be attributed to the types of waste composted, but reception areas, air fans and bio-filters still have the potential to emit smells.

A review of the cost of such facilities suggested that a fully enclosed system of the type that offered the most suitable solution for Jersey - an enclosed tunnel system - would cost in excess of £7 million. This was in excess of £3 million more than the allocated capital budget.

In parallel to this work the Department was implementing a comprehensive odour management programme on the existing site with notable success.

New measures included:

• closer monitoring of waste deliveries to identify and treat odorous loads
• closer concentration on blending loads during shredding to encourage a better carbon to nitrogen balance

• a change to within 48 hours' shredding of received green waste into windrows to prevent anaerobic conditions arising within the unshredded waste
• use of an excavator to turn the windrows enabling better mixing of material than can be achieved by a mechanical shovel
• a lowering of windrow height to a maximum of 2.5m and the reorientation of windrows from an east to west layout to a north to south layout, thus reducing the exposed surface area and odour potential
• better  management  of  moisture  addition  to  prevent  pockets  of  anaerobic  material  from forming
• introduction of constant temperature monitoring using probes with three sensors to enable turning of the windrows  at the optimal time  i.e. when stabilisation of the compost has occurred.
• introduction of aeration of the leachate lagoon to prevent anaerobic activity
• clearance of accumulated materials in gullies and on aprons
• better management organisation of maintenance of key plant and recognition of the need for rapid repair maintenance regimes where standby equipment is unavailable

An odour monitoring regime was also set up to measure the success of the new controls. The data set (below) very clearly illustrates how the operation now runs within odour levels likely to cause public nuisance and as a result complaints have been reduced dramatically.

On  the  basis  of  this  success  a  decision  was  taken  to  take  further  steps  to  upgrade  the  site infrastructure to follow leading practice in composting and odour management. These measures include:

• increased processing slab area to enable the shredding and screening to happen off the main composting slab. This will enable the maximum area for windrow turning to be available, preventing the risk of over height windrows which can be the cause of anaerobic odour generation.
• introduction of a straddle windrow turner. This will enable faster and more consistent turning of the composting material improving the efficiency and will also enable more consistent addition of moisture to the compost.
• Introduction of a covered screener or star' screen that will not issue as much odour during the screening process.

• Introduction of a 2.5 metre high perimeter bank around the site to minimise air flow off site.
• Introduction of a perimeter misting system and mobile misting units to reduce odour and bioaerosol emissions from site
• Improvements to the existing leachate lagoon to introduce multiple stages which will improve and make more efficient aeration and enable removal of potentially anaerobic silts.

This project is now all but complete with the new machinery due by the end of April and other features in the final commissioning stages.

TTS is of the view that with these robust measures in place, a well managed open-windrow composting operation is the best option going forward providing a cost effective solution for the type and quantity of organic material to be composted in the Island.

Compost Outputs

In 2011 the site received 12,776 tonnes of waste.

Due to the variability of moisture content in compost products the output in measured in litres. There are 3 key products leaving the site: 40mm Agricompost' which goes to agricultural land, 10mm "Soil Improver" and "Landscape Mulch" both sold in bags and loose.

Summary of compost outputs and sales 2011:

Typical annual costs for the site are £700,000 so there is no operational profit. The site is run as a public waste management service and provides the benefits of recycling, on-island, approximately 12% of the total non-inert waste stream and returning valuable nutrients back to Jersey soils.

Compost sales is not the primary objective for the Department. The key is maintaining a viable outlet for the compost generated on the site which is primarily to agricultural land. Nonetheless with a limited marketing resource, significant sales of the popular Soil Improver are achieved each year.

5. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING RECENT STATES OF JERSEY POLICE ACTIVITIES AT THE GERMAN CONSUL'S PROPERTY:

Question

Would the Minister inform members, with regard to recent States of Jersey Police activities at the German Consul's property, whether all aspects of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations were adhered to?

Answer

It is not generally appropriate for me to comment in relation to an ongoing operational matter.

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is reflected in local legislation in the Privileges and Immunities (Diplomatic, Consular etc) (Jersey) Law 1998. The relevant section in relation to Honorary Consuls is Chapter III of the Vienna Convention, as set out in Schedule 2 of the Privileges and Immunities (Diplomatic, Consular etc) (Jersey) Law 1998. I am satisfied that the States of Jersey Police have acted in accordance with the relevant Schedule of the Law.

6. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING COMPETITION IN THE POSTAL MARKET: Question

In light of the view expressed by Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority in its latest review that competition in the postal market should be increased, "we are firmly of the view that the liberalisation of the large letters segment of the bulk mail market should be allowed to proceed" and its view that service levels from Jersey Post could be reduced "JCRA is of the view that it would be open to Jersey Post to conclude that "reasonable access" to postal services could be provided to Jersey residents through a reduced number of post offices and post boxes."; will the Minister assure members that he will not permit significant reductions in the number of post offices and post boxes prior to full consultation with the public, businesses and the Connétable s?

Answer

While it is a commercial matter for Jersey Post to consider what changes, if any, it would wish to make to its existing network, I am sure the Deputy 's concerns about the need for appropriate consultation will be considered fully by Jersey Post's Board. Indeed, the recent changes announced by Jersey Post have come about as a result of an extensive island-wide survey, which they have announced will be repeated in December 2012.

7. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE PRICE OF DOMESTIC HEATING OIL: Question

What powers, if any, does the Minister have to act to bring down the price of domestic heating oil if the margin on Jersey prices continues to be inexplicable to the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority following their proposed monitoring exercise and, if none, when will he consider what powers would be appropriate?

Answer

The JCRA report into the heating oil market is very welcome. The value of a report such as this is that it shines a light on this specific market, one in which a third of households in Jersey have a very direct interest.

The report notes that the price consumers pay in Jersey for heating oil is higher than appears to be justified by reference to the costs associated with providing the service. The JCRA has identified that the margin between UK and Jersey heating oil prices has increased over time and that this is a cause for concern. The JCRA has proposed that closer monitoring of Jersey heating oil prices, and the differential between UK and Jersey prices is the proportionate remedy at this time and that it intends to do so for the next year. I fully support this approach, and expect it will bring enough pressure to bear to ensure fair and competitive pricing by oil companies in the future.

However, as the JCRA also noted in its report, while direct regulation of the heating oil market is not an attractive option, (due to the complexities involved and the resources required), the alternative of allowing prices charged to Jersey consumers to increase without good reason is equally unattractive. Clearly, should the JCRA find from its on-going monitoring that the margins between UK and Jersey prices are not falling, then there will be a need to consider what further remedies may be necessary.

While currently there is no specific power available to me as Economic Development Minister to regulate heating oil prices, the JCRA may have certain powers available to it through its general enforcement of the Competition Law. However, whether such action is taken is an operational issue for the JCRA and it would be inappropriate for me to influence any steps it may wish to take. If the JCRA's monitoring identifies continuing concerns regarding the differential between UK and Jersey heating oil prices, then I would expect the JCRA to advise what steps it considers would need to be taken (including, possibly, more direct regulation) to address this.

8. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY  REGARDING  THE  REDUCTION  IN  THE  NUMBER  OF HOUSEHOLDS CLAIMING INCOME SUPPORT:

Question

Can the Minister explain the reasons for the reduction in the number of households claiming income support between 2008 and 2010 at a time of recession when the numbers who require assistance might be expected to be rising?

Is the reduction due to the impact of the removal of transition protection and, if so, will the Minister assure members that those households who have lost income support, or had their income support reduced, will not be suffering hardship and back this assurance with appropriate data?

Answer

The Departmental report and financial statements for 2010 identifies the number of Income Support beneficiaries as follows:

These totals relate to all types of Income Support claims including some individuals receiving assistance  with  residential  care  fees  and  households  receiving  protected  payments  with  no underlying eligibility for Income Support.

The  initial  timetable  for  the  withdrawal of  protected  payments  would  have  created  the  first reduction  in  October  2008,  with  subsequent  reductions  each  October  thereafter.   Following agreement  with  the  Treasury  and  Resources  Minister,  it  was  decided  to maintain  protected payments at their initial level throughout the whole of 2008 and 2009. The first reduction was only made in October 2010.

As can be seen from the figures above there was an increase in the number of Income Support claimants during 2009 with a subsequent reduction in the total by the end of 2010. As the Deputy correctly suggests in his question, the reduction in the year-end figure for 2010 is principally driven by the reduction in protected payment levels from October 2010.

There has been growth in the underlying number of Income Support claims, and also growth in the level of support provided per household as a consequence of the poor economic climate and the contraction of employment opportunities.

Protected payments were provided at the start of Income Support to ensure that no household experienced a drop in benefit income as a consequence of the change in benefits. Protected payments were provided to households where the total benefit income received under the previous system exceeded the amount payable under the Income Support system. These households are in a better financial position than households who qualify for Income Support.

New claimants are only able to receive the Income Support rates.

Households receiving protected payments are being paid a higher level of benefit than those on Income Support. They have had the benefit of  this  higher rate of protected  payments for  an additional 24 months over and above the original timetable and there is no reason to suggest that these households are suffering financial hardship as a consequence of the phased removal of protected payments. However, that does not detract from the difficult situation that many local households face, at all income levels, as a consequence of the global downturn.

Many of these households are also now able to claim two new benefits introduced during this period.

As long as the household income is such that there is no Income Tax liability, they are now entitled to claim the Food Costs Bonus. The value of the Food Costs Bonus has risen substantially since its introduction in 2008 (at that time called the GST Bonus) as follows:

In addition from May this year pensioner households in this category will receive a Cold Weather Bonus, in respect of the temperatures experienced between January and April. In future, payments will be made twice a year in January and May. The value of the bonus depends on the temperature during the winter but the total payment is likely to be in the range £200 - £250 per annum, index linked to the fuel element of the Jersey Retail Price Index.

As I have already indicated, I will be publishing an Annual Report in respect of Income Support claims, in conjunction with the publication of the States Accounts later this year.

9. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY  REGARDING  THE  NUMBER  OF  PRESCRIPTIONS  AND  G.P. CONSULTATIONS:

Question

Further  to  the  statistical  information  relating  to  the  Health  Insurance  scheme  set  out  in  the Minister's Report & Financial Statements 2010 (R.122/2011) –

1. will the Minister explain why there has been a 25% rise in the number of prescriptions issued overthe period 2006to2010giventhattherewasonly a 10% rise in the number of persons in the Health Insurance scheme during that same period;
2. was the 19% increase in the number of prescriptions between 2007 and 2008 due to the removal of prescription charges in 2008 and what has the cost of prescriptions been over the period 2008 -2010? Will the Minister now work with other Ministers to re-introduce a better focussed, means-tested, prescription scheme in the coming year?
3. does the Minister accept that the drop in the number of GP consultations from 393,000 to 344,000 from 2006 to 2010 reflects the fact that for many thecostof GP visits is now so high that many families are putting their health at risk by avoiding their doctor and, if not, how does he explain this trend and what measures does he plan to address the issue?

Answer

(i) and (ii)

The general trend in modern prescribing practice shows a year on year increase in the number of items prescribed by General Practitioners .This trend is widespread and is not confined to Jersey. The table  shows annual  increases of 6%,  7%  and 4%  in the  number of  items prescribed during the years 2007, 2009 and 2010, compared to the previous year.

There are two changes specific to Jersey which led to an additional increase in the number of items prescribed during 2008.

Towards the end of 2007, a large number of items were added to the Health Insurance Fund list  of  approved items  to  allow  access  to  more  specialised  medicines  for  patients  who previously could only obtain their medication from the hospital. A course of treatment can now be initiated by a consultant and then continued by the patient's General Practitioner under a shared care agreement. This has led to an increase in the number of items prescribed and a transfer of cost from the Health and Social Services Department budget to the Health Insurance Fund.

In 2008, the prescription charge levied on patients was removed. In light of the trend mentioned above to prescribe an increasing number of items, a zero prescription charge ensures  that those  with  chronic  conditions  are  able  to  make  full  use  of  all  appropriate medication. As has been experienced in other jurisdictions, the zero prescription charges have led to an overall increase in the number of prescription items.

The cost of pharmaceutical benefit is published each year within the Departmental Report and Accounts.

The total cost is influenced by the number of items dispensed and the drug costs associated with those items. The high level of generic prescribing (i.e. prescribing without specifying a particular  branded product) by General Practitioners in Jersey has helped to  limit the inflation often associated with drug costs. As can be seen from this table, despite the increase in the number of items dispensed, the total cost has risen by less than 9% between 2008 and 2010.

My  officers  are  already  working  with  officers  from  the  Health  and  Social  Services Department on a project to draw up plans covering the way in which pharmacy services are provided in Jersey in the future and how they should be funded.

I am not prepared to consider reintroducing prescription charges without adequate protection for individuals with chronic health conditions.

(iii) The Deputy is right to draw attention to the anomalous General Practitioner visit figures reported on page 74 of the 2010 report and accounts. These are due to a transcription error in a final draft which led to some historic numbers being stated incorrectly in the published version.

I will circulate an addendum with the correct figures. I can reassure Members that the statistical information is provided as an appendix to the Report and Accounts and it does not form any part of the full audited Fund accounts, which are not affected.

The correct figures are as follows:

They show small fluctuations from year to year with the highest value recorded in 2009 - almost definitely as a result of swine flu during that year. Visit numbers will always vary depending on a range of factors including the severity of the winter weather and the timing of outbreaks of common infections. Given these natural, seasonal variations, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions from a difference of less than 1% between 2006 and 2010. In particular, there is no evidence to suggest that families are avoiding necessary visits to their General Practitioner.

10. DEPUTY  R.G. LE  HÉRISSIER  OF  ST.  SAVIOUR OF  THE  CHIEF  MINISTER REGARDING ACTIONTO PROMOTE THE RIGHT OF ISLANDERS TO WORK IN THE EUROPEAN UNION:

Question

Is the Chief Minister willing to re-open negotiations to promote the case of Islanders who have a stamp in their passport which denies them the automatic right to work in the European Union and, if not, why not?

Answer

Whilst sympathetic to the case of Islanders who are not entitled automatically to work in the European Union, seeking to re-open negotiations with the EU on the terms of our relationship is not considered to be in the Island's best interests overall. It is worth remembering that the present position was an outcome of complex negotiations that were concluded in 1973 as part of the UK's accession to the European Economic Community. Any change in the present position would require a Treaty change and, even assuming that the EU would be prepared to consider a Treaty change which is most doubtful at this time, it is inevitable that this would lead to a call by the Member States for a general review of the existing relationship, which may not serve Jersey's best interests.

11. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE SUDDEN DEATH OF A FORMER PATIENT OF THE GENERAL HOSPITAL:

Question

Will the Minister inform members what resource implications, if any, have been raised following the sudden death of a patient who was discharged from hospital on a Sunday afternoon in August last year and whether any such implications have been fully discussed by the hospital management team and at ministerial level?

Will the Minister assure members that the decision to proceed with the CSR spending decision HSS-S5 on Pharmacy services in the Annual Business Plan 2011 played no part in this unfortunate incident and does she consider that the "increased risk to the organisation" highlighted in the risk analysis of this measure conducted by her department is a risk worth taking?

Answer

The CSR spending decision HSS-S5 was "Pharmacy skill mix review and re-profile out of hours service to reduce cost of service".

Members can be reassured that the decision to proceed with the CSR spending decision HS-S5 on pharmacy services played absolutely no part in the incident referred to in the question.

The skill mix review, which also took advantage of voluntary redundancy, enabled a wider review of pharmacy service provision which actually resulted in an increase in the level of pharmacy service out of hours with the pharmacy department being open to the hospital on Sunday mornings, in addition to Saturday mornings, from January 2011.

There was no reduction in the pharmacy on-call service as a consequence and it remains the fact that a pharmacist is available on-call at all times that the pharmacy department is closed.

The potential "increased risk to the organisation" may have arisen if it had been necessary to reduce the level of out of hours service in order to meet the CSR target saving but, in the event, this was not necessary and so there was no increase in risk.

As mentioned, there has, in fact, been an increase in pharmacy service provision at the weekends since January 2011 as a direct consequence of the service review resulting from the CSR decision. There has been no reduction in any of the services provided by the pharmacy department at other times.

The inquest verdict made no criticism of the pharmacy service and no resource implications have been raised

12. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING WARRANT CARDS:

Question

Will the Chairman say which of the current Connétable s carry warrant cards and why? Answer

In the last 3 years this matter has been the subject of three oral questions, three written questions and a statement.

Currently the Connétable of St Clement carries a warrant card for identification purposes.

13. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REPORT BY THE HOWARD LEAGUE FOR PENAL REFORM:

Question

Will the Minister state which of the recommendations of the Howard League for Penal Reform Report have been implemented and which ones have not and where they have not, will he explain why?

Answer

The Howard League for Penal Reform requested a progress report from the former Chief Minister in December 2010 on the implementation of the recommendations contained in their report. A comprehensive reply was given and a copy is attached to the answer. More recently, the Children's Policy Group prepared an Improvement Plan in response to the Care Inspectorate's report entitled `States of Jersey – Inspection of services for looked after children' published in January 2012. Their first recommendation was to identify, revisit and review all previous reports that are relevant to services for children. Section D, also attached, covers the recommendations outstanding from the Howard League Report.

If any further information is required, the response would also need to be co-ordinated through the Children's Policy Group as the subject matter is the responsibility of more than one Minister. However, a reasonable amount of time would be needed for the agencies concerned to provide a co- ordinated update.

The Howard League for Penal Reform Youth Justice Review recommendations and the response to them as at December 2010.

1. Jersey should immediately ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

The States of Jersey have resolved to request the United Kingdom to extend their ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) to Jersey and this commitment forms part of the Strategic Plan of the States of Jersey 2009 – 2014. (Priority 9)

The States of Jersey takes ratifying international conventions very seriously and wishes to ensure that its legislation is UNCRC compliant prior to becoming a "signatory". The United Kingdom will only extend its ratification if it is satisfied that Jersey fulfils the relevant requirements.

This work is being led by the Director of International Relations. A number of legislative changes have been identified and work is progressing in a number of departments on resolving them. A recent review into Youth Justice (attached) led by the Chief Probation Officer has recommended that the States of Jersey pursues ratification of the Convention immediately as sufficient progress has been made to demonstrate a firm intention to become compliant, or alternatively for the States of Jersey to incorporate the Convention into domestic legislation. The Children's Policy Group of Ministers is considering this recommendation and the other recommendations from the 2010 Youth Justice review at its meeting in January 2011.

Progress with regards to the other recommendations is as follows:

2. A lead minister for children's services should be appointed.

Whilst the formal post of Minister for Children' has not been established, the responsibility for services for vulnerable children, young people and their families forms part of the portfolio carried by the Minister for Health and Social Services, who has formally delegated this function to an Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services. The Ministers for Home Affairs, Health and Social Services and Education Sport and Culture form the Children's Policy Group chaired by the Minister for Health and Social Services to ensure that all matters concerning children are dealt with in a coordinated and timely fashion.

3. Jersey should develop a child-specific criminal justice policy and 4.

The welfare principle' should be enshrined in all law and policy that effects children and in particular criminal justice law

The Children's Policy Group have incorporated the "Welfare Principle" into their statement of purpose.

The Children's Policy Group commissioned a review of Youth Justice in March 2010, received the report in August 2010 and will be considering the recommendations following feedback from key stakeholders in January 2011. The Review recommends inserting provisions into the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994 which recognise that the welfare of the child should be a primary consideration when children come into conflict with the criminal law and that compulsory measures should only be used when voluntary means have failed and are unlikely to be successful in the present case.

4. Jersey should raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14

The age of criminal responsibility remains at 10 years as is the case in England and Wales. The Home Affairs Minister was not in favour of raising the age of Criminal responsibility as recommended in the Howard League Report.

The Youth Justice Review of this year recommends an increase to 12 years as is happening in Guernsey and Scotland. The review also recommends that pending a change in legislation that the Attorney General could issue a guideline which would result in the prosecution of children under the age of 12 in exceptional circumstances only. This appears to reflect current practice; records show that in a 30 month period prior to the writing of the Review only 3 children under 12 years of age were prosecuted.

5. Jersey should raise the minimum age for a Youth Detention Order to 16 years

This recommendation was not accepted by the Minister for Home Affairs, although there is agreement that custody should be used as a last resort for children. The Minister does accept that children of school age should not normally be detained in the Young Offenders Institution. The Children's Policy Group are supportive of school age children normally serving custodial sentences at Greenfields Secure Unit. This is also the recommendation of the Youth Justice Review and the necessary arrangements are being progressed by a multi agency senior officer group.

The 2010 Youth Justice Review recommends amending the 1994 Young Offenders Law to strengthen the restrictions on imposing custodial sentences on children to comply with the requirements of the UNCRC.

7. Remand procedures should be clarified in law and in particular the presumption of bail should be established

It is agreed that there is no statute governing bail in Jersey. However it is not agreed that there is no presumption of bail. Jersey is a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights and the principles which guide bail decisions are observed by the Court (Article 5 – Right to Liberty and Article 6 – Right to a fair trial), particularly the risk of re-offending and, in the case of young offenders, the need to consider best interest and the need for protection.

In the UK, the welfare principle applies to the remand decision, and the court shall in proper cases take steps for removing the youth from undesirable surroundings' (s.44 CYPA 1933).

There is an additional limb to the protection exception to bail in respect of children, which applies only to children:

The defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that the defendant should be kept in custody for his own protection or if he is a child or young person, for his own welfare' (BA 1976 Schedule 1, Part 1, para 3 and Part 2, para 3).

The exception to bail refers to imprisonable and non-imprisonable offences. This makes it clear that it is welfare rather than the seriousness of the offence which may prompt the court to ensure a safe' bail status for the child.

The Youth Justice Review has recommended the introduction of a statutory right to bail and has also recommended some practice changes which should reduce the use of custodial remand, including the appointment of a specialist bail support worker.

8. The good prevention services thatJerseyhas established, should be sustained and strengthened, and in particular financing should be put on a firm and reliable footing

Jersey operates a mixed economy of preventive services. State, charitable and voluntary organisations co-exist to provide support to vulnerable children and their families.

The Bridge is a particular example of a successful partnership project. The state recognises its role in creating the circumstances necessary for these projects to flourish and is committed to effective partnership working.

9. Similarly the excellent youth service provision should be sustained and strengthened The Youth Service is recognised as excellent in its field and the various projects and regular activities contribute to a safer society. There is much scope for the role of informal education to further contribute to the rehabilitation of children who offend. The Youth Service continues to develop initiatives targeted at children at risk of offending

10. The parish hall enquiry system should be sustained and strengthened.

The Miles and Raynor report in 2005 examined the Parish Hall Enquiry in considerable detail and noted its ability to provide a "local, timely, inclusive, sensitive, needs-based, independent forum to deal with a wide range of norm-violating behaviour and social disorder". The Criminal Justice Policy published in 2007 further endorsed the role of the Parish Hall Enquiry System as a mechanism for dealing successfully and appropriately with a wide range of offending.

In particular attention should be paid to:

Putting in place measures to ensure that it is only bypassed for clearly defined reasons:

It was agreed by the Home Affairs Minister that the Parish Hall Enquiry was bypassed for reasons that were not always clearly defined. The Probation and After Care Service has been monitoring the situation and following discussions with the States of Jersey Police, Centeniers and the Youth Court Panel it is recommended in the 2010 Youth Justice Review that Centeniers should only be called in to Police Headquarters when the States of Jersey Police are intending to hold a child in custody prior to appearing in the youth Court and that in other cases, the child should be warned for a Parish Hall Enquiry.

Strengthening its access to and use of restorative justice processes:

The principles of restoration, rehabilitation and reparation are fundamental tenets of the parish hall enquiry and the honorary service upon which it depends. All youth offenders attending a parish hall enquiry are screened by the Restorative Justice Officer who offers reparative and restorative opportunities of victims and offenders. Local research shows very high levels of satisfaction with the process. There is already a blanket approach to restorative justice for children and young people appearing at Parish Hall Enquiry, receiving a community supervision order and those in custody. The restorative justice officer screens all cases where there is victim involvement and attends to talk to individual children and young people and their families / legal guardians about restorative opportunities.

Building in safeguards against inconsistent practice

Detailed research over a five year period by Miles and Raynor revealed very low levels of inconsistent practice. It is possible that this comment from the Howard League is anecdotal in nature. The Miles and Raynor research revealed very high levels of compliance with the guidelines and codes of practice prescribed by the Attorney General.

Building in safeguards to constrain the actions of Centeniers seems to have more to do with issues of accountability and managerial control than any public concern for consistency of practice. During the five year period of the Miles and Raynor research, very few complaints about the practice of Centeniers at Parish Hall Enquiry were noted by the Attorney General.

Attendees have the right to disagree and request hearing by a formal Court. Even after the Enquiry, decisions can be referred to the Attorney-General by the attendee. In practice, this seems to be a rare occurrence. Decisions made by the Centenier (with the exception of laying a charge) are made on a consensual basis. In the United Kingdom, prosecutors are required to take into account any lines of defence'. Centeniers are not bound by this in their decision-making.

Importantly, attempts to achieve procedural uniformity and consistency run the risk of undermining the flexibility and responsiveness to the circumstances of the individual case which appear to be essential components in the system's current effectiveness.

Developing mandatory training for Centeniers

As volunteers, it is difficult to compel Centeniers to attend mandatory training. However, training is available and usually well attended. In 2001 a retired States' Police Inspector was appointed as Honorary Police Training Co-ordinator to deliver a minimum of twenty-six weeks training per annum to Honorary Officers. This post was funded by the Home Affairs Committee until the end of 2004 whereupon the cost reverted to the rate payers.

One of the benefits of the Parish Hall Enquiry is the flexible approach of the Centeniers. Whilst it is accepted that training is vital to avoid breaches of law and  instil best practice, observational research suggests that over-formalisation of the informal process can result  in less favourable outcomes.

11. An independent prosecution service should be established

Whilst all police officers in Jersey have powers of arrest, they do not have the power to charge a person with an offence. These powers are expressly reserved for the Connétable and the Centenier.

The Parish Hall Enquiry is not a judicial body. It is primarily a prosecution process and provides the mechanism by which Centeniers can decide whether the evidential and public interest tests have been satisfied such that a charge should be brought.

The principle of independence suggests that the reviewer of a case should be independent of the investigating officer. This operates well in Jersey where all cases are independently reviewed by the Centenier. It was recommended and implemented as a result of the first Clothier report that Centeniers should cease the practice of both conducting a Parish Hall Enquiry where they have previously investigated the incident. Observational evidence suggests that great strides are made to avoid a conflict of interest in this area. In extreme circumstances, a Centenier from a neighbouring parish may be asked to deal with a particular case in order to ensure impartiality. There are a number of mechanisms inherent in the system that affords an intrinsic level of accountability.

Much debate has taken place about the role of the Centenier as prosecutor. The Criminal Justice Policy makes the following Policy Statement in regard to the establishment of an independent prosecution service:

Having taken advice at an early stage  in the policy setting process, the Home Affairs Minister will not pursue the Rutherford recommendations that a Public Prosecution Service

be created. This could not be justified on cost grounds and would result in Centeniers losing their traditional role of presenting cases in the Magistrates Court ( 2007:73)

There are no further plans to either revisit the role of the Centenier or establish an independent service.

12. The Youth Court should be reformed to make it less formal and more relevant for children. The Jersey authorities should consider abolishing the Youth Court and replacing it with a system based on the Scott ish Children's Hearings, for children up totheageof16or even 18 years, where addressing the needs not the deeds is the paramount concern.

This recommendation cannot be considered in isolation and relates to the enshrinement of the welfare principle and raising of the age of criminal responsibility.

The introduction of a similar style of Hearing in Jersey would risk placing a further layer of hybridisation into the system. There would be additional expense in the establishment of a professional, state funded institution.

Importantly, there is potential to undermine the Parish Hall Enquiry and the honorary system upon which it depends. It is important that attempts to modernise and formalise the system do not undermine the traditional arrangements which are already more effective and efficient than some formal processes.

The 2010 Youth Justice Review, notes that practice in the Youth Court has changed considerably in the last two years. For example the Panel members now sit on the same level as the children who have their parents or guardians alongside them. The Court has adopted a more problem solving approach and speaks directly with children rather than through their advocates, wherever possible and appropriate. The review commends this approach and recommends joint training for Jersey Youth Panel members with their Children Hearing Panel counterparts in Guernsey.

13. Preventive services offered by the YAT should be available to children assessed as at risk of crime, and other difficulties, as well as those who have started to offend. They should be offered from a non criminal justice organisational base.

The Youth Action Team (YAT) was established following the Bull report in 2002. The proposal was for a multi-disciplinary team to offer early intervention services to young people at risk of offending rather than working with children and young people already  in the criminal justice system whose needs are best met by the specialist interventions of the Probation and After Care Service in both a statutory and voluntary capacity. It is accepted that YAT had moved into areas it was not best equipped to work within. YAT has now ceased direct Court and Parish Hall work, and further change is recommended in the 2010 Youth Justice Review, with the transfer of their bail support function to the Probation and After Care Service. YAT is being re organised as a support service for children at risk of crime and as a resource for other agencies to use as part of child care plans.

14. The  Probation  Service should,  in  partnership  with  Social Services,  develop  more intensive alternatives to custody, including intensive supervision and specialist fostering.

The Howard League did not review the work of the Probation Service in any detail. The work of the Service includes many of the positive features of intensive supervision orders without the associated negative features which can result in a greater use of custody. Fewer children are sentenced to custody in Jersey than in England and Wales; the high custody figure is a result of remand rather than sentencing practice. The 2010 Youth Justice review recommends more age appropriate supervision practice including the increased use of family problem solving which shows encouraging results particularly with younger children. A file reading exercise for the review found that those few children who gave the most cause for concern had problems which were not likely to be resolved by the Criminal Justice System and the Review recommends the formation of a formal multi agency protocol to ensure that these children and their families receive the services they need without any additional labelling as offenders.

There has been considerable investment in fostering services in recent years and work continues on the development of specialist services capable of meeting the needs of young people in the criminal justice system.

The 2010 Youth Justice Review also recommends that Bail Support responsibilities be transferred to the probation service, as the existing service has been inconsistent and not met the requirements of the Court.

15. The use of restorative justice interventions should be broadened to include use in schools, and work with looked after children and children in custody.

In Jersey restorative justice' is by no means a new concept. Centeniers, through the Parish Hall Enquiry system have for centuries been demonstrating processes and practices that have more recently been defined as restorative justice' in modern societies.

A part-time restorative justice officer is funded by Home Affairs under the aegis of the Building a Safer Society Strategy. The post is managed by the Jersey Probation and After Care Service under the supervision of the Assistant Chief Probation Officer. There is already a blanket approach to restorative justice for children and young people appearing at Parish Hall Enquiry, receiving a community supervision order and those in custody. The restorative justice officer screens all cases where there is victim involvement and attends to talk to individual children and young people and their families /legal guardians about restorative opportunities.

The 2010 Youth Justice Review also recommends that training in restorative justice is extended to other agencies who could benefit from using it.

16. The use of custody for children should be eliminated or virtually eliminated in Jersey. This can be achieved by :

1. Raising the age of criminal responsibility
2. Raising the age at which custody is available
3. Introducing a presumption of the right to bail
4. Strengthening the custody threshold in law to ensure that custody is only used as a genuine last resort
5. Senior politicians should lead public opinion in the argument against children's custody
6. The development of effective alternatives to custody, in particular intensive supervision and specialist fostering

The sub headings a,b,c and f are a repetition of previous recommendations which have been addressed elsewhere. With regard to d) and e) :

4. Strengthening the custody threshold to ensure that custody is only used as a genuine last resort

The Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994 offers some safeguards. Article 4(2) states:

A court shall not pass a sentence of youth detention unless it considers that no other method of dealing with the person is appropriate because it appears to the court that –

1. the person has a history of failure torespondto non-custodial penalties and is unableor unwilling to respond to them;
2. only a custodial sentence would be adequate to protect the public from serious harmfrom the person; or
3. the offence or the totality ofthe offending is so serious that a non custodial sentence cannot be justified,

There is no evidence in Jersey that children are being sentenced to custody for minor matters. The latest reconviction study by the Probation Service demonstrates that every sentence made to the Young Offenders Institution between July 2002 and December 2005 involved serious offences committed by young offenders who were assessed as being at high or very high, risk of reconviction. However, the 2010 Youth Justice Review recommends that Article 4(2) is strengthened in order to comply with International Conventions.

The law also requires the court to justify reasons for a custodial sentence:

The court shall state in open court its reasons for imposing a sentence of youth

detention.

5. Senior politicians should lead public opinion in the argument against children's custody

The Children's Policy Group of Ministers have demonstrated their commitment to understanding and promoting the best interests of children who offend by commissioning the review into Youth Justice and incorporating it into the draft Children Framework a document for all the Island's children which is currently out for consultation. Ministers have opposed the "naming and shaming" of children who offend, put forward by non ministerial members.

17. The holding of children at La Moye should cease

It is accepted by the Children's Policy Group that the holding of nearly all school age children at the Young Offenders Institution should cease. Due to the small numbers of children held in custody and in secure accommodation in Jersey there are particular difficulties in ensuring appropriate placement. The Youth Justice Review makes a number of recommendations about this and it is envisaged that:

Greenfields Secure Unit be used for children of compulsory school age whether remanded or sentenced and that the regime at Greenfields should continue to be that of a Children's home with security: in effect once at Greenfields a child would be treated as if they were subject to a Secure Accommodation Order for the length of their sentence. If a child is considered to be too disruptive or to pose a specific risk to another Greenfields resident they may serve their sentence at the YOI. Those children above the age of compulsory education i.e. over 16 years in June, will normally serve their sentence in the YOI, however they may serve their sentence at Greenfields if they would be particularly vulnerable in the YOI and would not adversely affect the lives of other children at Greenfields.

A similar discretion should be exercised for those aged 18 – 21 who currently serve their sentences in the YOI, with the expectation being that a proportion of these will serve their sentences in the adult prison. This may or may not allow for the placing of 17 and 18 year old female offenders in the YOI rather than in the main prison.

18. Independent inspection arrangements should be introduced for Greenfields and other children's establishments

The Scott ish Social Work Inspection Agency (SWIA) has been engaged by the Health and Social Services Department to inspect all aspects of Social Work commencing with services for looked after children in 2011.

In addition a new Panel of Visitors has been established The new Panel will provide oversight for all residential units.

All instances of physical restraint are recorded and referred to the Jersey Child Protection Committee.

19. These should be based on a rigorous standards framework, such as the English National Minimum Standards for Childrens Homes.

Our policies and procedures are drawn up in accordance with National Minimum Standards for Children's Homes. Every instance of physical restraint is recorded through the Datix' System and also reviewed by an independent who is trained to instructor level in Therapeutic Crisis intervention.

20. An independent children's advocacy system established to assist children in custody, (and indeed in other parts of the youth justice and care system ) in raising concerns

See 18 above (any other measures?)

21. A whistle blowing' policy should be developed which has a strong independent element within it, and which enjoys the confidence of staff

The States of Jersey has reviewed its "serious concerns" policy and increased its independence by routing serious concerns directly through the Auditor and Controller General. (Policy attached)

22. A children's complaints procedure should be developed which has a strong independent element within it, and enjoys the confidence of children and young people.

Outside of the organisation, children and young people may raise concerns confidentially with a member of the Independent Panel of Visitors. They may also voice any concerns to their social worker or advocate.

23. Search procedures should be reviewed to reduce the use of strip searching to an

absolute minimum

Strip searching is used only when necessary. However, it is better that a child is allowed temporary release form a secure unit and then searched on return rather than being denied temporary release. Search procedures have been designed to minimise embarrassment and to be as dignified as is consistent with effectiveness. A person subjected to such a search is never naked retaining either the upper or lower garments during the procedure. A dressing gown is provided which allows for under garments to be removed without undue exposure. The search is always performed with two staff of the same sex as the resident.

24. Children should be consulted about the way they are looked after in custody and care.

Children are involved in the selection of new staff members and consulted about their daily routine and care  plan.   Individual Care Plans are  subject to  constant review to respond to  changing circumstances. The subjects of these plans provide a vital element in their formulation.

25. Recruitment of staff should be brought into line with the requirements of the Warner report.

Our recruitment policies conform to the Warner Report.

26. There  should  be  closer  involvement  with, and  oversight  by, the  Jersey  Child

Protection Committee in relation to safeguarding arrangements at Greenfields.

(See 18 above) The independent Chair of the JCPC attends meetings of the Children's Policy Group to advise Ministers on Safeguarding matters.

27. The longstanding staff conflicts and difficulties at Greenfields, should be addressed

through independent/mediation/conciliation/team building processes, and measures should be taken  to  ensure that  management arrangements are in  place that  support staff and  are trusted by them.

There is a harmonious and committed staff team at Greenfields who are dedicated to working together and most importantly for the best interests of the children they are responsible for.

EXTRACT FROM THE CARE INSPECTORATE'S REPORT:

STATES OF JERSEY INSPECTION OF SERVICES FOR LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN, PUBLISHED JANUARY 2012

14. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HEALTH, SOCIAL SECURITY AND HOUSING SCRUTINY PANEL REGARDING INCOME SUPPORT HOUSING REBATE:

Question

What plans, if any, does the panel have to hold a review into the approximately £7 million of taxpayers' money that is being given to private landlords every year through the payment of income support housing rebate?

Answer

Quarterly Public Hearings have been held with the Ministers of Health and Social Services, Social Security and Housing to discuss department priorities over the next 3 years. In particular, we have discussed  with  each  Minister,  the  specific  aims  and  objectives  contained  in  their  respective Departmental Business Plans for 2012. We have also requested work programmes from each department to assist us in the development of our 12 month review programme which in due course will be published on the Scrutiny website.

15. THE  DEPUTY  OF GROUVILLE  OF THE  MINISTER  FOR  TRANSPORT  AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE REDUCTION IN INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE LOW EMISSION VEHICLES:

Question

Would the Minister outline the various reasons underlying the original ministerial decision to introduce a car parking charge discount of 50% off parking scratch cards for hybrid vehicles which conform to

band A and band B CO2 emissions and would the Minister explain what circumstances, if any, have changed to render those reasons no longer valid in view of the decision to abolish the discount for

hybrid vehicles registered after 1st July 2012 which emit over 100 grams of CO2 per kilometre?

If the original decision was founded upon sound environmental policy that conforms with principles laid out in the Island's Strategic Plan, would the Minister explain his reasons for curtailing this incentive to encourage low emission vehicles as outlined in the Road Traffic (Public Parking Places – Charges) (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Order 2012 made by the Minister on 20th January 2012?

Answer

The original scheme, introduced by Deputy De Faye as Minister for TTS in 2008, was consistent with the States commitment to reduce pollution. It provided an incentive for purchasers of new cars to opt for a vehicle with a low level of C02 emissions, by issuing an eco-friendly parking permit' providing half price parking to all vehicles with emissions up to 100gmCO2/km and to hybrid vehicles (diesel or petrol engine vehicles which can also run on an electric engine) which had emissions up to 120gmsCO2/km. The logic of applying a more generous level for hybrid vehicles was that as speeds are low in Jersey and pollution most significant in the town area, the use of hybrid vehicles, which would run on the electric engine at low speeds, could be expected to be particularly beneficial to Jersey's traffic pollution.

When the scheme was introduced it was recognised that it would require review, because of advancing technology. Inevitably the numbers of permits would go up as the percentage of qualifying vehicles increased and it would become necessary to either increase the cost for all other vehicles, or review the qualifying limit, as I am legally required to ensure that the Car Park trading fund does not fall into deficit.