States Meeting Transcript - 6th November 2012

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 6th NOVEMBER 2012

QUESTION TIME................................................................................... 7

1. Written Questions ........................................................................... 7

1. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE COMMEMORATION OF THE CENTENARY OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR: .......................................................... 7
   2. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATES SOCIAL RENTED HOUSING STOCK AND THE RENTAL INCOME: .................................... 7
   3. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE TOTAL BUILT AREA OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT'S PORTFOLIO AND THE CURRENT DENSITY OF SOCIAL RENTED HOUSING ESTATES: .................. 9
   4. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE CURRENT USE VALUE OF EACH SOCIAL RENTED HOUSING ESTATE: ........................................................... 9
   5. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE DERELICT FORMER PLÉMONT HOLIDAY CAMP: ................................ 10
   6. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING SCHEMES FOR THE EXPANSION AND/OR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF GREEN STREET CAR PARK: .............. 11
   7. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE OPERATIONAL ON-SITE PARKING PROVISION PROPOSED AT THE SUMMERLAND SCHEME IN 2010: ........................... 12
   8. DEPUTY T.A. VALLOIS OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING RESIDENTIAL PARKING IN ST. HELIER: .................................................................................. 12
   9. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE FULL COSTS OF THE PROPOSED NEW POLICE HEADQUARTERS: ...................................................................... 13
   10. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONSITE' AND BASEMENT' PARKING AT THE PROPOSED NEW POLICE HEADQUARTERS:14
   11. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING THE FULL ROLE OF THE LAW OFFICERS' DEPARTMENT IN THE ISSUING AND PROSECUTION OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT: ........................................... 15

12. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING THE USE OF SUPER-INJUNCTIONS' ON BEHALF OF NAMED INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE CITIZENS: ................................................... 16
13. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE EXPORTATION OF JERSEY'S HAZARDOUS WASTE: ................................................................. 16
14. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE TRANSFERRAL OF STAFF FROM CONNEX TO CT PLUS: ........................................................ 18
15. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE INTERACTION BETWEEN HIGH RENTAL COSTS, THE LEVEL OF THE MINIMUM WAGE, INCOME TAX THRESHOLDS AND INCOME SUPPORT RATES: ...................................................................... 22
16. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE INTERACTION BETWEEN HIGH RENTAL COSTS, THE LEVEL OF THE MINIMUM WAGE, INCOME TAX THRESHOLDS AND INCOME SUPPORT RATES: ........................................................... 24
17. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE INTERACTION BETWEEN HIGH RENTAL COSTS, THE LEVEL OF THE MINIMUM WAGE, INCOME TAX THRESHOLDS AND INCOME SUPPORT RATES: ..................................................... 25
18. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE COSTS OF PROVIDING THE CLIENT FIXTURES, FITTINGS AND EQUIPMENT' FOR BOTH THE OFFICES AND OPERATIONAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSED NEW POLICE HEADQUARTERS: ...................................................................... 26

2. Oral Questions ............................................................................. 27

1. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the demolition of the former holiday camp at Plémont: ....................... 27 Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour (The Minister for Planning and Environment): ......... 28

1. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 28
2. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : .......................................................... 28
3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 28
4. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 29

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Attorney General regarding confidential counselling and medical information used in open court: ................................ 29 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ............................................... 29

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ................................................................ 30
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 30
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 30
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 31
5. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier : ........................................................ 31
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ................................................................ 31

3. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the itemisation of evidence retrieved during the Haut de la Garenne investigation: ........................ 32 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................. 32

2.3.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 32

4. Deputy M. Tadier of the Chief Minister regarding the Terms of Reference for the Committee of Inquiry into historic child abuse: .......................................... 32

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):........................................................ 32

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 33
2. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 33
3. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 33

5. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the maintenance budget for Plat Douet School: .......................................... 34 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ............................ 34

1. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 34
2. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 34
3. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 35
4. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 35
5. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:...................................................... 36
6. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 36

6. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding requirements for special entry visas in respect of foreign journalists or writers visiting Jersey: .................................................................................... 37 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................. 37

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 37
2. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 38
3. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 38
4. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 38
5. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 38
6. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 38
   7. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement of the Chief Minister regarding software replacements in 2013: .................................................................... 39 Senator P.F. Routier (The Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur): ............................. 39

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ................................................................. 39
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 39
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 40
4. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier : ...................................................... 40
5. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 41
6. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : .......................................................... 41
7. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ................................................................. 41
   8. Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the introduction of Liverpool care pathway by the End of Life Group: ...................... 42 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services): ................. 42

2.8.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 42

9. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding company tax receipts derived from finance sector profits: ............................................. 43 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ............................ 43

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 43
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 44
3. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 44
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 44

10. The Connétable of St. John of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the breakdown of the Airport Instrument Landing System: .................................. 45 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development): .......................... 45

1. The Connétable of St. John : ........................................................... 45
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins: ................................................................. 46
3. Deputy S. Power:...................................................................... 46

4. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour: .................................................... 46
5. The Connétable of St. John : ........................................................... 47
6. The Connétable of St. John : ........................................................... 47

11. Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Attorney General regarding the existence of statutory powers to prevent journalists/TV teams/writers from entering Jersey: .................. 47 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 47

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins: ................................................................. 48
2. Deputy T.M. Pitman: .................................................................. 48
3. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 48
4. Deputy M.R. Higgins: ................................................................. 48

12. Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the production of a feasibility study of an Island-wide kerb-side collection scheme for recycling:.................................................................................. 48 Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): ..... 48

1. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 49
2. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity : ............................................... 49
3. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 49

13. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the corporate structures of HCT Group and CT Plus and their status as social enterprise institutions: ................................................................................ 49 Deputy K.C. Lewis (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): .................... 50

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................ 50
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................ 50

14. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the reopening of Operation Rectangle in light of allegations made in respect of Jimmy Savile at Haut de la Garenne: .................................................................................. 50 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................. 50

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman: .................................................................. 51
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins: ................................................................. 51
3. Deputy M.R. Higgins: ................................................................. 52
4. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 52
5. Deputy T.M. Pitman: .................................................................. 52

3. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Treasury and Resources .. 52

1. Deputy J. Maçon: ......................................................................... 52 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ............................ 53
2. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 53

3.2.1 The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 53

3. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 54

3.3.1 Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 54

4. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 54

3.4.1 Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 55

5. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 55

3.5.1 Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 55

6. Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier: ........................................................ 55
7. Deputy S. Power: ......................................................................... 56

3.7.1 Deputy S. Power: ......................................................................... 56

8. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier : ......................................................... 56
9. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................... 56
10. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 57

3.10.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman: .................................................................. 57

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister ............................ 57

1. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 57 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):........................................................ 58
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 58

4.2.1 Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 58

3. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................... 58
4. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ..................................................... 58
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 59

4.5.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 59

6. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 59

4.6.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 60

7. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 60
8. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 61
9. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville : ................................................... 61

STATEMENT ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY .......................... 61

5. Statement by the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding changes to the way in which student grants are assessed ................................................ 62

5.1 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. John (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):...... 62

1. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................... 62
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................... 63
3. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 63
4. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 63
5. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 63
6. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 63
7. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 64
8. Senator A. Breckon: ...................................................................... 64
9. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 64
10. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 65
11. The Deputy of St. Martin : ............................................................. 65

PUBLIC BUSINESS ................................................................................ 65

6. Medium-Term Financial Plan 2013 - 2015 (P.69/2012).................................. 65

6.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):......... 66

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 72 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 72

2. Medium-Term Financial Plan 2013 - 2015 (P.69/2012): seventh amendment (P.69/2012 Amd.(7)) ........................................................................ 73

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................. 73
2. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence : ....................................................... 75
3. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 76
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ................................................................ 77
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : .................................................................... 77
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 78
7. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 78

8. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 78
9. The Deputy of St. Martin : ................................................................ 79
10. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ............................................................. 80

3. Medium-Term Financial Plan 2013 - 2015 (P.69/2012): tenth amendment (P.69/2012 Amd.(10)) ................................................................................... 83

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................... 83 6.3.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 83

4. Medium-Term Financial Plan 2013 - 2015 (P.69/2012): third amendment (P.69/2012 Amd.(3)) .................................................................................... 84

Senator I.J. Gorst : ............................................................................... 85

1. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 86
2. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier : ......................................................... 88
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 88
4. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter : .................................................... 89
5. The Deputy of St. John : .................................................................. 89
6. The Connétable of St. Mary : ............................................................. 90
7. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ................................................ 91
8. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 91
9. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 92
10. Connétable S.W. Rennard of St. Saviour : ............................................. 92
11. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ............................................................... 92
12. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................... 92
13. The Deputy of St. Martin : ............................................................. 93
14. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................... 93
15. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 95

5. Medium-Term Financial Plan 2013 – 2015 (P.69/2012): second amendment (P.69/2012 Amd.(2)) .................................................................................... 97

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................... 97

1. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 97
2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley: ............................................................ 100
3. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................. 101
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................. 101
5. Deputy J.H. Young: ..................................................................... 102

6. Medium-Term Financial Plan 2013 - 2015 (P.69/2012): fourth amendment (P.69/2012 Amd.(4)) ................................................................................... 102

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: .............................................................. 103
2. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier : ..................................................... 105
3. Senator P.F. Routier: .................................................................... 106
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: .............................................................. 106

7. Medium-Term Financial Plan 2013 - 2015 (P.69/2012): fifth amendment (P.69/2012 Amd.(5)) ................................................................................... 108

6.7.1 Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................. 108

ADJOURNMENT ................................................................................. 114

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

1. Written Questions

1.1. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE COMMEMORATION OF THE CENTENARY OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR:

Question

Following the United Kingdom Government's announcement of plans to organise a commemoration of the centenary of the First World War, would the Minister inform members whether his Department will also be commemorating the event and ensuring that schoolchildren are made aware of the part played by many islanders in the conflict where many paid the supreme sacrifice, if not, would he explain why?

Answer

Yes, the Department will be commemorating the centenary of the First World War in many ways.

The centenary of the First World War will be addressed in primary and secondary schools through history and cultural studies, and school assemblies will also provide an opportunity for commemoration and reflection. Remembrance services are an important element of the school calendar, and they will have a particular significance when we reach the centenary in November 2014. In this way schools will work to ensure that students are made aware of the part played by islanders in the conflict. I also intend to discuss this event with the Curriculum Council to see if there are any further steps that could be taken to mark this event in the context of the school curriculum.

Jersey Heritage, which is part-funded by ESC, is planning to commemorate the event with a number of projects with a community and educational focus, looking particularly at the part played by Islanders in the conflict.

With regard to the wider commemoration of the centenary by the Island as a whole, a group of interested bodies is to be assembled by the Bailiff 's Chambers, and Education, Sport and Culture will be participating in the work of that group.

2. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATES SOCIAL RENTED HOUSING STOCK AND THE RENTAL INCOME:

Question

Would the Minister provide the following information –

1. An analysis of units of accommodation by estate and by type (e.g. 1 bed flat, 2 bed flat, 3 bed house etc).
2. An analysis of the approximate age of such units, and when they were last refurbished.

3. An analysis of rent charged in respect of each unit type (by estate) for each of the calendar years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 and, if rent was increased part way through anyone year, provide the amounts before and after such increase, and the date of the increase.

Answer

A schedule setting out the information requested in part a) of this question together with the current maximum fair rent charged by unit type on each estate and which runs to some 8 pages has been provided to the Deputy . It is not copied to all members in the interests of saving paper. Should any member require a copy of the schedule, this can be provided on request.

In respect of prior years; Social Housing fair rents are generally increased annually on 1st October to coincide with increases in the Income Support Housing Component levels. The level of the increase and uplifted rent for the unit types for each year is shown in the table below.

With regards to part b) of the question the information requested is not readily available and I do not intend to commission a very significant and costly exercise to compile it without very good reason. I am also of the view that age is somewhat irrelevant and that decisions about the stock and future works to it are more properly informed by the detailed stock condition survey carried by Ridge Property Consultants Limited at the end of 2010 and which is continually updated.

2009  2009  2010  2011  2011  2012  2012 Max  Max  Max  Max  Max  Max  Max rent  rent  rent  rent  rent  rent  rent

charged  charged  charged  charged  charged  charged  charged Property Type

by type  by type  by type  by type  by type  by type  by type before  post  (no  before  post  before  post review  review  review  review  review  review  review

(2.5%)  in 2010)  (2.5%)  (3.5%)

0 bedsit  104.17 0 bed bungalow  82.91 1 bed flat  148.81 2 bed flat  187.07 3 bed flat  140.31 1 bed bungalow  149.88 2 bed bungalow  217.90 3 bed bungalow  217.90 1 bed house  119.05 2 bed house  220.03 3 bed house  245.54 4 bed house  265.73 5 bed house  273.18 2 bed

maisonette  187.07 3 bed

maisonette  177.51 4 bed

maisonette  221.09

106.75  106.75

84.98  84.98 152.53  152.53 191.80  191.80 143.82  143.82 153.63  173.25 223.35  223.35 223.35  223.35 122.03  152.53 225.53  225.61 251.68  251.72 272.37  272.37 280.01  280.01

191.75  208.64 181.95  234.79 226.62  226.62

106.75  109.41

84.98  87.10 152.53  156.31 191.80  196.63 143.82  147.42 173.25  177.59 225.61  231.28 251.72  258.02 152.53  156.34 225.61  231.28 251.72  258.02 272.37  279.16 280.01  287.01

208.64  213.86 234.79  240.66 226.62  232.29

109.41  113.26 100.00  103.50 156.31  161.77 196.63  203.49 223.37  231.21 177.59  183.82 231.28  239.40 258.02  267.05 156.34  161.81 231.28  239.40 258.02  267.05 279.16  288.96 303.73  314.37

213.86  221.35 240.66  249.06 257.96  266.99

3. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE TOTAL BUILT AREA OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT'S PORTFOLIO AND THE CURRENT DENSITY OF SOCIAL RENTED HOUSING ESTATES:

Question

Further to his written answer on 20th June 2011 (Question 6381) in which he declined to answer the following 3 questions, would the Minister now agree to provide the following information –

1. the total built area of residential properties in the Housing Department's portfolio and what that represents as a proportion of the total area of property owned by the States;
2. the total land area of property in the Housing Department's portfolio;
3. the current density of housing estates administered bythe Housing Department in terms of both habitable rooms per acre and dwellings per hectare?

Answer

I recall the earlier question. In my response on that occasion I did not give an undertaking to provide the information at a later date. I believe that I was most clear when I said "The information requested by the Deputy is not readily available and I do not intend to commission a very significant and costly exercise to compile it without very good reason."

Subsequent to that Deputy Le Fondré has not contacted me with a good reason and I have therefore not commissioned the work. I do not intend to do so at this time unless good reason is provided. If good reason can be provided then I believe that it would be not be appropriate to consider the Housing Department's portfolio in isolation but any review should include all of the Social Housing held by our Housing Trusts and the Key Worker Accommodation held by other States Departments.

4. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE CURRENT USE VALUE OF EACH SOCIAL RENTED HOUSING ESTATE:

Question

Would the Minister provide an analysis by estate of the estimate of the current use value of each estate, and (for each site) the best alternative use value?

Answer

Valuations are carried out regularly in accordance with the States of Jersey Capital Accounting Manual and UK Generally Acceptable Accounting Standards (Financial Reporting Standard 15: Tangible Fixed Assets). The last whole stock valuation of the States social housing stock was carried out on 31st December 2010. Each home was individually valued rather than on an estate basis.

The valuation was carried out by Jones Lang LeSalle (formerly King Sturge LLP) who opined that the stock had a tenanted Social Housing use value of £516,490,000.

As for alternative values; it is a residential stock and so the appropriate alternative value provided by Jones Lang LaSalle assumed freehold untenanted disposal on the open market and ascribed a value of £917,840,000. That is though somewhat irrelevant given that all of the homes are presently occupied and there is still a significant shortage of affordable homes. We need to be building more affordable housing and not considering the disposal of the limited amount that we have.

A detailed valuation schedule which runs to some 35 pages is available. I have not provided it here in the interests of saving money, paper and the sanity of Members. It is though available on request.

Should the States approve my proposals for the incorporation of the existing Housing Department into a wholly States owned Housing Association, then a detailed asset revaluation will be undertaken prior to the transfer of any assets.

5. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE DERELICT FORMER PLÉMONT HOLIDAY CAMP:

Question

Will the Minister provide the Assembly with full details, including dates and measures required, of the actions either he or his predecessor have taken using their enforcement or regulatory powers to require the owner of the derelict former Plémont Holiday camp after its closure in late 2000, to mitigate or eliminate the risks to the site and environment of the North Coast , including those which were identified in the documents submitted to the recent Planning Inquiry, namely a report of an oil contamination incident onto the North Headland in August 1989 and a ground contamination risk assessment dated 19th December 2008 which identified a risk -

of hydrocarbon contamination from leakages from the underground heating oil distribution network serving the complex;

of exposure to asbestos present in the buildings (103,983 sq.ft) and underground pipe network; of contamination to underlying soils and groundwater from leakage of sewage tanks;

of contamination from PCB's from the electrical sub station;

of soils contaminated by toxic metals and PAH's on the site of the previously burnt down Plémont Hotel .

Answer

In relation to the reported oil contamination, the then Water Resources section (part of the Public Services Committee) investigated the incident and provided advice at that time with respect to site investigation and remediation.

This pollution incident occurred prior to the implementation of the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000, hence the then Public Services Committee would have had limited regulatory powers to ensure appropriate remediation or cleanup of the site.

Notwithstanding, as part of the Phase 1 contaminated land report for the planning application, the groundwater risk assessment undertaken in 2008 has identified various potential risks of contamination. This report is designed to identify all potential risks on site which require further sampling and investigation should any development of the site occur.

Any planning permission granted for the Plémont site would be conditioned so that the applicant would be required to satisfy myself, as Minister, that a rigorous process has been followed in the full assessment of all contamination on site and demonstrate that these will be addressed and remediated to safeguard against both human and environmental risk. These processes are detailed within the Department's Supplementary Planning Guidance Planning Advice Note 2. Development of Potential Contaminated Land, October 2005.

This process will be dealt with during the Planning stage and be subject to approval from the appropriate regulatory officers.

6. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING SCHEMES FOR THE EXPANSION AND/OR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF GREEN STREET CAR PARK:

Question

Would the Minister provide details of the schemes the department has had under consideration for the expansion and/or the redevelopment of Green Street car park, with particular reference to the total number of car parking spaces and the number of stories of any new development? Would the Minister also detail the impact of the new Police Headquarters on the opportunities to redevelop the car park, with particular reference to the overall loss of potential additional car parking spaces?

Answer

TTS records show that in 1998 the then Public Services Committee undertook a feasibility study to create a new stand alone car park on the footprint of the proposed Police Station (the outdoors parking area at Green Street), as a result of a commitment in the then Island Plan. This was not funded or taken beyond the development of a general arrangement for the building.

The 1998 feasibility study provided a structure which was completely independent of Green Street Car Park (due to the difference in service life expectancies between the old and the new structures). The design shows a total of 288 public parking spaces provided within a new six storey car park (the top deck being 4.6m higher than Green Street Car Park's), increasing total parking by approximately 197 spaces. It was intended that the entrance and exit of the car park would be provided on to Route du Fort in similar fashion as is proposed for the new Police Headquarters.

No further design work for the redevelopment of Green Street Car Park has been commissioned by the Department. This would now need to take into account modern planning regulations, recent States decisions such as the Sustainable Transport Policy, the North of Town Master Plan and Esplanade Master Plan, and the opportunities and constraints provided by these to the redevelopment of the existing car park.

Notwithstanding the potential reduction in the site's footprint, given the proposed increases in overall parking provision, the geographic redistribution of spaces and the predicted reduction in commuter demand provided by these decisions, in conjunction with existing spare capacity with the public car parks, it is not clear at this stage whether an increase in capacity within Green Street Car Park would be required as part of any future redevelopment or the mix of parking to be provided.

(Further to the above, and in the interests of transparency - in 2008 as part of the development of the Town Park, high-level economic modelling was undertaken to assess the possibility of including underground parking at the Town Park site. This modelling considered the development value of many sites including Green Street Car Park, ultimately this work was not taken beyond broad comparative calculations, i.e. no design work was undertaken).

7. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE OPERATIONAL ON-SITE PARKING PROVISION PROPOSED AT THE SUMMERLAND SCHEME IN 2010:

Question

With regard to the answer provided to question 7160 – part V (on 23rd October 2012 ) – will the Minister confirm that on-site parking for all Police operational vehicles was to be provided at Summerland as part of the new Police station in the split scheme proposed by the Police Service and Jersey Property Holdings in 2010 ?

Answer

In 2010 the split site scheme had envisaged the acquisition of Lime Grove House and the construction of a custody suite and operational police station on the Summerland Site. Whilst no detailed design work was undertaken, outline block diagrams for the site included parking for all operational vehicles.

However, in the early part of 2011, the agreed split-site solution was to acquire Lime Grove House and refurbish or re-provide custody and operational facilities on the Rouge Bouillon site. This solution would have resulted in the Summerland site being released for affordable housing and so no operational parking would have been accommodated on this site. Arrangements for operational parking not located at Lime Grove House would have had to have been made as part of the Rouge Bouillon development, but this had not been designed in detail.

8. DEPUTY T.A. VALLOIS OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING RESIDENTIAL PARKING IN ST. HELIER:

Question

Would the Minister identify how many on-street car parking spaces in the urban area of St Helier have been converted to 'residential parking' thus far, split between spaces within the ring road and outside of the ring road?"

Answer

There are currently 3 residents parking zones within and 1 outside the ring road. Each zone has a mixture of resident only spaces and visitor parking spaces (which are available for anyone to use during the day, but convert to resident only between 22:00hrs and 09:00hrs). There are also a small number of disabled bays, unloading bays and bays restricted to Doctor parking only.

Within the ring road, there are 406 resident only bays, 199 visitor bays, 31 disabled bays, 38 unloading bays and 9 Doctor bays. Outside the ring road there are 24 resident only spaces, 17 visitor spaces and 1 disabled bay.

9. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE FULL COSTS OF THE PROPOSED NEW POLICE HEADQUARTERS:

Question

With regard to the answers provided to question 7159 (on 23rd October) will the Minister provide the following additional information –

1. The proposed locations, site and building floor areas of the offsite archive and garage' referred to as a cost of £30,000 in the latest cost estimate', together with the proposed locations, site and building areas of any other off site facilities required to support the proposed new Police Administration Headquarters and Operational Police Station at Green Street.
2. A detailed breakdown of the migration' costs referred to as a cost of £25,000 in the latest cost estimate' and a comparison with the historical costs of moving other departments from one building to another (with related details of the number of personnel / equipment involved).
   100. The cost for the project of the land upon which it is proposed that the new Police HQ is to be constructed, bearing in mind this land is not currently in the ownership / administration of the Police Service.

Will the Minister provide details of the Financial Directions relating to the procedure for transferring assets from one department to another which permit the exclusion of the costs of the site from the project?

Answer

1. In 2009, it was identified that archive and specialist equipment storage should be located off- site, rather than be included within an expensive re-build. The option currently under consideration is to locate archive and equipment storage, a garage and command vehicles at a States-owned warehouse unit at La Collette. The total internal area of this warehouse as currently configured is 750 sq m, however the States of Jersey Police is currently working to significantly reduce its archive storage requirement. It could therefore be the case that not all this area is required and could be made available for alternative secure use. The budget of £30,000 has been identified to provide security arrangements and facilities for the storage of Police archive material.
2. The migration cost of £25,000 is a pre-estimate of the costs of relocating police files, equipment and any remaining furniture from their existing buildings to the new facility. This is a provisional sum which is based on recent experience on capital projects and the nature of the required move. This figure also takes into consideration the fact that much of the furniture at the new building will be new and therefore delivered to site and the fact that, because of the nature of files and equipment, some of this will have to be moved by the Police.

In comparison with the total costs of the scheme, the migration costs are de minimus and actual cost will be established nearer the time of the move once the exact details of the move have been established.

3. The procedures for the transfer of Fixed Assets are set out in the Jersey Financial Reporting Manual (JFReM), and accompanying guidance such as the Capital Accounting Manual. The JFReM is issued by Ministerial Order, and departments are required to comply with its requirements under Financial Directions.

Transfers can be accounted for either as a transfer between balance sheets (the default approach) or a sale by one department and purchase by another. For the Police Station, it has been agreed between the relevant departments and the Treasury that the former method will be used. Whilst the land was not previously in the ownership of the Jersey Property Holdings (JPH), it was in the ownership of the States of Jersey, and so no cash is exchanged for the transaction, and the asset will not be "purchased" by JPH. As such there is no cost for the land included in the project.

This is consistent with other projects across the States, for example where existing land in a department is developed – the capital project would not include the cost of the land already in ownership by the States as it is not a cost to the taxpayer.

10. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONSITE' AND BASEMENT' PARKING AT THE PROPOSED NEW POLICE HEADQUARTERS:

Question

On 23rd October 2012 in reply to question 7160 the Minister stated –

Monthly there are estimated 2400 visitors including Public and those on official business or also put at "insignificant" at below 10 per hour' and then Members of the public will have limited access to onsite parking while those on official business will have access to basement parking.'

Please would the Minister explain the difference between "onsite" and "Basement Parking" and also advise up to how many officials at one time will be able to access "Basement Parking".

Answer

Onsite' parking refers to the lay-by at the front of the building which will accommodate disabled parking and deliveries only.

Basement' parking is the area underneath the building which will accommodate operational vehicles and official visitors only.

Based on the size and nature of the operational vehicles and the patterns of work by operational staff, it is anticipated that there will regularly be at least 5 spaces available within the basement to accommodate official visitors.

11. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING THE FULL ROLE OF THE LAW OFFICERS' DEPARTMENT IN THE ISSUING AND PROSECUTION OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT:

Question

Will the Attorney General explain to Members in relation to the Planning and Environment Department -

1. what is the full role of the Law Officers' Department in the issuing and prosecution of Enforcement Notices?
2. how many times has the Law Officers' Department been approached regarding the issue of Enforcement Notices in the years 2008 to end of October 2012 and the nature of those enquiries.
3. the number and nature of the Enforcement Notices that have been prosecuted by officers of his department or by officers supported by, or instructed by, officers of his department.

Answer

1. The decision to issue an Enforcement Notice is a matter for the Planning and Environment Department. The Law Officers' Department may provide advice if requested but the ultimate decision is made by the Planning and Environment Department. It is a criminal offence to fail to comply with the terms of an enforcement notice and it is assumed it is this to which the question refers by the expression "prosecution of Enforcement Notices". When consideration is being given to the prosecution of an individual or a company for an alleged failure to comply with the terms of an Enforcement Notice, in most cases, advice will be sought from the Law Officers' Department before proceedings are issued although there have been occasions when a matter has been referred directly to the Honorary Police without any involvement of the Law Officers' Department.
2. The question as to the number of occasions on which advice has been sought from the Civil Division of the Law Officers' Department in relation to the issue of Enforcement Notices is privileged information.
3. On the assumption that this part of the question relates to prosecutions brought for alleged failures to comply with an Enforcement Notice we are informed that approximately thirty Enforcement Notices are issued each year and that in most cases the issue of an Enforcement Notice results in the activity complained of stopping or the breach being rectified. In the context of the number of Enforcement Notices issued, prosecutions are few and nearly all of the matters which have resulted in prosecution have been dealt with in the Magistrate's Court. In the cases dealt with in the Magistrate's Court, the cases are conducted by a Legal Adviser who is a member of the Law Officers' Department. No records are kept which allow the answer to be entirely precise about the number of cases brought before the courts for alleged breaches of Enforcement Notices but, for the period specified, namely since 2008, it is believed after enquiry that there have been no more than ten such prosecutions.

12. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING THE USE OF SUPER-INJUNCTIONS' ON BEHALF OF NAMED INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE CITIZENS:

Question

1. Would the Attorney General explain the circumstances in which a States Department or States appointed body could seek a so-called super-injunction on behalf of named individual private citizens?
2. In the event of a so-called super-injunction being sought byany States Department or States appointed body would the Attorney General explain how the States Assembly can effectively hold those bringing such actions to account either to prevent an abuse of power or for the expenditure of public money when it currently has no means of effectively knowing about such actions?

Answer

1. There is no States Department or States Appointed Body that can obtain a super-injunction on behalf of any private individual. That right vests in and remains with the private individual.
2. The Royal Court determines whether or not any injunction should be ordered on the application of a private citizen. If the application is justified, then the States Assembly will not be told about it because the Royal Court has determined that it is in the interests of justice that the proceedings remain private. In circumstances in which the order is justified, the need to "hold someone to account" cannot arise and in any event, States Members will not wish to subvert a Court Order. A party to the litigation who is unhappy with the Court's decision has a right of appeal. If the application for an injunction is not justified, then the Royal Court will order that the court proceedings should be heard in public and then the States Assembly will become aware of the matter.

13. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE EXPORTATION OF JERSEY'S HAZARDOUS WASTE:

Question

Will the Minister inform the assembly whether he is required to seek consent from the relevant authorities in the United Kingdom to determine whether Jersey's hazardous waste, including asbestos presently stored temporarily at La Collette, can be exported from Jersey to another OECD or EU member country for disposal or recovery or whether his own powers in the Waste Management ( Jersey ) Law 2005 are sufficient to enable him to approve such proposal, in either case , will he provide details of the criteria which apply and of the protocols and procedure which he as Minister is required to follow to enable that export to take place .

Answer

The Waste Management (Jersey) Law 2005 (the Law') extends the UK ratification of the OECD decision the Basel Convention to cover Jersey. The Minister for Planning and Environment and the Department are the competent authority in Jersey and fulfil the functions of Basel. These functions include administering the requirements under the international conventions on waste shipments which the island is obliged to follow. The Department is therefore a regulatory authority.

Export of waste for recovery requires the procedures set out by the Law to be followed. This includes that the prior informed consent of the competent authority in the destination jurisdiction must be obtained before wastes can be exported.

These procedures also include the submission of prescribed forms (detailing the names and contacts for the waste generator, holder, broker, carrier and site of recovery, waste types) financial guarantees, contracts and submission of genuine recovery statements.

Exports of wastes for disposal require the same procedures and consents to be followed. However, prior to export the agreement of the competent authority of destination has to be obtained. This involves justification for the proposed export for disposal from Jersey, that includes an assessment against the following criteria;

1. whether the country of dispatch has facilities of a type appropriate to deal with the wastes in question in an environmentally sound manner.
2. whether the country of dispatch is likely to be in a position to acquire facilities to dispose of the waste(s) in question in an environmentally sound manner in the short to medium term.
3. whether the waste identified could be stored safely prior to the acquisition of these facilities.
4. whether, based on present and predicted arisings, such facilities would be economically viable.

If all these conditions are satisfied, then the Department would formally submit a Duly Reasoned Request (DRR) to the proposed receiving jurisdiction.

If the DRR is granted, then before any shipments for disposal can take place, the agreed waste type and disposal activity is subject to the notification and consent procedure under the Law and the Waste Shipment Regulation. Accordingly, the competent authority of destination must approve the shipments of hazardous waste before export can take place. This includes provision of a financial guarantee to provide both the Department and the competent authority with guaranteed funds, for the waste need to be returned or otherwise suitable disposed of.

Defra (UK) has recently indicated to the Department that there is nothing to prevent Jersey from approaching another EU country in order to negotiate a DRR for the disposal of waste. The proviso here is so long as the Basel Convention (and provisions in the Waste Management (Jersey) Law 2005) are adhered to. However, under the Basel Convention, Defra have to report movements of hazardous waste to and from the UK, and correspondence with the UK authorities indicate that they would probably have to record such a movement under the UK banner. This information is made public on the Basel Convention website; so it would be problematic for the UK to report shipments for disposal to another EC member state which the UK would not itself accept for disposal in the UK through the DRR process.

If it is formally requested by a waste company or responsible States department that waste is exported from Jersey for recovery then a DRR would not be required. However, contact with the receiving competent authority would still be required, as this would still constitute a trans-boundary shipment of hazardous waste requiring prior informed consent from the competent authorities of both the exporting and importing jurisdictions. Prior consent of the UK would not be required.

14. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE TRANSFERRAL OF STAFF FROM CONNEX TO CT PLUS:

Question

1. Will the Minister inform members what evidence, if any, he has to support his statement that the Connex workforce is "controlled by fear and favour" and, if none, will he withdraw this statement?
2. What powers does the Minister have to ensure that the Connex terms and conditions were transmitted to all tenderers?
3. On what date did the Minister satisfy himself that CT Plus were fully aware of the terms and conditions under which Connex drivers were employed?
4. If this was after 14th June 2012, what reliance, if any, could be placed on the HCT Group response of that date, if before, why have those guarantees of no change to terms and conditions terms not been met?
5. What is the result of the Minister's commitment to investigate the use of charitable status by HCT Group or CT Plus, and whether such status has played any part in the tender process or delivery of the new service in Jersey?
6. Does the Minister consider that where a new service such as the bus contract is transferred from one service provider to another, this should include transfer of recognition for employee representation under the Employee Relations (Jersey) Law 2007?

Answer

My Department and I are making every effort to achieve a positive outcome for all concerned. Our present priority is facilitating the transfer of eligible staff from CT Plus to Connex. It is extremely important that the mediated agreement reached at the JACS meeting on 10th October 2012, to address matters between the parties rather than in public, is respected. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate for me to go into further detail about matters which the relevant parties are now addressing together than that set out in my previous answers and below.

Taking the Deputy 's points in order:

1. I refer you to item 11 and 24 of my previous answers to written questions 1240/5(7151) and 1240/5(7152) reproduced below.

11.  JACS issued the following statement about the meeting:

"Following a very useful meeting of all parties involved in the provision of a bus service for Jersey it was agreed that all parties present would immediately encourage and facilitate meetings between existing Connex employees and representatives of CT Plus on a one to one basis within the next 10 days.

The purpose of these one to one meetings is to allow CT Plus representatives to meet with their potential employees, explain the way in which CT Plus intended to work in the Island and to invite all staff to accept contracts of employment with CT Plus under the terms agreed at the mediation meeting held on 10 October 2012.

All parties present agreed that while arrangements as above are finalized no further public statements will be issued as it is now a matter of arranging for the Connex employees to determine whether they wish to join CT Plus from January 2013."

24 Given the agreement reached at the mediation meeting on 10 October 2012, it would not be

appropriate for me to go into further detail about matters which the relevant parties are now addressing together.

2. I refer you to items 1 to 5 of my previous answers to written questions 1240/5(7151) and 1240/5(7152) reproduced below.

The 2002 Connex Contract

1. Connex Transport Jersey Ltd ("Connex") is the existing Jersey bus service provider under the terms of a contract between Connex and the Public Services Committee (hereafter called "Transport and Technical Services or TTS") dated 13th November 2002 (the "Connex Contract").
2. Clause 18.3 of the Connex Contract states: "On expiry of the Contract or early termination for whatever reason, the Committee shall or shall procure that any other body issuing tender documentation shall require in any tender documentation that the incoming service provider submit proposals that ensure that all of the Contractor's staff, with the exception of the general manager and any director of the Contractor, as at the date of the issue of any tender documentation are taken on by the incoming service provider on the same terms and conditions as apply at the date of the issue of any tender documentation and use its reasonable endeavours to facilitate the transfer of the staff from the Contractor to the incoming service provider provided always that the Contractor shall fully co-operate with both the Committee and the incoming service provider by providing them both with such employee information as is reasonably necessary for the Committee to compile any tender documentation and for bidders properly to price their bids and for the incoming service provider to take on the Contractor's staff."
3. There were two key elements to Clause 18.3, namely that:
   1. TTS should require in any tender documentation that the incoming service provider submitted proposals that ensured that all of the Contractor's staff, with the exception of the general manager and any director of the Contractor, as at the date of the issue of any tender documentation were taken on by the incoming service provider on the same terms and conditions as applied at the date of the issue of any tender documentation (June 2011); and
   2. TTS should use its reasonable endeavours to facilitate the transfer of the staff from the Contractor (Connex) to the incoming service provider.
4. The latter obligation was subject to the requirement that Connex fully co-operated with both TTS and the incoming service provider by providing them both with such employee information as was reasonably necessary for TTS to compile any tender documentation, for bidders properly to price their bids and for the incoming service provider to take on Connex staff.

The 1st Stage Tender Instructions ("1st Stage Tender")

5. The 1st Stage Tender included the following:

 "the Tenderer is required to provide a proposal ( part of the Migration Statement see item

3.15) for the transfer of all the existing operator's staff based on the terms and conditions at the time of this tender except for any Director or the General Manager The Employer has agreed to use its reasonable endeavours to facilitate the transfer of staff and provided such employee information for the Tenderer to price the Tender."

"The Tenderer shall submit an outline Method Statement setting out a programme and

proposals for setting up the 2013 Contract which shall adequately reflect how they will transfer existing staff ( excluding any Director or the General Manager of the existing operator) and or obtain suitable staff, vehicles and all necessary equipment to commence the operation on the 1st January 2013"

" The Tenderers attention is drawn to the fact that there is no requirement under the 2013 Contract for any Director or the General Manager of the existing operator to be included in any proposal for the transfer of existing staff. The information noted above and the terms and conditions to be found in Appendix G have been provided by the existing operator to the Employer and provided to the Tenderer in good faith."

3. This was undertaken, as for all tenderers, as part of the First Stage Tender evaluations between mid October 2011 and end of January 2012.
4. I refer you to items 6 to 17 of my previous answers to written questions 1240/5(7151) and 1240/5(7152) reproduced below, the position of CT Plus as at 9th October 2012 was set out in the statement of that date published on the website of HCT Group.

The successful tenderer's submission

6. HCT Group is the parent company of CT Plus Jersey Limited ("CT Plus"). HCT Group's response to the second stage of the tender process was submitted under covering letter dated 14th June 2012. This response was submitted on the basis of a "seamless transfer of staff". HCT Group stated:

"we will not change any of the staff terms and conditions we have been made aware of in the first stage tender documents, for the first nine months of the contract."

7. I took the decision to award the 2013 Bus Operator Contract (the "2013 Contract") to HCT Group, as detailed in the decision summary dated 4thJuly 2012. The 2013 Contract is due to commence on 1 January 2013 (the "Commencement Date") and will be operated by CT Plus. HCT Group and TTS have entered into a letter of intent, dated 18 July 2012, in relation to the 2013 Contract. The 2013 Contract is expected to be signed shortly.
8. Accordingly, in July 2012 the requirements of the first obligation on TTS under Clause 18.3 had been fully met by TTS.

Facilitating a transfer: mediation meeting

9. TTS has worked around the clock with the unions, staff representatives, Connex and CT Plus to try and facilitate a transfer of staff. On 9 October 2012 TTS asked staff representatives, Connex and CT Plus to attend an urgent JACS facilitated mediation meeting the next day, 10th October 2012, in order to see how best matters could be addressed and progressed. TTS was anxious to ensure that the best possible arrangements were put in place for staff. Concerns had been raised about new proposals put forward by CT Plus for modernised terms and conditions and a "clean break" arrangement for employment under the new contract, rather than a transfer with continuity of employment.

10. The meeting took place on 10th October 2012 and was extremely constructive. At the meeting it was agreed that eligible staff would transfer with preserved continuity of employment, for future statutory redundancy, unfair dismissal and notice purposes. The transfer would be on the basis of new terms and conditions in order to ensure that the present needs of Islanders were met, in accordance with the provisions of the 2010 Sustainable Transport Policy. A number of changes were agreed to enhance the terms and conditions on offer.
11. JACS issued the following statement about the meeting:

"Following a very useful meeting of all parties involved in the provision of a bus service for Jersey it was agreed that all parties present would immediately encourage and facilitate meetings between existing Connex employees and representatives of CT Plus on a one to one basis within the next 10 days.

The purpose of these one to one meetings is to allow CT Plus representatives to meet with their potential employees, explain the way in which CT Plus intended to work in the Island and to invite all staff to accept contracts of employment with CT Plus under the terms agreed at the mediation meeting held on 10th October 2012.

All parties present agreed that while arrangements as above are finalized no further public statements will be issued as it is now a matter of arranging for the Connex employees to determine whether they wish to join CT Plus from January 2013."

Current position

12. Since the meeting on 10th October 2012 Connex, CT Plus and TTS have continued to work together in relation to arrangements for the transfer of staff from Connex to CT Plus. A number of positive staff meetings have taken place and CT Plus has confirmed that it is looking forward to taking on eligible Connex staff.
13. On 19 October 2012, TTS reiterated to CT Plus that it was essential that all key terms and conditions (such as rates of basic pay) of transferring staff were either mirrored or improved upon. CT Plus agreed further to enhance the terms and conditions that were being offered to transferring staff.
14. TTS is pleased that, following extensive discussions with Connex, CT Plus and the union, CT plus is now offering eligible driving staff employment on terms which include the following:

• CT Plus basic hourly rate of pay for Monday to Friday working hours is a slight increase over the existing rate at tender (the contractual benchmark).
• CT Plus overtime rate Monday to Friday is the same as their basic hourly rate, which is less than tender (see point 15 below)
• CT Plus basic rates for Saturdays are higher than at tender.
• CT Plus basic rates for Sunday are equal to the overtime rates at the time of tender
• CT Plus basic rates for Public and Bank Holidays are higher than the overtime rates paid at the time of tender.
• The CT Plus rostered working week of 5 days in 7 is an improvement on the present 6 days in 7, typically giving 47 more rest days per year to a driver.
• The basic working week of 39 hours remains the same
• CT Plus's annual salary for the contracted basic 39 hours will be slightly higher than at tender.
• CT Plus's sickness provision for the first 4 years of service is higher than at tender.
• Healthcare and pension payments remain the same.

• 5 weeks paid holiday: remains the same.
• Paid meal breaks will continue.
• No probation period will apply to transferring staff
• Staff transfer with preserved continuity of service for future statutory redundancy, unfair dismissal and notice purposes.

15. Access to overtime is at management's discretion, is voluntary, and is not a contractual right. CT Plus had anticipated removal of overtime from rosters as it is very expensive. However as CT Plus talked to staff it became clear that some staff, although not a majority, did want to work more than approximately 39 hours per week. If CT Plus had a higher overtime rate for Monday to Friday then the need to reduce or eliminate overtime would not have been addressed. Having a flat rate enables CT Plus to address this issue while also enabling drivers to work more hours, up to the maximum of 54 and earn accordingly (circa £40,000).
16. For information, the 54 hour working week maximum being applied to this new contract has been introduced for health and safety reasons to protect both the public and drivers, in accordance with advice we have received from the Health & Safety Inspectorate. It is in accordance with recognised UK best practice and consistent with the Unite Union's current A Safer Way' campaign.
17. Staff at TTS continues to work tirelessly to facilitate the transfer of staff from Connex to CT Plus on 1 January 2013.

(iv) CT Plus bid for the 2013 Bus Operator's Contract was on exactly the same like for like basis as the other tenderers. Of course as a charitable Social Enterprise CT Plus's company's structure and motivation is different to the traditional corporate model, as it does not have to return a dividend to shareholders, but reinvests any money made back in the community where it is generated to create social good, such as transport for older and disabled people or community groups or training for the unemployed. This aspect of CT Plus's operations was excluded from the quality / cost tender assessment as it was not part of the evaluation criteria.

(vi) I refer you to item 21 of my previous answer to written questions 1240/5(7151) and 1240/5(7152) reproduced below.

21. The Employment Relations Code of Practice on Trade Union Recognition relates to employees and their employer. CT Plus is not yet the employer of staff who are eligible to transfer. If staff who join CT Plus wish their employer to recognise their representatives or their union, then of course they have the absolute right to seek such recognition under the relevant Code of Practice of the Employment Relations Law. The question of union recognition by an employer is not a matter for the Minister. It is a matter for the employer. CT Plus has already met with staff representatives, at the mediation meeting, and it is keen to engage fully with the union at an appropriate time, once staff have transferred. For information, CT Plus have just signed a recognition agreement with Unite in Guernsey, the first within the bus service there, and they have instigated union recognition in other of their depots. CT Plus have publicly stated that they believe that where a union works well it can be a source of good in the workplace.

15. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE INTERACTION BETWEEN HIGH RENTAL COSTS, THE LEVEL OF THE MINIMUM WAGE, INCOME TAX THRESHOLDS AND INCOME SUPPORT RATES:

Question

What consideration, if any, has been given to by the Minister, along with Ministers for Social Security and Treasury and Resources, as requested by recommendations 11, 13, 14, 16 and 17 of SR.3/2011, "Review of Benefit Levels", concerning the interaction between high rental costs, the level of the minimum wage, income tax thresholds and Income support rates, and when will the Minister present the results of his investigations to members?

In particular, will the Minister do so before members are asked to debate the Housing Transformation plan?

Answer

This answer has been co-ordinated with the Ministers for Social Security and Treasury & Resources.

The Scrutiny report "Review of benefit levels" was published by the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel on 28th March 2011. Ministerial responses by the Minister for Social Security and the Minister for Housing were published on 13th May 2011, and provide detailed responses to the recommendations listed in the question. The Minister for Treasury and Resources wrote to the Chairman of the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel on 11th April 2011 and 23rdMay 2011.

In respect of items directly related to the Housing Transformation Programme (HTP), the following actions have already been taken:

Recommendation 11 -The Minister for Social Security must work with the Ministers for Treasury and Resources and Housing to ensure that the mechanism for financing social housing is separate from the provision of means tested income support benefits.

As set out in my White Paper " Achieving Decent Homes -- an affordable housing framework for the future" published in April 2012" (R.47/2012) , one of the main aims of the HTP is to remove the "hidden subsidies" within the existing rents system and to change the manner in which rents are accounted for to increase transparency.

It is proposed that rentals for social housing properties will be returned to 90% of their individual equivalent market value and the full cost of providing social housing will be included within the cost of income support. This will provide the separation proposed in the recommendation.

Recommendation 13: Pending a long-term solution to the funding of social housing, the Minister for Social Security must resist any pressure to cap the rising cost of the accommodation component of Income Support.

Despite significant pressures on the Income Support budget, accommodation components have been increased in both 2011 and 2012. In October 2011 all the accommodation components of income support were increased by 2.5% (P.107/2011) and in October 2012 components were increased by a further 3.5% (P.56/2012).

The HTP includes plans to fully cover the additional costs of Income Support that will be created when social sector rentals return to the 90% level.

Recommendations 14, 16 and 17 are not directly related to housing matters.

It is understood that the Minister for Social Security has no current plans to release any additional reports on these matters.

16. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE INTERACTION BETWEEN HIGH RENTAL COSTS, THE LEVEL OF THE MINIMUM WAGE, INCOME TAX THRESHOLDS AND INCOME SUPPORT RATES:

Question

What consideration, if any, has been given to by the Minister, along with Ministers for Housing and Treasury and Resources, as requested by recommendations 11, 13, 14, 16 and 17 of SR.3/2011, "Review of Benefit Levels", concerning the interaction between high rental costs, the level of the minimum wage, income tax thresholds and Income support rates, and when will the Minister present the results of his investigations to members?

In particular, will the Minister do so before members are asked to debate the Housing Transformation plan?

Answer

This answer has been co-ordinated with the Ministers for Treasury and Resources and Housing.

The Scrutiny report "Review of benefit levels" was published by the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel on 28 March 2011. Ministerial responses by the Minister for Social Security and the Minister for Housing were published on 13 May 2011, and provide detailed responses to the recommendations listed in the question. The Minister for Treasury and Resources wrote to the Chairman of the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel on 11 April 2011 and 23 May 2011.

In respect of items directly related to the Housing Transformation Programme (HTP), the following actions have already been taken:

Recommendation 11 -The Minister for Social Security must work with the Ministers for Treasury and Resources and Housing to ensure that the mechanism for financing social housing is separate from the provision of means tested income support benefits.

As set out in " Achieving decent homes -- an affordable housing framework for the future -- White Paper April 2012" (R.47/2012) , one of the main aims of the HTP is to remove the "hidden subsidies" within the existing rents system and to change the manner in which rents are accounted for to increase transparency.

It is proposed that rentals for social housing properties will be returned to 90% of the market value and the full cost of providing social housing will be included within the cost of Income Support. This will provide the separation proposed in the recommendation.

Recommendation 13: Pending a long-term solution to the funding of social housing, the Minister for Social Security must resist any pressure to cap the rising cost of the accommodation component of Income Support.

Despite significant pressures on the Income Support budget, accommodation components have been increased in both 2011 and 2012. In October 2011 all the accommodation components of Income Support were increased by 2.5% (P.107/2011) and in October 2012 components were increased by a further 3.5% (P.56/2012).

The HTP includes plans to fully cover the additional costs of Income Support that will be created when social sector rentals return to the 90% level.

Recommendations 14, 16 and 17 are not directly related to housing matters.

Given other pressures on departmental resources, the Ministers for Social Security and Treasury and Resources have no current plans to release any additional reports on these matters.

17. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE INTERACTION BETWEEN HIGH RENTAL COSTS, THE LEVEL OF THE MINIMUM WAGE, INCOME TAX THRESHOLDS AND INCOME SUPPORT RATES:

Question

What consideration, if any, has been given to by the Minister, along with Ministers for Social Security and Housing, as requested by recommendations 11, 13, 14, 16 and 17 of SR.3/2011, "Review of Benefit Levels", concerning the interaction between high rental costs, the level of the minimum wage, income tax thresholds and Income support rates, and when will the Minister present the results of his investigations to members?

In particular, will the Minister do so before members are asked to debate the Housing Transformation plan?

Answer

This answer has been co-ordinated with the Ministers for Social Security and Housing.

The Scrutiny report "Review of benefit levels" was published by the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel on 28thMarch 2011. Ministerial responses by the Minister for Social Security and the Minister for Housing were published on 13th May 2011, and provide detailed responses to the recommendations listed in the question. The Minister for Treasury and Resources wrote to the Chairman of the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel on 11th April 2011 and 23rd May 2011. These letters are attached.

In respect of the report's recommendations that were directly related to the Housing Transformation Programme (HTP), the following actions have already been taken:

Recommendation 11 -The Minister for Social Security must work with the Ministers for Treasury and Resources and Housing to ensure that the mechanism for financing social housing is separate from the provision of means tested income support benefits.

As set out in " Achieving decent homes -- an affordable housing framework for the future -- White Paper April 2012" (R.47/2012) , one of the main aims of the HTP is to remove the "hidden subsidies" within the existing rents system and to change the manner in which rents are accounted for to increase transparency.

It is proposed that rentals for social housing properties will be returned to 90% of the market value and the full cost of providing social housing will be included within the cost of income support. This will provide the separation proposed in the recommendation.

Recommendation 13: Pending a long-term solution to the funding of social housing, the Minister for Social Security must resist any pressure to cap the rising cost of the accommodation component of Income Support.

Despite significant pressures on the Income Support budget, accommodation components have been increased in both 2011 and 2012. In October 2011 all the accommodation components of income support were increased by 2.5% (P.107/2011) and in October 2012 components were increased by a further 3.5% (P.56/2012).

The HTP includes plans to fully cover the additional costs of Income Support that will be created when social sector rentals return to the 90% level.

Recommendations 14, 16 and 17 are not directly related to housing matters.

Given other pressures on departmental resources, the Ministers for Social Security and Treasury and Resources haves no current plans to release any additional reports on these matters.

18. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES  REGARDING  THE  COSTS  OF  PROVIDING  THE  CLIENT FIXTURES,  FITTINGS  AND  EQUIPMENT'  FOR  BOTH  THE  OFFICES  AND OPERATIONAL  ELEMENTS  OF  THE  PROPOSED  NEW  POLICE HEADQUARTERS:

Question

With regard to the answers provided to question 7159 (on 23rd October) will the Minister provide the following additional information –

1. A detailed breakdown of the costs of providing the Client Fixtures, Fittings and Equipment' for both the offices and operational elements of the proposed Police HQ, identifying any amounts greater than £25,000 (and to include separately any amounts that might relate to other off-site facilities).

Does the sum of £647,000 included for the Client Fixtures, Fittings and Equipment' include the total costs of all elements required by the Police Service, in particular the force control room, and any associated systems costs for this and any other Police facilities.

2. A further breakdown for all elements greater than £50,000 included in each of the 6 categories identified in the latest cost estimate' which provides a total project cost of £20,492,315.

Will the Minister confirm that there are no other costs excluded from the latest cost estimate' required for the provision of new Police facilities including, for example, new equipment or the replacement of existing equipment or other items which arise out of the need to relocate to a different site.

Answer

1. For reasons of commercial confidentiality and to protect the States' competitive position the Minister is not prepared to provide a detailed breakdown of the Fixtures, Fittings and Equipment budget.

This is an estimated budget which has not been specified in detail. It is, however, based on the current design and the number of workstations in the building. The estimated budget only relates to all new loose fittings within the building (such as desks and lockers, etc.) and excludes items that fall within the construction budget (including specialist custody furniture, fitted furniture such as reception and inquiry desks and canteen fittings and equipment). Provision is made elsewhere in the budget for the proposed off-site facility.

The current cost estimate for Fixtures, Fittings and Equipment is for items that are directly related to the new building. Items considered to be ongoing capital replacement costs necessary for operational purposes, including the control room fit out and IT equipment and servers, will be funded by the States of Jersey Police as they will be required regardless of the proposed move. As is common practice, the new building will provide all the required IT, communications and systems infrastructure, but existing hardware and equipment will be transferred to the new site unless it is not cost effective to do so.

2. Whilst the construction costs have been subject to a full and detailed analysis by the Project Quantity Surveyor, for reasons of commercial confidentiality and to protect the States' competitive position the Minister is not prepared to provide this breakdown. The Minister is, however, more than happy to brief the Deputy confidentially on these figures.

The Minister does not believe that there are any items excluded that would be required as part of the development of the new Police Headquarters. As explained above, ongoing replacement of equipment would need to take place anyway and should be funded by the States of Jersey Police.

2. Oral Questions

1. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the demolition of the former holiday camp at Plémont:

Does the Minister consider that the holiday camp at Plémont, which was abandoned by its current owners in 2000, is in a ruinous, dilapidated and dangerous condition and is damaging to the amenities of this part of the Island? If so, will the Minister inform the Assembly why neither he nor the former Minister have used their legal powers to secure the demolition and removal of the derelict buildings?

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

The Planning and Building Law does not define what a ruinous or dilapidated building is and the matter is therefore open to interpretation as to when these powers might be used. My own view is that it is appropriate and reasonable to apply the ordinary meanings to these words. On this basis, I consider it reasonable to adopt a position such that if the building is wind and watertight, it is unlikely to be in such a state of ruination or dilapidation as to trigger any action by way of the powers available to me under Article 84 of the Planning Law. I would, however, also wish to point out that the use of these powers is not related to any damage caused to the amenities of the Island by a ruinous or dilapidated building but rather to the condition of a particular building itself. Perhaps more significantly, in considering whether or not to use these powers, I would need to ensure that any actions that might be taken are necessary and that they are proportionate. In this respect, I would need to have regard to any intent that may be demonstrated by the landowner to deal with any potentially problematic sites before considering any legal intervention. In addressing the first point, the suggestion of abandonment, my department's view on this matter was set out in a statement of case at a recent public inquiry such that it does not necessarily consider the Plémont Holiday Village site to be abandoned in planning terms. The lengthy history of the planning applications at the site is an indication that the applicant company has not relinquished its interest in the site, nor its future, and has thus not abandoned the site or its use.

1. Deputy J.H. Young:

I thank the Minister for his answer. There are a lot of points there. To begin with, I would ask him to clarify his last comment that the Minister recorded the Planning Office's view at the inquiry that the use has not been abandoned and he says he supported that. Could he please confirm whether or not he considers that the criteria in the English case law on the subject, i.e., the condition of the building, the interim uses and the possibility of reuse, preclude that building being recovered and it is, in fact, abandoned? Will he clarify that in his own judgment, he is satisfied that the use has not been abandoned?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

As I am about to make a decision on the planning permissions that are being sought by the Plémont Holiday Village company, I do not think I am in a position to give a legal answer or an indication as to something which might be a material consideration in whatever events or outcomes that are caused by the decision that I might take.

2. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

Would the Minister agree with me that this question is highly political and that there are far more ruinous dilapidated and dangerous buildings across the Island, including hundreds of vergées of derelict glasshouses and greenhouse sites? [Approbation] I would mention the Foot building at the back of the Co-op. in Charing Cross, the Le Seelleur building in Oxford Road and, indeed, I would mention the Fort Regent pool and the Jersey College for Girls. Would he agree with me?

[9:45]

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I think I probably would.

3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Would the Minister acknowledge that the buildings at Plémont have trouble keeping out trespassers

- let alone wind and water - and if the buildings at Plémont cannot be said to be dilapidated, does he think that are no buildings in Jersey which are dilapidated and that we should perhaps just get rid of this piece of law because it seems completely redundant if the Minister is unwilling and unable to act?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

As to a glossary of terms that I have been given, it is suggested that a dilapidated building is likely to be a building in an extreme state of disrepair. It does not mention as to whether or not barbed wire fences or other things, which would be outside of the normal Planning Law, should be erected in order to keep persons who do not have permission to enter into a particular site from entering.

4. Deputy J.H. Young:

Could the Minister, in lay terms, tell us whether he thinks that the condition of those buildings up there are firstly a hazard in polluting that area from the reports he has got and, secondly, whether or not he feels that it is capable of being restored back to a holiday camp without a planning application being made? Would he tell us that please?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I think the permissions to run a holiday camp at that site are well known and still remain as an alternative option should residential development not take place on that site. I am sorry, what was the other point?

Deputy J.H. Young:

Could he confirm that the site is, in fact, known to be causing risks of contamination and will that be taken into account in his future decisions?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

The preliminary investigations have taken place in previous years and there are schedules that have been presented to the department as part of the planning application. Indeed, any potential hazardous materials, should the site be refurbished or indeed rebuilt or put back to nature, will have to be remediated by the responsible authorities. That is all I can say at the moment.

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Attorney General regarding confidential counselling and medical information used in open court:

Under what conditions can confidential counselling and medical information be used in open court and are current procedures consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and Data Protection legislation?

Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

In any criminal case and other than in exceptional circumstances, the prosecution has an obligation to disclose to the accused any material that might undermine the prosecution's case or support the defence case. In some cases, the confidential medical and other records of a victim or a witness will be relevant to the issues before the court. The prosecution will then seek to obtain and disclose relevant parts of those records to the defence. Normally the person will be asked to consent to their records being obtained for this purpose. In the subsequent court proceedings, the defence can choose to use any relevant material that might reasonably undermine the credibility of a witness. There is a strong presumption in favour of criminal proceedings being heard in public unless, in wholly exceptional circumstances, a court directs otherwise. In any proceedings, the prosecution and the judge will be alert to ensuring that only relevant material is put to a witness. It is open to the media to report accurately what takes place during proceedings. It is left to the media to exercise judgment as to whether it is necessary or appropriate to publicise personal and confidential material about persons in court. As to the E.C.H.R. (European Convention on Human Rights), there will usually be a stronger public interest in safeguarding the rights to a fair trial in public and freedom of expression within the rights of a witness to respect their private and family life. Confidential  material  will normally only be made available to  the defence if  the subject  has consented or a court has ordered disclosure. The Data Protection Law provides that it is lawful to process data for the purposes of the administration of justice.

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Could the Attorney General clarify: if somebody enters into a counselling relationship in the belief that it is totally confidential and will not at a later stage of life be revealed, it is permissible that the files, the record of this counselling, can be accessed by the court without the consent of the individual? Can that happen?

The Attorney General:

In the vast majority of cases, a counselling relationship or a medical relationship is one that is afforded the highest measure of confidentiality and it is for that reason that I said that generally only such information will be sought and provided with the consent of the individual concerned. However, there remain circumstances in which it would, in my view, be entirely proper to seek the leave of the court to obtain confidential information. An example might be where the individual is no longer able to give consent, in the case of a child, for example. There will always be very anxious consideration given by the prosecution as to whether it is appropriate to force such information but it is theoretically possible.

2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

If the disclosure includes disclosure regarding other parties, thereby undermining the position of the other parties, what redress is there legally?

The Attorney General:

It is important to remember the purpose for which information is obtained and disclosed. It is obtained and disclosed in accordance with the prosecution's obligation to the defence to provide information that may undermine the prosecution case or support the defence case. It is unlikely, I would have thought, that information relating to third parties would normally be the case and it is only relevant information that needs to be disclosed but if the information relating to a third party is relevant then it will be disclosed in the way that I have set out. As to whatever the redress may be, the disclosure is based upon the requirements of the interests of justice and, in my view, the question of redress does not arise.

3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Right, suppose I am the counsellor and I have been required to disclose information legally through one means or another. Do I then have to say I do not want my name mentioned in connection with this in order to keep because obviously I do not want to be mentioned in connection with it because of the disclosure requirement? What exactly is the position? Where is the fairness in this?

The Attorney General:

I am sorry, I do not wish to be obtuse, but I do not really understand the question. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

As a counsellor - you know, Joe Bloggs - I have given counselling to somebody. The record of that is required to be given to the court by the counselee but can I not just knock my name off it because I do not want to be connected with it. I do not want to be connected with the fact that the records are being exposed in court because my reputation as a counsellor will have gone kaput.

The Attorney General:

It is only relevant matters that should be disclosed in court. I do not think it would be permissible to edit whatever information is provided to the prosecution but the prosecution would only disclose relevant information to the defence and the defence should only deploy relevant information in a trial. Accordingly, the names of third parties which are unnecessary should not be deployed in a trial.

4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

What redress is there for the third party if their identity has been disclosed? The Attorney General:

If their identity has been disclosed in a lawful way, there is no redress as such. The court has, of course, power to order restrictions on reporting specific items of information and if a representation is made to the court through the course of the trial, it will obviously take that under consideration but it is impossible to give a hard and fast rule.

5. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :

I fully appreciate, having sat in court, that information has to be disclosed to the defence. However, could the Attorney General advise whether there is not some kind of advice and instruction always given by the court so that the media will not report things that are quite unnecessary? I think it is quite relevant that only one of our organisations reported this type of thing very recently and perhaps that is a comment on the professionalism of that organisation.

The Attorney General:

As far as I am aware, but I cannot be definitive, there is no standard direction given by the court to the media. The court will be alive to the deployment of sensitive and confidential information and might, in the exercise of a discretion, ask the media itself to exercise a discretion but there would not normally be, in my view, any direction to the media other than in particular types of cases.

6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Clearly, this is an enormously difficult balance to achieve and a very, very worrying issue. Could the Attorney General tell the Assembly what steps are being taken to ensure that the right balance is struck so that people do not go into court and that issues from very, very difficult periods, for example, in their early life where, for example, massive intimate information has been given to a counsellor, that these issues, be they a victim, be they a complainant or be they an alleged guilty party, are not going to be brought out to haunt them, I am afraid, in the context of a small community where, as the previous questioner said, news is very easily available?

The Attorney General:

There is, of course, a difficult balance to strike in any of these matters but it is in the interests of justice that information can be deployed that may undermine the credibility of a witness or may be relevant to what goes on in the case itself. The court and counsel are alive to the questions of relevance and, indeed, the question of sensitivity but ultimately if the information is available to the defence, it is open to the defence to deploy it and that is one of the facets of dealing with justice in the open in this jurisdiction.

The Bailiff :

Does the Assembly agree to raise the défaut on the Deputy of Grouville ? The défaut is raised.

3. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the itemisation of evidence retrieved during the Haut de la Garenne investigation:

I know the Minister appreciates this was intended to be a written question. Will the Minister undertake to provide in writing a detailed audit trail identifying what items were retrieved during the Haut de la Garenne investigation, advise where they were sent for analysis, who authorised them to go, who examined them, where each item is currently stored and confirm that no items from this investigation have been lost or destroyed?

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

The answer to the first part of the question is no. That would neither be sensible nor practical - and that would include if I had a request for a written answer - as there were 4,625 such exhibits. An audit trail does exist for each exhibit on the home system. If any Member of the Assembly is interested in any particular item, then they could ask a specific question in relation to that although, of course, I do not have full details here today. Not all exhibits were retained and a number have been properly disposed of in accordance with major crime policy. Those that were retained are stored securely at the police station. I am not aware of any such item being lost.

2.3.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I thank the Minister for his answer but could the Minister then advise that in light of the Norton case, a 1960s case, where we are told that evidence no longer exists and there is that concern that it may have been helpful in perhaps overturning what some say is a travesty of justice, can the Minister at least give assurances that nothing of real importance and relevance in this case has been destroyed, as he informs us that some things have been destroyed?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I would be very disappointed if anything of real relevance had been destroyed because the major crime policy should obviously retain items of relevance or potential relevance. This is particularly important in certain cases of samples - blood samples and things like that - where there have been improvements in the technology, particularly DNA testing, which may now make a successful investigation possible. I can assure Deputy Pitman that the police are well aware of this and have been reviewing some of the old cases where there was such potential material.

[10:00]

4. Deputy M. Tadier of the Chief Minister regarding  the Terms of Reference for the Committee of Inquiry into historic child abuse:

Can I just say that obviously when I lodged this question the terms of reference had not been lodged. They have been lodged today so that changes slightly the syntax of my question but I will read it as it was. In view of allegations of political misconduct surrounding the suspension of the former Chief of Police, will the Chief Minister be proposing terms of reference for the Committee of Inquiry into Historic Child Abuse that will allow it to gauge whether there was any undue political interference in policing matters? If not, why not?

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

Yes, as the Deputy acknowledges, I have today lodged a report and proposition establishing a Committee of Inquiry into Historic Child Abuse which contained the terms of reference reflecting those recommended by Verita. Neither the Verita nor the Williamson Reports suggested looking at the issues surrounding the suspension of the former Chief of Police as that is a different issue and has already been investigated separately.

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Could I ask, does the Chief Minister not agree that given shortly before the suspension of the former Chief of Police, it is well known - if not documented in the mainstream media - that a complaint made to the police ended up in the hands of the former Bailiff ? So should this not scratch or [indistinct] when we talk about political interference, that it goes to the judicial at the time? Should that surely not be included, because it looks to me as though this is interference?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

I am not sure quite what it is that the Deputy is asking me that he feels should have been included which has not been included. The terms of reference as drafted are indeed broad and rightly the Chairman will consider, if allegations are made in front of the committee as the Deputy has just suggested, then the Chairman would, I suspect, be able to consider them under the terms of reference as drafted and as I hope the States will approve in due course.

2. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Could I just help the Chief Minister out and just say that as far as I am aware, I do not think Bailiff s have any role in police inquiries so if complaints made to the police end up in the hands of Bailiff s, then that must surely be something that needs investigation. It relates directly to the officer who was carrying out the child abuse investigation so I am sure it is relevant. Does the Chief Minister not agree?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Unfortunately I do not know what it is exactly that the Deputy is referring to. I know he probably has not had time to read the terms of reference but it is my belief - and some Members may feel they are too broad - that the terms of reference are drafted in such broad terms that if allegations are made which the Chairman feels need to be investigated with regard to those investigations - I think he is referring to police investigations - then the terms of reference as drafted will allow the Committee of Inquiry to investigate them.

3. Deputy M. Tadier :

Does the Chief Minister agree that given the fact that there has been quite an unsatisfactory process when allegations were made by some that the former Minister for Home Affairs may have misled or even lied to this Assembly, that it is and then for an in-camera debate to happen on that subject where the public cannot follow what is going on, does the Chief Minister agree that it is quite correct and a wholesome thing for the Committee of Inquiry to be able to look into these allegations to take it out of the hands of States Members and for impartial pairs of eyes to look at this issue?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

That is, I believe, what the terms of reference as proposed by the Council of Ministers indeed allow, for it to be taken out of the political arena, for the Chairman and the committee to consider issues as drafted. As I have said, they are wide-ranging and they reflect the Verita terms of reference which is what Members asked me for and care leavers asked me for and I believe that I have responded appropriately to that. If Members wish to stand up and suggest there are allegations and they have concerns in the areas, that they outline them and no doubt those will be provided to the Committee of Inquiry in due course and it will be rightly for them to consider how investigations along those lines fit into their inquiry.

5. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the maintenance budget for Plat Douet School:

Further to the report in the media on 20th October 2012 where a group of children were photographed near a gaping hole on decaying wooden decking at Plat Douet School, would the Minister advise what the maintenance budget is for this school, who is responsible for keeping the fabric of the school in good order and who inspects these structures?

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

I am delighted to answer a matter important to the Constable's heart. Jersey Property Holdings is responsible for maintaining the fabric of Plat Douet School and I am pleased to say has an allocated budget of £24,661 for 2012 for planned and routine maintenance. In the period since 2009, I can advise that Jersey Property Holdings has spent a total of £390,000 on all types of maintenance at this excellent school. In addition, the Education Department also holds a minor works budget that is used by the school for small-scale works and projects and in 2012, this budget was £22,745. I think the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) article was somewhat unfortunate as I am advised that the damage to the decking only recently happened and that the only area, as misreported by the J.E.P., was in fact the decking, not half the playground. The school had also not unfortunately contacted either Jersey Property Holdings or the Education Department over the matter. Had normal reporting processes been followed, this would have already been dealt with. The responsibility for the cost of the repair lies with the school, not with J.P.H. (Jersey Property Holdings) or the Education Department. Inspections are also carried out by both J.P.H. maintenance staff and by the school's caretaker. I can also advise that my Assistant Minister and I offered yesterday to go round and fix the hole if it had not already been dealt with.

1. The Connétable of St. John :

It would be interesting to see the Minister with a hammer and chisel in his hand. Given the Minister for Treasury and Resources sanctioned some months ago Jersey Telecom keeping certain fundings so as to invest in broadband, would it not have been better for that funding to go into the Exchequer so as to help fund all our existing infrastructure instead of adding more infrastructure to the Island's budget in the long term? Given that Telecom is wholly owned by the Island, and we are not maintaining our current budget - this proves it - as it should be, is he really happy that we have got this right?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

The Connétable requires the Minister to answer the questions and, of course, Property Holdings are ably dealt with by Assistant Minister so I had to do a lot of work yesterday to understand all these issues. I have to say that I am very impressed with what I learned yesterday about the repairs and maintenance budgets.   We can see here that  Plat Douet  School  has got  money  allocated for preventative maintenance and reactive maintenance. I very much regret that a J.E.P. story which was designed to achieve, I think, other things, where a group of schoolchildren were used to try and make a political point about repairs and maintenance which I am afraid does not exist. There are good budget arrangements for preventative maintenance, so I have offered the Connétable if he wants to come and join me and take a trial of an iPad, I want to see iPads in schools across the Island. That is the kind of forward-looking world that we should be looking at. It is not the case any longer - and we are going to be discussing this in the Medium-Term Financial Plan - that repairs and maintenance are not sufficiently funded. It is properly funded and I am afraid the Connétable should not be drawn into a frankly  J.E.P. improving circulation report in order to conclude that there is a problem with repairs and maintenance at Plat Douet School.

2. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

He has not been able to fix the "black hole" so I am not sure I have confidence that the Minister can even fix a hole in the floor. I was going to ask the Minister about this. I know journalism is a bit cynical but it does seem that this was a bit exploitative of children. I think he agrees with that so I probably have not really got a question as he has touched on it.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I do agree..

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, he did not ask a question. Deputy , this is question time.

Deputy T.M. Pitman.

Does the Minister think it was exploitative to have that story done in the way? Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I think the Deputy , as I indicated, makes an important point. The One Foundation who were doing some fantastic work in allocating £10,000 to Island schools - and I have a list of all the projects - they have been made not because there is a problem with the maintenance, because schools have had, like Helvetia House, Mont à l'Abbé School, St. Christopher's School, St. Clement 's School, St. Saviour 's School, a number of exciting additional projects to include in their facilities. The One Foundation are doing great work but  I think it is really unfortunate that schoolchildren  were photographed looking at a hole in decking which is a small hole that could have been replaced. It could have been dealt with straight away by the arrangements that have been put in place and this story gave the impression of a misleading problem at Plat Douet School. It also inaccurately reported that half the playground had been shut off. That is not the case.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I thank my friend, the Minister, for his answer.

3. Deputy M. Tadier :

What mechanisms does the Minister have for perhaps speaking to the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture to make sure that funds are used to fill these kinds of health hazards first before we go issuing hand-held devices to primary school kids when they could easily fall over in that hole and break their hand-held devices and that would be a terrible waste of money? I am sure the Minister would agree.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I agree but really there will be, of course, a problem from time to time in the fabric of a school and, as I have indicated, there are sufficient resources both at Property Holdings and the Education, Sport and Culture Department for the school to ring the helpline and a problem will be fixed straight away. On this occasion, it did not happen and that is a matter of regret. No doubt the schoolteacher was trying obviously to get that £10,000 allocation from the One Foundation and perhaps they wanted to make a point, so I am not criticising the school, but there certainly is not an issue about the repairs and maintenance arrangements for our schools which have now been significantly strengthened. I have been impressed to learn all that I have done so in the last 24 hours by Property Holdings and what they have been doing to keep the fabric of our schools which is generally excellent in a good state of repair.

4. Deputy M. Tadier :

Does the Minister agree that if this newspaper article was not about some hole in decking that the J.E.P., all of our media, could be full every day and every night with the results of the funding cuts? Because I have constituents in my district who have seen their social security cut for apparently no reason, who are so desperate - and this is right across the board in the States - and they do not see any action taken when reasonable requests are made to the point that where they say: "Should I go to the media about this? I think this is the only way." Does the Minister acknowledge that we have to have more joined-up Government, we have to target our funding more directly so that the public do not have to feel that the only option they have got is to blow the whistle in a very public way of what are shortcomings of this States Assembly?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

We are going to enter what I hope is going to be an excellent debate on the Medium-Term Financial Plan and we are going to be debating exactly how we should allocate resources over the next 3 years. This is not an example of a failure of a States department in terms of lack of funding. The Deputy raised a number of other important points and frankly if he is unhappy or was unhappy with the allocation of funding set out in the Medium-Term Financial Plan, then we should be debating amendments to that in order to effect to allocate where money where we are doing and the Medium-Term Financial Plan that we are going to go on to discuss is a plan about investment in public services.

5. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour :

As in Housing, is there a decent standard in which Jersey Property Holdings have to ensure that schools are at an appropriate level of building maintenance? If so, are we at the appropriate levels?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I think that is an excellent question and I have certainly, as I say, examined yesterday with my Assistant Minister and got information from officials at Education and Property Holdings about whether or not the budget was available. If we take this case study for Plat Douet School, I have already mentioned the numbers and I think that £390,000 for this school on improvements and maintenance is, in fact, a pretty good figure. It also should be said that now Property Holdings are getting much better value for money out of not only the money that they are deploying but also getting in effectively the revised procurement arrangements. So if this is a case study, then this is a good issue and I think we can say that our schools generally, having had tens of millions of investment in recent years, are in a good state of repair and where they are not, in terms of St. Martin 's school, for example, we are correcting it.

[10:15]

6. The Connétable of St. John :

I am pleased to hear that the Minister has been doing a lot of research in this area because he will have seen a letter that I wrote to the Education Department at the early part of my term of office, just under a year ago, about maintenance at St. John 's school which I had to draw to their attention that needed doing. Therefore, he will have seen that letter so this is another one, another school in another part of the Island that has not had the maintenance. Will the Minister agree that by having raised this, it has brought to the fore to the Minister exactly what goes on within his department and that if he brushes up by having questions like this on all the other areas of his responsibility, it may help him to know exactly what is going on out there in the Island?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am always happy. The area of Property Holdings has been deputed to Deputy Noel who is doing an excellent job in relation to this whole issue of reform in Property Holdings.  [Approbation] I do not know what the Connétable 's point is. We have investigated a problem of an unreported piece of plank on a piece of decking.

Minister, I do not think you need to repeat what you have already said. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I do not think there is a problem so he is trying to get me to conclude that there was a problem when effectively I think I have explained quite clearly that in this case, there was not. If he has got any other problems, then please go to the Assistant Minister because he certainly will solve it.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

A very brief point of clarification, has the hole been fixed or not? Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am advised that as of yesterday, because it had not been reported, it had not been but if it has not by lunchtime, then the Assistant Minister and I will go down with our hammers and solve it ourselves.

6. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding requirements for special entry visas in respect of foreign journalists or writers visiting Jersey:

Will the Minister advise whether foreign writers require a special visa to enter Jersey and write about what goes on in the Island and if so, under what piece of legislation is this administered? What was the role, if any, of his department in the exclusion of Leah McGrath Goodman from the United Kingdom on her way to Jersey?

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

Section 3A(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 as extended to Jersey by the Immigration (Jersey) Order 1973 allows the Lieutenant Governor - that is the office of the Lieutenant Governor - to impose conditions on those of non-European Economic Area nationality seeking to enter the Island. The Lieutenant Governor has issued directions that among other things set the categories and requirements applicable to persons seeking to come to Jersey to undertake work. There is a wide range of such categories and they include those applicable for working writers and journalists, some of whom would require entry clearance visas. The service has given advice to Ms. Goodman on 2 possible categories that she could apply for, either as a writer she could apply for a visa up to 2 years or as a journalist, that is normally a person who is employed by a newspaper or something of that nature, under the business visitor category. The service had no direct role in the entry refusal of Ms. Goodman at Heathrow Airport on 11th September 2011. Immigration decisions and actions were taken solely by officers of the U.K. (United Kingdom) Border Force. It is understood that the U.K. officers did refer to a report of a meeting that had been held between Ms. Goodman and officers of the Jersey Service in July 2011 which meeting had been arranged after she had sought advice on her immigration status. At that meeting, she was advised that the most appropriate immigration category for her to come to and work was as a writer in the Island. As a matter of routine, a record of the meeting was placed on a national immigration database was successful by immigration officers in the U.K. as well as Jersey and elsewhere. This was the only involvement of the Jersey Service in the immigration of Ms. Goodman.

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can I just clarify the position? The Minister is saying that his officers made no recommendations to the U.K. authorities to prevent Ms. Goodman from entering into the U.K. and therefore to Jersey. Is that correct?

Yes, that is indeed my understanding. What they did, because they had had contact with her and knew that she was thinking of coming, is they placed information to the effect that she might be seeking to come into the British Isles for this purpose but they had no direct contact on the day or round about the period when she was refused entry.

2. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Obviously I am in a bit of an advantage because I have seen the files. Can the Minister for Home Affairs tell us if it is normal to have highly respected best-selling authors and journalists monitored and indeed informed upon by 2 individuals?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I do not know anything about that whatsoever because I do not have the advantage of having seen the files.

3. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

With respect to the Minister for Home Affairs, we are talking about a highly respected international journalist, not a terrorist. Why would immigration or police be monitoring the lady in question and her partner and why would there be reports on her? She had not broken any law.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I do not know anything about that at all.

4. Deputy M. Tadier :

I think the Minister said that the service played no direct role in her being refused to come to Jersey and that they had no contact on the day that she was refused entry. Can the Minister confirm whether then the service did play an indirect role in her being banned from coming to Jersey and whether they had contact on previous days before she was refused entry to Jersey?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I thought I had given a detailed answer to that already which was to the effect that they did provide information on the system in relation to her but I have already dealt with that in great detail. It was that information to which the U.K. authorities had access. The trouble in relation to this case is that unfortunately the lady was not truthful with the U.K. authorities and that is what caused her the difficulties which she experienced.

5. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

It is unfortunate that the Minister is making allegations that somebody lied to the Immigration Service in the U.K. or in Jersey when she is not here to defend herself. Would the Minister consider taking that back?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No, I will not. I have said that on previous occasions. It happens to be the truth.

6. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Does the Minister not recognise that obviously there is concern about the fact that this journalist was excluded, especially when she was investigating the Haut de la Garenne affair and all sorts of, we could say, political and other shenanigans that have been going on? Does he not think that it has damaged the reputation of the Island internationally because certainly that is what is going out there in the international media?

The lady in question seems to have misunderstood what happened to her and why it happened to her. The department has tried very hard to explain to her what she needed to apply for and why and has had great difficulties in getting her to understand that. I accept that her account of versions, which has been relayed by some of the U.K. press inaccurately, may have done us some damage but that is unfortunate.

7. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement of the Chief Minister regarding software replacements in 2013:

Would the Chief Minister explain what software his department wishes to replace in 2013 at a cost of £663,000, how many PC's are involved and why H.R.I.S. (Human Resources Information Services) requires replacement after a relatively short time at a cost of £740,000?

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

Information Services are partway through a £1.4 million project to replace the existing ageing desktop software with Microsoft Windows 7 and Office 2010. The project will replace Windows XP, Office 2003 and 2007. This upgrade will, as well as being operationally necessary to ensure ongoing capability, also provide several benefits: improved security, improved performance for users, more efficient centralised support, rapid and efficient deployment of future upgrades and the potential to save costs on future desktop equipment requirements. This upgrade currently will be working across 3,800 workstations across all departments. With regard to the H.R.I.S. system which was implemented in November 2007 by Shared Services in Treasury and Resources and sought to consolidate H.R. (Human Resources) databases from the previous committee system, a subsequent independent review of H.R.I.S. took place in 2010 which determined that the current system design was inappropriate for the future needs of the States of Jersey given the developing vision for the reform of the workforce.

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Regarding the H.R.I.S., we are told on page 132 of the plan that we are about to debate, it is 5 years old and has not been fit for purpose during its lifetime. Could the Assistant Minister explain why it has not been fit for purpose and is there any comeback on the suppliers. In relation to the..

The Bailiff :

I think one question at a time if you would, Deputy , because otherwise it gets too complicated. Senator P.F. Routier:

I can only obviously endorse what is already written in the report that the Deputy comments on. It was unfortunately a system which is not fit for purpose and it is recognised there was a report done in 2010, which a couple of the conclusions from it was that the system is expensive to run for limited benefit received and leads to unnecessary time wastage. There are a number of deficiencies which could lead to erroneous decision making or lead to errors in salary calculations. H.R.I.S. is not tailored for multi-disciplinary organisations like the States and there are a long list of things which do identify that the system was not fit for purpose. With regard to any comebacks on who provided the system, unfortunately because it was a grouping together of all our existing systems and it was tailor-made for it, it is not really something that we can go back on. We just really need to go forward and scope for a new system which is in the plan for the future.

2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

It seems to me that this is the third expensive set of H.R. software that we have got. We had JD Edwards, we had H.R.I.S., now we are starting on another. Would the Minister find out and come back to the Assembly and tell us exactly how much money we appear to have wasted on systems that do not work?

Senator P.F. Routier:

Firstly, I should point out that the JD Edwards was not an H.R. system as such. It was more accounting processes across departments, but in saying that, the Senator is obviously making a valid question. There is a continual rolling budget for improvements to equipment across the States and we need to recognise that it is an expensive thing to be operating. It is recognised that our current system is not fit for purpose and we need to move forward.

The Bailiff :

The question was though, Minister, would you be willing to say the cost of these 2 items which are no longer fit for purpose? That was the question. Would you be willing to work out and tell people what the cost of these 2 systems that the Senator mentioned was?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I can certainly ask the department to look at what that cost is, but I think it will be extremely difficult, because what it was doing was bringing together various systems across various departments and I think to get that cost finalised might be tricky, but certainly we will do our best to provide that information.

3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

The Senator states that JD Edwards was not meant to be used for H.R. purposes. My Public Accounts Committee was looking at JD Edwards and it was one of the selling points of that particular system. Would the Senator kindly look that up and confirm my understanding of that? I am very disappointed that he says that it is going to be so difficult because, as we said last session, can we please have a little more of can do and not cannot do?

[10:30]

Would the Assistant Minister not agree that it is time for can do and not cannot do? Senator P.F. Routier:

I certainly agree that it is time for a can do attitude with regard to this and hopefully what we are moving forward with is a can do approach to ensuring that we do have a good system in place for H.R. to take that forward. The Senator does refer back to the JD Edwards and what the Public Accounts looked at in the past. The functionality for human resources in the JD Edwards was an add-on, which was not something that at the time was included in what the States department took into the system. It needs to be recognised that the move from having 24 pay groups and 6,500 staff spread across various departments was quite a big change to move to the H.R.I.S. system and unfortunately it has not, as I say again, proved to have been the right choice at that time. We are now in a position where we recognise that and we need to go forward and have a new system.

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

What evidence can the Minister produce to this House today to suggest that the next system will be any more fit for purpose than the last one?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I thank the Deputy for that question. Certainly when the funds are agreed - hopefully over the next couple of days - for providing a new system the scoping work will be carried out. I have a lot of

faith in the new team in the I.S. (Information Systems) Department and the H.R. Department and they were working to bring forward a new system. I can give an assurance they will give their best endeavours to ensure the new system is appropriate.

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :

An assurance then but no evidence today that a new system will be any better at doing its job than the last one, which appeared to be a total mess.

Senator P.F. Routier:

The scoping work will start as soon as we know that the money is available and as long as this House provides the funds for the work to be carried out it will be properly funded and properly managed.

6. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin :

The answers that the Assistant Chief Minister is giving us are not really satisfactory or pleasant listening this morning. Could I just ask him how long has this system not been fit for purpose and why has action not been taken sooner?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I can only agree with the Deputy that it is not very pleasant having to give these answers as well. It is having been made aware of the situation myself only in the last few weeks but the department a review was carried out in 2010 which identified that the system is not appropriate and fit for purpose. Obviously the process of bringing forward new plans and new budgeting is where we are today and hopefully we will be able to move forward.

7. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I have 2 parts of the question if you will allow it. Firstly, the H.R.I.S. system, with £750,000 to replace it, it is clearly an expense of the States. Can the Minister assure me that this has been looked at so that in the future similar mistakes will not be incurred? Secondly, regarding the operating systems, I presume that it was an upgrade from XP to Windows 7 and possibly Office needs upgrade as well. If it was only XP the sum of £663,000 would upgrade around 26,000 PCs. If we include Office suite, probably over 3,000 PCs. Can the Assistant Minister assure us his department is getting value for money because it does not seem like it?

Senator P.F. Routier:

Sorry, I have forgotten the thread of the first question now. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

The first part of the question, on the H.R.I.S. £750,000 was saved. Can the Assistant Minister assure us that we have learnt from this and similar mistakes will not reoccur?

Senator P.F. Routier:

Certainly, I think the officers in the departments are very aware that there have been some expensive mistakes made in the past with regard to this. We need to ensure that they are given support for taking forward the new system and we can give them as much encouragement and support to make sure that they scope the new system effectively. I can assure the Deputy and Members that we will be keeping a very close eye on the way it goes forward in the future. With regard to the upgrades: various departments have been on various systems, whether it has been XP or Windows of the various years. The value for money is something which we need to rely on in the department to ensure that they are getting value for money and I know that they are under a lot of pressure to ensure that is the case and we will be doing the best we can to ensure that we do get value for money.

8. Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the introduction of Liverpool care pathway by the End of Life Group:

Is the End of Life Group planning to introduce the Liverpool Care Pathway which is used at the bedside to drive up sustained quality of the dying in the last hours and days of life and, if so, why?

Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):

The Liverpool Care Pathway is already used within my department, Jersey Hospice Care, Family Nursing and Homecare and in nursing and residential homes across the Island. It is the recognised integrated model of best care and to support consistent patient centred symptom management during the final stages of life, which is considered to be the last 72 hours, whether they are dying at home, hospice or care homes and is promoted as such by N.I.C.E. (National Institute of Clinical Excellence), royal colleges and other palliative care organisations. Our doctors, nurses and care staff use the Liverpool Care Pathway as a guide to make professional judgments in partnership with our patients and their families and friends. They do so in order to help to ensure that Islanders at the end of their life can die with dignity and without unnecessary suffering. The dying process is unique to each person but in some cases a plan of care can be put into place to support patients, relatives, doctors and nurses to achieve the best quality of care at the end of life.

2.8.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Supplementary, Sir. Given the current unease and heated discussions within the medical profession regarding utilisation of this procedure and the unhappiness of some of the families to whom it has been applied, what checks and balances has the Minister got in place and will she come back to this Assembly and confirm them to us?

The Deputy of Trinity :

I can understand the concerns raised about the Liverpool Care Pathway in the U.K. but they relate not to the Pathway itself but how it may be applied in some circumstances. Particular cases considered it may have been used as a device to hasten death but these concerns may have arisen because staff have not been properly trained in how or when to apply the Liverpool Care Pathway and has been compounded by some disquiet about U.K. hospitals being paid to use that pathway. The situation here is very different. There is no suggestion that we are driven by targets, nobody is paying us to use the pathway and we have a strong focus on training. For the last 2 months Health and Social Services had in place a specialist Liverpool Care Pathway nurse funded by Macmillan who provides training across local palliative care settings.