States Meeting Transcript - 10th September 2013

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 10th SEPTEMBER

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ........................................ 9

1. The Bailiff : ................................................................................. 9
2. The Bailiff : ................................................................................. 9
3. The Bailiff : ................................................................................. 9

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS .......................... 10

2. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen : ............................................................ 10

2.1 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville : ......................................................... 10

PETITIONS......................................................................................... 10

3. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................. 10

QUESTIONS ........................................................................................ 11

4. Written questions .......................................................................... 11

1. SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING LEGISLATION FOR PROTOCOL 3 OF TREATY OF ACCESSION TO EU: ..... 11

2. SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING J.T. COMPLYING WITH CONDITIONS FOR LOAN FOR GIGABIT JERSEY FIBRE NETWORK: ......................................... 21
3. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING FUNDING FOR TESTING OF WATER SUPPLY: ................................................................................... 23
4. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING TOTAL COST OF LISTING PROPERTY ON RBSAAHI IN JERSEY: ................................................................... 23
5. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING PRESCRIBING BY CONSULTANTS OF ABIRATERONE: .......................................................................... 24
6. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE J.E.C. AND LAYING OF NEW LAND CABLES: .................................................................... 25

7. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF RAGWORT AND ACTION TAKEN TO REMOVE IT: .............................. 26
8. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING TRAFFIC DISRUPTION CAUSED BY ROADWORKS: .......................................... 27
9. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING LE SQUEZ HOUSING ESTATE DENSITY AND ROADS: .................................................................................... 28
10. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT NEAR LA ROUTE DU FORT: ...................................... 29

11. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING COST OF COSMETIC SURGERY: ........... 30
12. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING POLICY ON APPLICATIONS FOR INDEFINITE LEAVE TO REMAIN IN THE ISLAND:................................................ 32

13. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING POLICY FOR INVESTIGATING COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS: ........................................................ 33

14. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING INSTIGATION OF OPERATION INVICTA: ............ 35
15. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE POLICE IN LAST 3 YEARS: ....................................................................... 37

16. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING P.E.C.R.S. CONTRIBUTIONS AND LEAVING BEFORE RETIREMENT AGE: ..................................................................... 38
17. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY OF ACTING IN PLACE OF THE SUPERIOR NUMBER: .................................................................................. 40
18. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PROGRESS ON REPLACEMENT CHAIRMAN OF HISTORIC ABUSE INQUIRY: 41
19. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY................................................................................. 41

REGARDING PROPOSALS REGARDING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC LEAVING

EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT GOOD REASON: ....................................... 42

20. SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING FUNDING STREAM FOR ESPLANADE DEVELOPMENT:......................................................................... 43

21. SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING NUMBER OF TEMPORARY CONSULTANTS: ....... 43
22. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING DEFINITION OF AGGRESSIVE TAX AVOIDANCE: .............. 44
23. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING USE OF NET IMMIGRATION AND PROPOSALS FOR LONG TERM CARE: ..................................................................... 45

24. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PROGRESS ON JERSEY VERSION OF T.U.P.E. REGULATIONS: 45

5. Oral Questions ............................................................................. 46

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding an update of an incident involving the prank discharge of a starting pistol in a school gym: ............................................................................... 46 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. John (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture): ............ 46

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 46
2. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 47

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the possible conflict of interest of the newly appointed Chairman of the Police Authority: . 48 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................. 48

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ................................................................ 48
2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier : ...................................................... 48
3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 49
4. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 49
5. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 49
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ................................................................ 50

3. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding discussions with the Channel Islands Co-operative Society regarding the planning application for Pitt Street/Dumaresq Street: .............................................. 50 Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour (The Minister for Planning and Environment): ......... 50

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton: ....................................................................... 50
2. Deputy J.A. Hilton: ....................................................................... 51
3. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : ....................................................... 51
4. Deputy J.A. Hilton: ....................................................................... 51

4. Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding Tax Information Exchange Agreement requests from the French tax authorities: ......................... 51 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ............................ 52

1. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 52
2. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : .......................................................... 52
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 53
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 53
5. Connétable of St. John : ................................................................... 54

6. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour: ...................................................... 54
7. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 54

5. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding the number of Household Medical Accounts in the Income Support System: .......................... 55 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): .............................. 55

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 56
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ................................................................ 56
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ................................................................ 57
4. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier : ......................................................... 57
5. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 57
6. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 57
7. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 58
8. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 58
9. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 58

6. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier of the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding a review of the Carswell Report recommendations: .. 59 Deputy J.M. Maçon (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ...................... 59

1. The Connétable of St. Helier : ............................................................ 59
2. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 59
3. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 60
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ................................................................ 60
5. The Connétable of St. Helier : ............................................................ 60

7. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding works undertaken at Snow Hill car park: ............................ 60 Deputy K.C. Lewis (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): .................... 61

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ................................................................. 61
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ................................................................ 61
3. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John : ...................................................... 61
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ................................................................. 62

8. Deputy J.H. Young of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding delays in signing a Planning Obligation agreement associated with the development at Plémont Holiday Village: .......................................................................... 62 Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour (The Minister for Planning and Environment): ......... 62

1. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 63
2. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 63

9. The Connétable of St. John of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the prescription of the drug Cabazitaxel in recent months: .................................. 63 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services): ................. 63

1. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 64
2. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 64

10. Deputy J.H. Young of the Minister for Housing regarding the local need for sheltered housing: ................................................................................... 64 Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier (The Minister for Housing): ............................... 64

1. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................... 65
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .............................................................. 65
3. The Deputy of Grouville : .............................................................. 65
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................ 65
5. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................ 66
6. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................... 66

11. Deputy J.A. Hilton of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding discussions with clinicians from the hospital and medical community on the continuing use of the Liverpool Care Pathway: ................................................................. 66 The Deputy of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services): ........................ 66

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton: .................................................................... 66
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................ 67
3. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ...................................... 67
4. Deputy J.A. Hilton: .................................................................... 67

12. Deputy T.M. Pitman of The Chief Minister regarding the intervention of the UK Justice Minister regarding Jersey's placement on the French tax black list': ................... 68 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):........................................................ 68

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman: .................................................................. 68
2. Deputy J.A. Hilton: .................................................................... 68
3. Senator L.J. Farnham : ................................................................. 69
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................ 69
5. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 69
6. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 69
7. Deputy T.M. Pitman: .................................................................. 70
8. Deputy T.M. Pitman: .................................................................. 70

13. The Connétable of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the distribution of this year's telephone directory by J.T. (Jersey Telecom): ................ 70 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resource):.............................. 71

1. The Connétable of St. Helier : .......................................................... 71
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: .............................................................. 71
3. The Connétable of St. Helier : .......................................................... 71

14. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding statutory maternity leave provisions: .......................................................................... 72 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): .............................. 72

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................ 72
2. Deputy J.A. Hilton: .................................................................... 73
3. Deputy J.A. Hilton: .................................................................... 73
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................ 73
5. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................ 73

15. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the resurfacing of Rue à Don: ............................................................ 74 Deputy K.C. Lewis (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): .................... 74

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: .............................................................. 74
2. The Deputy of Grouville : .............................................................. 74
3. The Connétable of St. John : ........................................................... 74
4. The Deputy of Grouville : .............................................................. 75
5. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: .............................................................. 75

16. The Deputy of Grouville : ................................................................. 75 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): .............................. 75
    17. Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding sites for a possible rebuild of Les Quennevais School: .............................................. 76 The Deputy of St. John (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture): ..................... 76

1. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 76
2. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................... 76
3. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................... 77
4. Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade : ............................................... 77

5. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 77
6. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 77

6. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Social Security ............. 78

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 78 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): .............................. 79

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 79
   2. Deputy J.A. Hilton: ....................................................................... 79

6.2.1 Deputy J.A. Hilton: ....................................................................... 79

3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ................................................................ 80

6.3.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ................................................................ 80

4. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 80

6.4.1 Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 81

5. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 81
6. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 81

6.6.1 The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 82

7. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 82

6.7.1 Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 82

7. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister ............................ 83

1. Deputy T. M. Pitman: .................................................................... 83 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):........................................................ 83

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 83
2. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 83

2. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 83
3. Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement : ........................................................ 84
4. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 84

7.4.1 Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 84

5. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 85

7.5.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 85

6. Deputy J.M. Maçon: ...................................................................... 85

7.6.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon: ...................................................................... 86

7. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 86

7.7.1 Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 87

PUBLIC BUSINESS ................................................................................ 87

8. Discussion on Additional Matters ........................................................ 87

1. Planning Appeals Revised System (P.87/2013) amendment. ............................ 87

1. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................... 88
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 88
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 89
4. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 89

2. Organ Donors' Register (P.89/2013) ..................................................... 90

8.2.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ................................................................ 90

3. Composition and election of the States Assembly: reform – proposal 2 (P.94/2013) – amendment ................................................................................ 91

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ..................................................................... 91
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : .................................................................... 91

5. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 92

6. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 92
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : .................................................................... 92

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 93 The Bailiff : ...................................................................................... 93

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 93 PUBLIC BUSINESS - RESUMPTION ........................................................... 93

9. Draft States of Jersey (Minister for External Relations) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.67/2013) .................................................................................. 93

9.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister): .................................................. 93

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 95
2. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 96
3. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 97
4. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:...................................................... 98
5. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 98
6. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 99
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ................................................................... 100
8. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter : ................................................... 102
9. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................. 103
10. Deputy T.M. Pitman: ................................................................. 103
11. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................ 105
12. Deputy M. Tadier : .................................................................... 105
13. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ................................................ 106
14. Deputy J.M. Le Bailly of St. Mary :.................................................. 106
15. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ............................................................ 107
16. Senator I.J. Gorst : .................................................................... 107

10. Draft Loi (201) (Amendement) sur la Voirie (P.70/2013) .............................. 113

10.1 Connétable J.S. Gallichan of Trinity (Chairman, Comité des Connétable s): ........... 114

1. Senator A. Breckon: .................................................................. 115
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................ 115
3. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................. 115
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ............................................................ 115
5. The Connétable of Trinity : ........................................................... 115

11. Draft Public Finances (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.73/2013)........... 117

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ................................................................... 117
   2. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ............................................................... 118
   3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier ............................................................ 120
   4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ............................................................ 120
   5. The Deputy of St. Ouen : ............................................................. 121
   6. The Connétable of St. John : .......................................................... 122

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ................................................................... 125

1. Senator L.J. Farnham : ................................................................ 125
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen : ............................................................. 125
3. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ............................................................ 126
4. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................. 126

3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ................................................................... 128

1. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................. 130
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ................................................................. 131
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ............................................................... 132
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................ 132
5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ............................................................ 132

11.3.5 Senator B. I. Le Marquand: .......................................................... 133

ADJOURNMENT ................................................................................. 134

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER

1. The Bailiff :

Now we are in a position to decide on Deputy Higgins. I apologise for the slip-up earlier, so all those in favour of marking him excused, kindly show; those against. I think the majority is with marking you excused.

2. The Bailiff :

May I welcome Members back to the Assembly after the summer recess. I hope that everyone is suitably refreshed and ready for what is to come, and that welcome of course extends particularly to His Excellency. [Approbation]

3. The Bailiff :

But Members will of course be only too well aware that since our last sitting in July, we have lost one of our Members. I refer of course to the Connétable of Grouville , Mr. Dan Murphy. Although he had been absent from the sittings of the Assembly for a while because of illness, I think it came as a considerable shock to all of us when he passed away on 25th July. Dan Murphy was born in Jersey on the first day of the Occupation and the midwife was apparently so concerned that he might be registered as a German national that she bicycled into town from La Rocque in order to register his birth immediately. In due course after leaving school, he followed a career in banking and then as a financial consultant. He was elected as Connétable of Grouville in 2003, following the retirement through ill-health of Mr. Frank Amy, and he clearly had the confidence of his parish, because he was re-elected as Connétable 3 times thereafter. He loved his parish and worked hard in its service. He was very proud of the parish in Bloom achievements, particularly in 2007 when the parish won national awards. He was also a strong supporter of the twinning arrangements with Portbail, and the respect in which he was held is shown by the fact that the Mayor of that town and several of his officials travelled all the way to Jersey in order to attend the Connétable 's funeral. His interests of course extended far beyond his parish. In the States, he made good use of his financial expertise. He sat on the Public Accounts Committee for some 3 years and on the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel for some 7 and a half years up until his death. He also chaired the Tidal Power Steering Group, which reported in 2008. He was a strong advocate of the possibilities of tidal power and I have no doubt that his report will assist in due course in moving forward on issues of renewable energy. In 2012 he was elected to represent the States in the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, having been an associate member since 2006, and he represented the Island at a number of conferences. It is clear that he impressed his colleagues in the Parliamentary Assembly and did Jersey proud. Following his death, I received a letter from the British Co-Chair of the British-Irish Assembly stating how he was, and I quote: "A valued Member of the Assembly" and how they would miss his contributions to their debates and activities. In the States, he was not one who spoke unnecessarily often, but when he did speak, he was capable of doing so in a very passionate and persuasive manner, and I am sure Members will recall the very moving and eloquent address which he gave on the occasion of Liberation Day back in 2012 last year. Very often former Members who die have been retired from the States for many years and have not therefore overlapped with current Members. That of course is not the case here, as we have lost one of our current Members. Everyone will have their own recollections of him as a friend and as a colleague, but I am sure we would all agree that we have lost a respected Member of the Assembly who served his parish and his Island with devotion and with distinction. The respect and affection in which he was held by so many was shown by the packed church at his funeral. So on behalf of Members I express our condolences to his wife, Dawn, his daughter, Cara, and I ask

Members to rise with me for a few moments in his memory. [Silence] That completes matters under A.

[09:45]

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS The Bailiff :

We come next to F, Appointment of Ministers, Committees and Panels and in particular of the appointment of Members to the Jersey Police Authority. The Greffier has kindly produced an explanatory note which should be attached to the Order Paper which explains that the States need to appoint 2 members of this authority and the Minister for Home Affairs has apparently written to States Members, so nominations are invited from the floor.

The Bailiff :

I invite nominations.

2 Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen :

Yes, Sir. It gives me great pleasure to propose Senator Ferguson. The Bailiff :

Is that nominated seconded? [Seconded] Any other nominations?

2.1   Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :

Yes, Sir. I would like to propose Deputy of Martin of St. Helier . The Bailiff :

Deputy Martin, yes. Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Any other nominations? Very well. As there are 2 vacancies to fill, I declare that Senator Ferguson and Deputy Martin are to be the States representatives on the authority. [Approbation]

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Could I just briefly rise to congratulate them both and to wish them all the very best in their new role and to look forward to working with them in that new role.

PETITIONS

The Bailiff :

Very well. No matters, so on to H, Petitions. Deputy Le Fondré, I believe you have a petition. 3 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence :

Yes, Sir. Thank you. Very briefly, I am honoured to have been asked to present this petition on behalf of the Jersey Mutual Insurance Society, which is asking the States to agree to make changes to the fundamental rules of the society, and I speak, Sir, as not only a Member but someone who is extensively involved in the past in their accounts and their audit. The fundamental rules are set out in legislation and changes to that legislation have always been made in the past following a petition to the States, although these changes now do update that position in a number of instances. As Members will have seen, I have also lodged a proposition, as required by Standing Orders, as I understand it, asking the States to grant the petition. Standing Orders provide that the petition must be referred to the relevant Minister for a report and I am advised by the Greffier that that is now the Chief Minister who has responsibility for such matters, and accordingly, I therefore ask that the

petition and associated proposition be referred to the Chief Minister and trust that can be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

The Bailiff :

Very well, then the petition is lodged and will be referred to the Chief Minister. Thank you, Deputy .

QUESTIONS

4 Written questions

1. SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING LEGISLATION FOR PROTOCOL 3 OF TREATY OF ACCESSION TO EU: Question

Following the agreement of Protocol 3 of the Treaty of Accession to the European Economic Community (EEC), how much of the associated subsequently legislation brought to the Assembly was required under EU Directives, what was required as a result of our relationship with the UK and what was independent of both the EU and the UK?

Furthermore, how much of the EU derived legislation enacted in Jersey originated from the United Nations?

Answer

Jersey is not a member of the European Union (EU') but some legislation will apply to the Island insofar that it is binding under Protocol 3 to the United Kingdom Treaty of Accession to the European Economic Community. Broadly, Protocol 3 relates to the free movement of goods by virtue of Jersey and the other Crown Dependencies being part of the customs territory of the EU. The common customs tariff, levies and agricultural import measures thus apply to trade between the Islands and non-EU third countries. However, in short, other EU legislation which does not concern free trade in goods, customs measures and quantitative restrictions (or equivalent measure thereto) does not generally apply.

The European Communities (Jersey) Law 1973 (the 1973 Law') gives effect in Jersey to European instruments that are, by virtue of Protocol 3, of direct application. A list of instruments noted as amending the 1973 Law are included at annex A. A summary of legislation where European Communities Directives and Regulations are noted as having been enacted is provided at annex B.

The European Communities (Implementation) (Jersey) Law 1996 (the 1996 Law') provides the enabling power to create offences that make enforcement of that legislation possible. A list of instruments which are noted as having been implemented under the 1996 Law is included at annex C.

For all those purposes where Jersey is considered outside of the EU, however, the Island may choose to voluntarily adopt EU legislation or implement domestic legislation that is similar or equivalent in order to facilitate economic relations and meet relevant EU standards as a means of good practice and international recognition. The 1996 Law also enables the States to give effect by Regulation to such legislation.

A list of United Kingdom Acts extended to Jersey by Order in Council is also included at annex D.

In respect of EU legislation enacted in Jersey which originates from the United Nations (UN'), it should be noted that most EU Restrictive Measures' are made for the purpose of implementing UN sanction measures.

Annex A: Legislation noted as amending the European Communities (Jersey) Law 1973

Annex B: Legislation noted as implementing instruments of the European Communities

Annex  C:  Legislation  noted  as  being  enacted  under  the  European  Communities  Legislation (Implementation) (Jersey) Law 1996

Annex D: UK Acts extended to Jersey by Order in Council  

Weights and Measures (Jersey) Order 1969

2. SENATOR S.C.  FERGUSON  OF THE  MINISTER  FOR  TREASURY  AND RESOURCES REGARDING J.T. COMPLYING WITH CONDITIONS FOR LOAN FOR GIGABIT JERSEY FIBRE NETWORK:

Question

What procedures, if any, are in place to ensure that J.T. are complying with the conditions specified by the Minister for Treasury and Resources when making the £19 million loan for the Gigabit Jersey fibre network?

Answer

Prior to answering this question, for clarity, it should be noted that a there is no £19m loan to JT but rather a £10m Infrastructure Investment from the Currency Fund and an agreement to a reduced dividend from JT of £9m split across a three year period.

When agreeing to provide financial support for Gigabit Jersey (Decision Reference: MD-TR-2011-0139[1]) the Minister for Treasury & Resources clearly laid out eight conditions that had to be complied with when it approved funding and it is an obligation on JT to ensure full compliance with these conditions.

The eight conditions, as contained in the Ministerial Decision, were as follows:

• JT to submit a revised Business Plan to Treasury by 31.3.2012 in order to order to monitor the Gigabit latest project costs. It should reflect all anticipated cost savings and revised pricing and should not be prepared on a conservative basis.
• JT to agree to co-operate with the JCRA to ensure the fibre network is accessible to other operators on a fair, equivalent and auditable basis.
• JT to provide quarterly valuations for the draw downs and confirm that the £19 million capital provided will only be used for the purpose of the Gigabit project.
• JT to agree to work with Economic Development Department on Digital Jersey to maximise the economic benefit to Jersey.
• JT to review the Business Plan with its shareholder (100% owned - States of Jersey) twice a year, at or near to the time of the AGM and the presentation of the half year financial results.
• JT to agree to not change its basis for depreciating the capitalised asset unless it receives such a recommendation from its auditors and after having informed the Minister of such a recommendation.
• JT to agree to establish a number of apprenticeships, bursaries and job placements for under 24 year olds in support of the States' objective to get local people into work.
• JT to notify the Minister of any significant changes to the Business Plan.

The eight obligations can broadly be split into two categories: 1) five conditions relating to submissions and meetings with the Treasury to monitor performance and delivery of the business plan; and 2) three conditions not purely related to the Treasury role as shareholder but instead focussed on ensuring that the opportunity to the Island from investing in Gigabit was exploited to the greatest extent possible.

Of the first category, there are quarterly reports submitted to the Treasury and a more full assessment and discussion of performance and business plan at the mid-year and annual general meetings.

Of the second category, these are items on which JT is continually working and include the likes of engagement with the JCRA to ensure that the network is accessible to other operators and assisting Digital Jersey as it works to maximise economic benefit to Jersey.

The Treasury has been advised that good progress has been made in resolving the initial rollout difficulties. The Treasury is now satisfied with the performance of JT and continues to work closely with the company to ensure this continues to be the case, particularly as account is taken of changes of the challenges and opportunities that arise during the course of the rollout.

3. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING FUNDING FOR TESTING OF WATER SUPPLY:

Question

Given the Island does not have a potable water supply that can be accessed by all, will the Minister provide funding for those households whose water supply needs regular testing for bacteria, trace elements and where ground water is found to be contaminated and, if not, would she explain why?

Answer

The provision of drinking water is not the responsibility of the Health and Social Services Department, and the department does not meet the costs of testing water for people who are not on mains water supply.

The property owner is responsible for arranging for tests on their own supplies of potable* water. These are carried out by the States Analyst. Where adverse results are found the supply users are referred to the Public Health Department where advice is available on remedying.

If a tenanted property has an unwholesome supply, the Public Health department will ensure that necessary measures are taken to remedy the situation. Where ground water is contaminated and the water system is temporarily unable to cope, a temporary supply from bottled water or a bowser is recommended.

Where gross contamination has occurred, arrangements for both temporary and long-term measures have been arranged at the polluter's expense. The cost of regular testing of a borehole supply is offset by the non payment of water rates, and should be a part of routine maintenance.

* Potable water refers to drinking water.

4. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING TOTAL COST OF LISTING PROPERTY ON RBSAAHI IN JERSEY:

Question

Would the Minister give the total cost associated with the listing of property on the Register for Buildings and Sites of Architectural, Archaeological and Historical Importance in Jersey across all Parishes (for example Boundary Stones, Culverts, Monuments, war memorials, cemeteries, Don de Gruchy land and Parish properties) as it would appear that this requires considerable manpower resources to progress?

Answer

Under the terms of the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe (the Granada Convention), the provisions of which were extended to Jersey in 1988, there is an obligation to maintain an inventory of the Island's architectural heritage in order that it might be statutorily protected.

This is enabled by the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 which states that the Minister shall include on a List those buildings and places of special architectural, historical and archaeological interest. On this basis, the addition of structures of unique historical interest to this List is an entirely appropriate use of the Department of the Environment's resources in fulfilling the Island's obligation and satisfying the Minister's responsibilities under law.

A review of the entire historic environment protection regime was commenced under the former Minister's administration. This was to involve a comprehensive resurvey and review of the designation of all of the Island's existing and potential heritage assets.

Phase 1 of the historic environment resurvey involved a resurvey of all existing heritage assets involving some 3,500 buildings which was completed between 2010 and 2012. Phase 2 of the resurvey, which focussed on the surveying of potential heritage assets that had not been previously assessed, was undertaken during 2012. It has been extended, in 2013, to include a review of the Island's historic post boxes, following proposals by Jersey Post to remove a significant proportion of these roadside features.

The resurvey work has been undertaken over four financial years, with Phase 1 costing approximately £180,000 and Phase 2 costing approximately £50,000. These costs have been met from within existing Department of the Environment resources that would otherwise be spent on grant assistance and/or consultant support for activities across the Policy, Projects and Historic Environment portfolio.

The identification, review and assessment of heritage assets is an integral and key element of a service level agreement between the Department of the Environment and the Jersey Heritage Trust. The value of the service level agreement, for 2013, which is published in full on the websites of both the States of Jersey and Jersey Heritage, is £69,000. Provision for this amount is budgeted for from within the Department of the Environment budget.

In addition to the specific costs involved in the identification, survey and assessment of heritage assets, the Department of the Environment is required, by law, to follow a prescribed process for the designation of heritage assets. This requires administration and management: the department has procured some temporary support in 2012 to assist with this work at a cost of approximately £27,000.

Management time spent on this project is dependent upon the level of representation made in respect of proposals to List buildings and places as this will necessarily involve the consideration of representations. The costs of this are, therefore, variable, but are met from within existing resources. An estimate of the cost of management time for the Historic Environment Review currently would be approximately £30,000 per annum.

5. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING PRESCRIBING BY CONSULTANTS OF ABIRATERONE:

Question

Can the Minister give the number of occasions over the last 24 months that recommendations from urology consultants have prescribed the drug Abiraterone to patients and how many times it has been prescribed by oncologists to patients with prostate cancer, giving details of numbers approved and those declined, and of those declined the reason for so doing, and whether the patients' general practitioners were consulted in reaching the decision, and if not why not?

Answer

Abiraterone was first licensed in September 2011 and was prescribed for the first patient in Jersey in January 2012 and has been routinely available for consultants to prescribe to patients with prostate cancer since June 2012. It would not be appropriate to disclose the precise number as, being so small, this would risk identifying the individuals concerned.

Prior to June 2012 there were individual requests from consultants to prescribe for small number of patients. all of which were approved.

No patient has been declined treatment with abiraterone.

In Jersey, abiraterone is not prescribed by urology consultants as all prescriptions are issue by oncology consultants.

The decision to make abiraterone routinely available followed publication of National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance in June 2012, which recommended that abiraterone, within its licensed indication, was a cost-effective use of health service resources. This decision was taken by the Health and Social Services Department Drugs and Therapeutics Committee.

GPs are kept informed by the cancer specialists regarding treatment choices for their patients but they are not routinely involved in the decision as to which drug treatment should be used as they are not specialists in this area of medicine.

6. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE J.E.C. AND LAYING OF NEW LAND CABLES:

Question

Given that the J.E.C. (Jersey Electricity Company Limited) laid a new cable from the east of the Island as part of the French link just a decade or so ago and such cables are not only less liable to damage than their under-sea counterparts but also have an expected lifespan of fifty or more years, how does the Minister, as the shareholder representative, justify the disruption and expense involved in the laying of a new land cable?

Does the present cable have insufficient capacity and, if so, was this a lack of judgement by the J.E.C.?

Would the Minister further advise of the cost of the new cable and whether the laying includes any telecommunication element and, if so, give assurances that electricity customers will not be subsidising that element?

Answer

The new cable is being laid to provide considerably improved resilience and diversity to the operation and fault management of the overall network.

The present cable does has sufficient capacity, but the new cable is being laid to increase resilience and is required to connect the new submarine cable between Jersey and France, which is now even more essential following the permanent failure in 2012 of the original submarine cable installed in 1984. This new cable has been in planning for eight years and is part of a long-term strategy and network design.

The cost of the new land cable is about £5 million which forms part of the overall £70 million submarine cable project.

The circuit does contain a telecom cable, which is required for the control and management of the power cable and its connecting network. Customers are not providing a subsidy element towards the telecoms cable in this project.

7. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF RAGWORT AND ACTION TAKEN TO REMOVE IT:

Question

Would the Minister –

1. inform members whether his Department is aware of many examples of Ragwort currently exist in the Island (some on States owned land) and, if so give details; and,
2. given that Ragwort and 4 other weeds are defined as injurious weeds' under the Weed (Jersey) Law 1961 and that the Minister can, if deemed appropriate, serve a notice on a landowner requiring the removal of such weeds, would he advise whether his Department is taking action against landowners in this regard and, if not, whether the Weeds (Jersey) Law 1961 is being upheld?

Answer

1. The Department of the Environment maintains a database of areas that have been infected with Ragwort. This enables officers to monitor the sites and advise landowners on future control to prevent the weed's spread. Ragwort occurs mainly within St Ouen's Bay, and along the north and south-west coast.

The Department are responsible for over 3000 vergées of public land. Some of this land around Les Mielles, Les Blanches Banques in St Ouen's Bay, Noirmont, Gorselands and the North Coast provides ideal conditions for Ragwort.

The Department is committed to reducing the growth of Ragwort on its own land by using a variety of control measures. These include pulling, cutting, grazing and spraying herbicide. To do this work in a cost effective manner, the Department uses TTS tractors, the TTS Ranger Team and the Probation Service. This year, over 700 man hours were used in the control of Ragwort on States land.

This year, the Department used herbicides (mainly through spot treatment) to control the Ragwort in St Ouen's Bay. This has been effective in greatly reduced flowering and seed dispersal. Some of the weed has already died off and spraying with herbicide will be repeated next year until the amount of Ragwort has been brought under control.

Ragwort remains an important species that is of benefit to the broader environmental. Thus the objective is to reach manageable levels rather than total eradication.

2. The Department is committed to upholding the Weeds (Jersey) Law 1961 and has produced a weeds policy to ensure maximum effect given the reduced Departmental resource.

The Weeds (Jersey) Law 1961 is designed to prevent the spread of listed injurious weeds'. These include Curled Dock, Broad–leaved Dock, Spear Thistle, Creeping or Field Thistle and Ragwort. The Law allows the Minister to take action to prevent the spread of these weeds.

The Department responds to all complaints of injurious weeds. Officers will conduct a site visit and, depending on the severity and location of the infestation, enforcement action will be taken. This action will either be advisory or by the issuing of an enforcement notice. Notwithstanding, any complaint of any injurious weed on grazing land and land adjacent to grazing land will automatically be actioned.

Following all site visits, an advisory leaflet recommending best control methods, including techniques available for organic land, is sent to all landowners.

The Department receives an average of 25 complaints each year, of which around 19 are dealt with through enforcement action.

8. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING TRAFFIC DISRUPTION CAUSED BY ROADWORKS:

Question

Given the amount of traffic disruption caused by roadworks in recent months, would the Minister provide a list of those roads either closed or subject to traffic flow restriction as a result of roadworks so far this year, together with a brief description of the reason (e.g. J.E.C. cable laying)?

Answer

Unfortunately the Department is unable to provide the Deputy with an exhaustive list of the individual streetworks' that have taken place in 2013 on TTS administered main roads, due to the large numbers involved. However, we are able to give the Deputy an accurate summation of the number and type of activities taking place.

So far in 2013 there have been 1668 separate streetwork activities in the Island of which 1113 (67%) were on main roads (which make up 37% of the road network by length). There are approximately 2500 streetwork activities per year in the Island ranging from very significant projects that require many months of TTS planning involvement to those that can be evaluated and approved in a short period. There are also emergency works when the Department receives no notice but which require reactive involvement.

Of the streetwork activities approved by TTS this year 72% where carried out during non-peak times' (i.e. before 7am, between 9am and 4pm or 2.30pm on school routes, or after 6pm), significantly reducing their impact on the travelling public. Only when there is absolutely no alternative or the impact can be show to be limited does TTS permit streetworks during peak time hours. Approximately 8% of streetworks on main roads involve a road closure.

The type of streetworks occurring in 2013 on main roads can be broken down as follows:

On-going streetwork projects of strategic importance to the Island include:

• TTS Highway Section's resurfacing and upgrade of its Class 1 & 2' road network (incl. Gloucester St, La Rue a Don).
• TTS Drainage Section's surface water separation works (e.g. Philip St Shaft).
• Jersey Electricity's new land side 90KV Circuit (The Normandie 3 Interconnector') from Grouville Bay to South Hill.
• Jersey Telecom's Island wide fibre optic network roll out (The Gigabit Isles project').

To ensure that these, and the many other smaller projects, can be delivered (alongside an increasing number of road based events) requires TTS to co-ordinate and programme in such a way as to utilise the full calendar year. Notwithstanding this TTS does (at both a policy and practical level) attempt to protect the needs of seasonal business, but in so doing it must also take into account road network constraints, such as making use of the school holidays to carry out high impact works on major school travel routes, for example the resurfacing of Gloucester Street.

Note: Further information about historic and upcoming streetworks can be found on TTS' recently launched Traffic Information' web pages:

http://www.gov.je/Travel/Roads/Pages/ClosuresDelays.aspx

9. DEPUTY G.C.L.  BAUDAINS  OF  ST.  CLEMENT  OF  THE  MINISTER  FOR HOUSING REGARDING LE SQUEZ HOUSING ESTATE DENSITY AND ROADS: Question

Given that during the debate on the reinstatement of the No 18 bus on 20th March 2013, the Minister intimated that it would cost over £1 million' to re-open the road through Le Marais to run the No 18 bus through the estate and that on the understanding that the road was not required, the Department had made other plans', would the Minister explain why the last Planning Application for Le Squez Estate was in 2011 and, according to the Minister's answer to question 7552 on 16th April 2013, the cost of Estate modifications to date was £14,574.43?

Would the Minister also confirm that the density of Le Squez has risen from 42 dwellings per hectare to 53 and, if so, provide details of the consultation surrounding these changes?

Answer

In my response to Deputy Baudains' question 7552 on the 16th April 2013, I listed changes which had been made to the Master Plan and set out the cost incurred in making modifications to the plans. Those costs were related primarily to the Architects time and expenses and not actual building costs. The estimated cost of £1m for the reinstatement of the bus route was simply an estimate of the combined cost of further redesign, constructing the road and the lost development value which would result from having to reduce the number of homes to accommodate it.

The Master Plan is a framework document within which each separate phase of the Le Squez project is detailed, with each being subject to separate application for planning approval. Each phase therefore is subject to the normal planning consultation process. The Master Plan itself is not the subject of a specific application for planning permission; however, it is an important document for setting the context of each phase and for overall cohesion and as such will be available during the consultation on each development phase.

In respect of density the current Master Plan indicates a potential density of 53 dph. However, achieving that level of density is contingent on the submission and approval of the necessary planning applications. In that regard I expect the planning application for Phase 3 of the scheme to be submitted by the end of this year.

10. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT NEAR LA ROUTE DU FORT:

Question

With regard to the Minister's decision to prevent vehicles turning left into St. Clement 's Road from La Route du Fort, would he confirm that this was at the request of St. Luke's school and will he agree that as traffic will now use alternative routes such as Dicq Road, Elizabeth Street and Beach Road (all of which pass much closer to the school) the end result achieves nothing?

Did the Minister not consider a better option would have been to ask the children to use Dunnell Road and, if necessary, supply a pedestrian crossing there?

Would the Minister further confirm that his officers conducted a traffic count at this junction and could he advise whether this was undertaken in term-time and whether the number of children (and their approximate ages) was counted at the same time and, if not, why not?

Finally, would the Minister be willing to provide a breakdown of how many children normally use the Route du Fort junction, compared with those who use Dicq Road and Beach Road, and advise whether or not they are accompanied by adults?

Answer

St Luke's School recently prepared a school travel plan and one of the issues that was raised by the pupils was the difficulty in crossing St Clement Road, south of Route du Fort. School travel plans are something we promote to encourage active travel for young people and form part of the Sustainable Transport Policy approved by the States in December 2010. Chapter 5 of that document also states that improved pedestrian facilities should be provided in the town area.

In response to the issue, the highways and traffic engineers in Transport and Technical Services investigated the various alternatives (including Dunnell Road). The option of providing a pedestrian stage across the southern leg of the junction was the option recommended to me as being the most appropriate means by which improved facilities could be provided in the area. The left turn from Route du Fort into St Clement Rd has been prohibited to facilitate the pedestrian crossing on the southern leg, without reducing the overall capacity of the junction. The number of vehicles previously turning left was very low (approx. 8 per hour) and therefore the increase in traffic movements on the 5 alternative roads will be negligible.

Traffic surveys, including pedestrian counts, were carried out as part of the investigatory work undertaken by my officers. It was not considered appropriate, necessary, or practicable, to record the ages of pedestrians using the junction. All volume surveys carried out for the purposes of permanent changes to the road network are carried out in term time.

The Department is unable to provide the information requested in the last question, but can provide a spread sheet of all pedestrians surveyed using the junction if required.

11. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING COST OF COSMETIC SURGERY:

Question

Over the last 10 years has the hospital carried out any cosmetic surgery within the health system? If so, would the Minister provide a breakdown of the procedures undertaken annually?

Who paid for this surgery: the patient, the taxpayer or both?

If the costs were met by the taxpayer, would she provide details of the annual cost to the tax payer over the past 10 years?

Answer

1. Yes. Health and Social Services has undertaken cosmetic surgery. The Department uses a visiting consultant 6 times a year.

Patients who are eligible to have their procedure funded by the taxpayer have to meet eligibility criteria set out in the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines.

2. Procedures that are determined to be clinically essential and, therefore, funded by the taxpayer are:

• Breast reconstruction for post cancer treatment
• Surgery for congenital deformities
• Facial reanimation. This is carried out mostly on children with the major surgery undertaken in the UK and post operative care or minor surgery carried out on Island

• Skin graft surgery, for example radical skin cancer surgery or trauma
• Bilateral breast reduction
• Abdominoplasty
• Gynaecomastia surgery

3. Clinically necessary public procedures are funded by the taxpayer. Private procedures are funded by individual patients.
4. Taxpayer Funded Cosmetic Surgery

Notes

All costs are average costs per procedure, shown at a 2012 price base. On average, price = cost.

12. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING POLICY ON APPLICATIONS FOR INDEFINITE LEAVE TO REMAIN IN THE ISLAND:

Question

Will the Minister advise members –

1. the current policy applied by the Immigration Department in respect of applications by spouses of Jersey citizens/residents for indefinite leave to remain in the Island, distinguishing between EU and Non-EU applicants;
2. the previous policy that was applied in this situation and when it was changed to the current policy;
3. in what ways the current and previous rules differs/differed from those applied in the United Kingdom;
4. the legal basis for these current and former rules?

Answer

The Lieutenant-Governor gives Directions to Immigration Officers, in the same way as the Home Secretary does in the United Kingdom, as to the practice to be followed in the administration of the Immigration Acts for regulating the entry into and the stay in the Bailiwick of Jersey of persons of non-European Economic Area nationality.

Subject to meeting the requirements of these Directions, non-EEA national spouses or civil partners of persons present and settled (British citizens or persons free from any restriction as to their employment and the period in which they can stay in Jersey), may apply for visas to enter with a view to settlement. This is also known as indefinite leave to remain ("ILR").

1. The current requirements for ILR as a spouse or civil partner are that:

• the applicant has completed a period of 2 years as the spouse or civil partner of a person present and settled in Jersey;
• the applicant is still the spouse or civil partner of the person he or she was admitted join;
• the marriage or civil partnership is subsisting;
• each of the parties intends to live permanently with the other;
• there is adequate accommodation without recourse to public funds in accommodation which they own or occupy exclusively;
• the parties will be able to maintain themselves and any dependants adequately without recourse to public funds;
• the applicant has sufficient knowledge of the English language and life in the UK and Islands (persons under the age of 18 or aged 65 are exempt from this requirement);
• the applicant does not have one or more unspent convictions within the meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Jersey ) Law 2001.

There is also currently scope for immediate settlement, without having to complete the 2 year probationary period, where spouses and civil partners have been living together overseas for at least 4 years and meet the requirements listed above.

European nationals, in other words persons who are nationals of countries in the European Economic Area ("EEA") and Switzerland, are not required, under immigration legislation, to obtain indefinite leave to remain or to confirm their right of residence. However, when they have lived in Jersey for a continuous period of 5 years they may apply for a document certifying their permanent residence.

"Settled status" under immigration legislation is separate and distinct to the residential and employment statuses conferred by the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 2012.

2. The qualifying criteria were last amended in November 2010 and May 2011.

In 2010 an English language requirement was introduced for applicants to demonstrate a command of the English language at level A1 of the Common European Framework of Reference.

In May 2011 a criminality threshold was introduced to settlement applications, requiring applicants to be clear of unspent convictions, prior to indefinite leave being granted.

3. Prior to July 2012 the family settlement rules in Jersey were the same as in the United Kingdom. However, after 9 July 2012, spouses and civil partners of non-EEA nationality entering the United Kingdom now have to complete a period of 5 years before theymay apply for settlement.

There have been other changes to the family settlement route in the United Kingdom,

notably:

• a minimum income threshold of £18,600 for those who wish to sponsor spouses or civil partners;
• the scope for immediate settlement for spouses and civil partners who have been living together overseas for at least 4 years has been abolished.

Whilst consideration is currently being given to modifying the Directions of the Lieutenant-Governor in Jersey, the High Court in the United Kingdom recently delivered a judgment on a legal challenge to the minimum income threshold. The Home Office is considering the implications of the judgment and a pause has been applied on the decision-making on applications when the minimum income threshold has not been met.

Immigration decisions in the United Kingdom are also now exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. As a result, references to unspent convictions, as a requirement to make a successful application for indefinite leave to remain has been removed. In light of this, the Minister for Home Affairs has made a request to the Law Draftsman (Ministerial Decision HA-2013-0040 refers) for law drafting to exclude immigration and nationality decision making from the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Jersey) Law 2001.

4. The statutory basis for the Directions of the Lieutenant-Governor can be found in Section 1(4A) of the Immigration Act 1971, which is extended to the Bailiwick of Jersey by the Immigration (Jersey) Order 1993.

13. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING POLICY FOR INVESTIGATING COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS:

Question

Will the Minister set out the policy for investigating complaints against police officers and in particular the rules regarding the rank of the investigating officer in relation to the rank of the officer under investigation and explain any legal reason why these rules would not be followed citing the legal references?

Answer

The Minister's current policy in relation to the investigation of complaints against police officers, other than the Chief Officer and the Deputy Chief Officer, is that such complaints should be dealt with in accordance with the existing provisions, which are the Police (Complaints and Discipline) (Jersey) Law 1999 and the Police (Complaints and Discipline Procedure) (Jersey) Order 2000.

Under the terms of Article 7(6)(b) of the said Law, where a complaint is not suitable for or cannot be dealt with by informal resolution, the Chief Officer shall appoint a police officer to investigate the complaint who is:-

1. of at least the rank of Inspector
2. of at least the rank of the member of the Force against whom the complaint is made.

The normal practice, where the complaint is made against a police officer of the rank of Chief Inspector or Superintendent, is for the investigating officer to come from another Police Force.

Both the terms of the said Law and the said Order are actively under review and advice on these has now been received from an outside expert.

The Minister's policy in relation to complaints against the Chief Officer or the Deputy Chief Officer is as follows:-

1. That there should be a preliminary assessment in order to determine whether there is a sufficient basis to warrant a full investigation by a very senior officer from an outside police force.
2. In determining whether there is such a sufficient basis, the Minister will normally seek information both from the complainant and from the most senior local officer who has no connection with the complaint.
3. For a sufficient basis to exist, the Minister would need to be satisfied:-
   1. that there was a reasonable basis for the complaint;
   2. that there was prima facie evidence to support the complaint; and
   3. that, if the complaint were proved, that it would be sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action against the Chief Officer or Deputy Chief Officer.
4. A formal investigation would need to be conducted by an outside police officer of at least the rank of the Chief Officer or Deputy Chief Officer against whom the complaint has been made.
5. It follows from the above that a formal investigation would be conducted by an outside officer of equivalent superiority but that preliminary information may need to be sought from a more junior officer if the complaint is against the Chief Officer of Police or against both the Chief Officer and the Deputy Chief Officer.

The procedure set out above is also under review and the Minister intends to bring Regulations to the States in order to determine the appropriate procedure for dealing with complaints against the Chief Officer or Deputy Chief Officer.

14. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING INSTIGATION OF OPERATION INVICTA:

Question

Further to conflicting responses given to date, will the Minister, after conferring with H.M. Attorney General and the Chief and Deputy Chief Officers of the States of Jersey Police, give a definitive answer as to who was responsible for instigating Operation Invicta' and pursuing the disciplinary action against the three officers who were involved in the bugging of the car in France in the Curtis Warr en case?

Will he also set out a time line showing, to the extent that he is aware of it, the actions of all three parties listed above and any others who were involved in the decision to instigate and pursue disciplinary action against these officers so that the role of each party at each point in time can be precisely determined?

Answer

On 9 and 10 February 2011, the Privy Council heard the appeal of Curtis Francis Warr en and others v Her Majesty's Attorney General of the Bailiwick of Jersey. During that hearing, the Privy Council made reference to very serious misconduct by the three officers involved in the bugging of the car in the case and talked of a sustained, deliberate and cynical act of law-breaking.

On the basis of a briefing from the Law Officers' Department and in anticipation of possible serious criticism being made by the Privy Council of the actions by those officers of the States of Jersey Police, it was decided by the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police that there should be a general operational review of the policies and procedures that had been adopted by the States of Jersey Police officers in relation to the surveillance methods used when investigating the activities of Curtis Warr en and others. The Hampshire Constabulary was commissioned in February 2011 by the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, to conduct that review.

In April 2011, as a result of the findings of that general review, the Hampshire Constabulary was asked by the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, to carry out an investigation of potential criminal charges or disciplinary issues. The eventual outcome of this investigation was a recommendation for disciplinary proceedings. Legal advice was obtained by the Deputy Chief Officer and consultation made with the Jersey Police Complaints Authority as a result of which the Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police brought disciplinary action against the three officers.

The misconduct hearing in January 2013 was conducted by Mr Mike Barton (Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary). Given Mr Bowron's earlier knowledge of the case and discussions with the Law Officers' Department, it was not appropriate for Mr Bowron to adjudicate. The outcome of the hearing on 10 January 2013 was that the officers involved were acquitted of the misconduct charges.

Timeline

Warr en and others arrested between 21 and 23 July 2007

Abuse of Process Hearing (Sir Richard Tucker) 10 - 13 March 2008. Defence application rejected 20 March 2008.

The application for the product of illegally placed device to be excluded from the evidence at trial was refused on 28 April 2008.

Jersey Court of Appeal (appeal against Abuse of Process result) 11 – 12 August 2008. Warr en and others convicted at Assize trial on 7 October 2009.

Sentencing of Warr en and others on 3 December 2009.

30 November 2010. Draft statement by Defence for Privy Council hearing raises potential disciplinary issues for States of Jersey Police officers.

4 January 2011. Current Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police, takes up his post in Jersey.

6 January 2011. Law Officers' Department receives a final copy of the agreed statement of facts for the Privy Council hearing – it concedes that States of Jersey Police officers acted unlawfully.

13 January 2011. Meeting between Attorney General, Solicitor General, Director of the Criminal Division of the Law Officers' Department, Chief Officer States of Jersey Police and DCO States of Jersey Police. The meeting briefed the new Chief Officer on the full background to the case and the potential for criticism in the Privy Council of the conduct of the officers.

26 January 2011. Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police, briefed HMIC re criticism and need for independent review.

8 February 2011. Letter from the Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police, with Terms of Reference, to Chief Constable Marshall, Hampshire Constabulary to commission operational review.

9 – 10 February 2011. Privy Council hearing at the Supreme Court. Judgment delivered by Lord Dyson on 28 March 2011.

4 April 2011. Assessment conducted by Hampshire Constabulary. Identified matters of misconduct and potential criminality.

8 April 2011. Letter from Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police, to Chief Constable Hampshire, confirming extension of Terms of Reference to include criminal / misconduct investigation.

15 September 2011. Hampshire (Invicta) report received.

September 2011. Report sent by Law Officers' Department to an outside expert criminal lawyer for advice on the possibility of any criminal proceedings.

16 September 2011. Copy of Hampshire report provided to an outside expert on police disciplinary matters and the Jersey Police Complaints Authority.

7 December 2011. Case conference in Exeter involving the Attorney General, Law Officers' Department and Hampshire Officers with the outside expert criminal lawyer.

16 December 2011. The outside expert criminal lawyer advises the Attorney General that there is insufficient evidence for any criminal proceedings. The involvement of the Law Officers' Department ended at this point.

16 December 2011. States of Jersey Police arrange case conference with the outside expert on police disciplinary matters.

26 January 2012. Case conference between States of Jersey Police and outside expert on police disciplinary matters.

30 January 2012. Case conference between States of Jersey Police and Jersey Police Complaints Authority.

30 January 2012. DCO States of Jersey Police decides to bring misconduct proceedings against officers.

31 January 2012. Officers and the Police Association are notified of the misconduct proceedings.

1 February 2012. Arranged for Chief Constable Martin Richards (Sussex) to chair misconduct hearing.

7 February 2012. States of Jersey Police telephone the outside expert on police disciplinary matters re draft charges.

10 February 2012. Carey Olsen agrees to take the case for the misconduct offences.

21 February 2012. Case conference States of Jersey Police and Carey Olsen – advice on charges. 22 March 2012. Three States of Jersey Police Officers are charged with misconduct offences.

Hearing due to commence on  9 July 2012 is adjourned until 3 September 2012 at request of Defence.

Hearing due to commence 3 September 2012 is adjourned until 4 December 2012 at request of Defence.

Hearing due to commence  4 December 2012 in front of Chief Constable Barton (Durham) at Pomme d'Or Hotel.

4 – 10 January 2013. Misconduct hearing at Pomme d'Or Hotel heard by Chief Constable Barton. 10 January 2013. Hearing concluded. Officers acquitted of misconduct charges.

15. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE POLICE IN LAST 3 YEARS:

Question

Will the Minister explain how many complaints, if any, he has received in the last three years from former police officers alleging that the Chief and Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police have perverted the course of justice and explain –

1. in how many cases he has called in an external police force to investigate the complaint;
2. in how many cases he has conducted an investigation into the allegations; and

3. the criteria and procedures he has used or followed to determine whether such allegations merit an investigation?

Answer

As I advised Deputy Higgins when he asked similar questions on 4 June and 2 July 2013, it is not generally appropriate for me to speak publicly about any complaints that may or may not have been made against any police officer, including the Chief and Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.

To repeat the answer that I gave on 2 July 2013, in the event of a criminal allegation such as perverting or attempting to pervert the course of justice being made against the Chief Officer and Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, the Attorney General would advise as to whether or not a criminal investigation were merited. If the Attorney General were to advise that there should be a criminal investigation then I would expect the investigation to be conducted by a senior officer from another force.

16. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING P.E.C.R.S. CONTRIBUTIONS AND LEAVING BEFORE RETIREMENT AGE:

Question

Will the Chief Minister:

1. set out the options with respect to pension rights and/or contributions that are given to members of the Public Employees Contributory Pension Retirement Scheme (PECRS) if they leave the employment of the States or a body affiliated to the Scheme before reaching the age of retirement and explain the legal references supporting these options;
2. explain in detail any and all circumstances in which these options would not be available to a member who leaves before reaching the age of retirement and explain in each case the reasons whythe option would not be available and legal justification/provisions for it not being available?

Answer

The PECRS has 4 separate sets of Regulations: 1967 Regulations; Former Hospital Scheme (FHS); Existing Members Regulations; New Members Regulations.

1967 Regulations and FHS

Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (General) (Jersey) Regulations 1989 – Regulation 7 – Transfers in and out

1967 Regulations – Regulation 11 – Deferred pension

1967 Regulations – Regulation 12 – Refund of contributions in certain cases FHS - Regulation 8 – Deferred pension, refund of contributions or transfer value

Employees who leave the employment of the States or a body affiliated to the Scheme before reaching the age of retirement under the 1967 or FHS Regulations have the following options:

A refund of their (the employee's contributions) with 3% per annum interest (less 10% being the tax levied by the Comptroller of Income Tax in regard to tax relief which may have been enjoyed when the contributions were paid).

OR

Subject to 10 years' reckonable service and over age 50 (45 in the case of women and uniformed' members) a deferred pension (and, for women under FHS Regulations, a deferred cash sum) payable at normal retiring age.

OR

A transfer value payable to a new employer' pension scheme or to a personal pension scheme (subject to Comptroller of Income Tax legislation). The transfer or deferred pension must be requested within 12 months of ceasing to be an employee otherwise the member is only entitled to a refund of the member's own contributions to the Scheme.

Existing Members Regulations and New Members Regulations

PECRS – Existing Members - Regulation 8 – deferred pension, refund of contributions or transfer value.

PECRS – New Members – Regulation 8 – deferred pension, refund of contributions or transfer value.

Employees who leave the employment of the States or a body affiliated to the Scheme before reaching the age of retirement under the Existing Members Regulations or the New Members Regulations have following options:

For those who last entered the Scheme before 1 August 2000 or those who entered on or after that date but have not yet completed 2 years' qualifying service: refund of contributions with 3% interest (less 10% being the tax levied by the Comptroller of Income Tax in regard to tax relief which may have been enjoyed when the contributions were paid). The refund must be requested within 3 months of the member ceasing to be an employee otherwise the member is only entitled to a deferred pension or a transfer.

OR

Subject to 2 years' qualifying service at any age: a deferred pension payable at age 60 or normal retiring age, if earlier.

OR

For those employed on or after 1 January 2006, subject to 2 years' qualifying service at any age: a deferred pension payable at normal retiring age or up to 5 years prior to normal retiring age in which case the pension is subject to an actuarial reduction. For active employees the actuarial reduction is 2.4% per year for each year the pension is taken early, and for deferred members the actuarial reduction is calculated at nil cost' to the Scheme by the Scheme Actuary.

OR

A transfer value payable to a new employer' pension scheme or to a personal pension scheme

(subject to Comptroller of Income Tax legislation). The transfer must be requested within 12 months of ceasing to be an employee otherwise the member is only entitled to a refund of the member's own contributions to the Scheme.

Answer (b)

There is no reason why the various options available under the relevant set of Regulations (applicable to that member) would not be available if the member leaves before reaching the age of retirement.

17. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY OF ACTING IN PLACE OF THE SUPERIOR NUMBER:

Question

Given that H.M. Attorney General has previously stated that it is the Superior Number which has responsibility to act in the instance of a Jurat being found to be unfit to fulfil that role, will he clarify who a member of the public may contact as having higher responsibility for maintaining appropriate standards of honesty, integrity or behaviour, should the Superior Number have failed to act in such an instance?

Answer

Article 9(1) of the Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948 provides:

A Jurat shall cease to hold office on the day upon which he or she attains the age of 72 years:

Provided that a Jurat who, for a continuous period of 12 months fails, without good reason, to discharge the duties of the Jurat's office, or who, in the opinion of the Court, is permanently unable, through physical or mental incapacity, or for any other reason, efficiently to carry out the duties of the office, may be called upon by the Court to resign and, unless the Jurat, within a reasonable time, presents to the Bailiff , for transmission to Her Majesty in Council, a petition praying that Her Majesty in Council may be pleased to permit the Jurat to resign his or her office, the Jurat shall be removable by Order of Her Majesty in Council on the petition of the Superior Number of the Royal Court.

Accordingly, a Jurat may only be removed from office by an Order of Her Majesty in Council.

Her Majesty in Council, acting through Her Ministers in the United Kingdom retains constitutionally the ability to intervene in insular affairs in wholly exceptional circumstances affecting good government. The Secretary of State responsible for the Crown Dependencies Unit in the Ministry of Justice in the United Kingdom is responsible for insular affairs.

The circumstances in which there may be a constitutional basis to intervene in insular affairs would be:

".in the event of a fundamental breakdown in public order or of the rule of law, endemic corruption in the government or the judiciary or other extreme circumstance"

A single instance of the Superior Number not exercising a jurisdiction under Article 9 (1) which a member of the public thinks should have been exercised would not be such a circumstance.

18. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PROGRESS ON REPLACEMENT CHAIRMAN OF HISTORIC ABUSE INQUIRY: Question

Given that the newly appointed Chair to oversee the independent inquiry into Historic Child Abuse has had to withdraw due to ill health, will the Chief Minister clarify what progress, if any, has been made in finding a replacement?

What impact, if any, has this had on the proposed timetable for the inquiry? Answer

The following information has been provided by the Greffier of the States, who was charged to undertake the recruitment process. As Chief Minister I have no involvement in this.

The Greffier has indicated that following the unfortunate sudden illness of Mrs Sally Bradley QC, work is being carried out to find a suitable replacement to chair the Committee of Inquiry into historical child abuse in Jersey.

An outline of the timetable for recruitment for the chairman is as follows:

• 22nd August 2013: First round of informal meetings in London with potential candidates
• 11th September 2013: Second round of informal meetings in London
• Early October 2013: A small number of suitable shortlisted candidates will be invited to a formal discussion and interview in Jersey with the full selection panel.
• By mid to late October 2013: Announcement of the name of the proposed chairman once agreement has been reached on the terms of the engagement.

As soon as a chairman has been identified the selection panel will work with that person to identify two suitable people to serve as committee members. A number of potentially suitable people for these positions had already been identified when Mrs Bradley suffered a stroke and it is therefore anticipated that it will be possible to work relatively swiftly with the new chairman to interview and select committee members although realistically it will be late October or early November before the selection is complete.

The appointment of the chairman and members must be ratified by the States and the proposition has a 4 week lodging period. It will therefore be late November or early December before the ratification by the States can take place.

In initial discussions with potential chairmen it is being made clear that they must be free to begin work on the inquiry in early 2014 and it therefore seems likely that the committee will begin its work by February 2014 at the latest.

19. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY

REGARDING PROPOSALS REGARDING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC LEAVING

EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT GOOD REASON:

Question

Will the Minister provide a full description of his reported proposals regarding instances of members of the public leaving employment without good reason' and clarify how such criteria has been decided upon; who will monitor this and how people will be able to challenge decisions if they feel this has been unfairly applied?

Answer

The proposals included in P.101 and its accompanying report were designed in the context of a high level of unemployment in the Island, and follow the decision of the States to significantly increase the funding available to help locally-qualified people find work. Given the ongoing economic situation, and the level of support my Department makes available to unemployed residents, it is not right for anybody to take the decision to leave employment without good cause and to then expect to be supported by tax-funded benefits.

The principle behind the proposed regulations is clear: that people in receipt of Income Support, or planning on claiming Income Support in the future, should be required to make decisions that are financially responsible. Income Support was designed as a safety net' for people who are living on a low income through no fault of their own, and I believe that the decision to leave paid employment to rely on benefits is one that few people would describe as financially responsible. We have always encouraged anybody considering giving up work to seek advice before making the decision to rely on Income Support, the proposed changes will create a financial penalty for the small minority that choose not to take that advice.

Those people who are able to demonstrate good cause for leaving employment will not face financial penalties. Officers will distinguish between people who leave work or are dismissed due to their own poor conduct and those who are made redundant, or who are forced to leave work through no fault of their own. There will always be sound reasons why a person could decide to leave paid employment, such as being physically unable to continue in a certain line of work, or being required to care for a young child or sick relative. In circumstances such as these, people will face no financial penalty and may benefit from dedicated support to pursue alternative employment.

If the proposition is adopted by the States, I will be approving detailed guidelines for officers to use when making these decisions. These guidelines are currently being drafted and will be discussed with the Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service (JACS) before they are finalised. Throughout the development of the proposed regulations officers from my Department have also benefited from close contact with the UK's Department of Work and Pensions. The DWP has extensive experience in determining whether a person has good cause for leaving work under their own comparable benefit system.

As with all decisions made under the Income Support legislation, customers who are assessed as having left work without good cause may request that the decision is reconsidered by a second officer. If they are still dissatisfied with this second decision, they have the right of appeal to an independent tribunal.

20. SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING FUNDING STREAM FOR ESPLANADE DEVELOPMENT:

Question

What is the planned funding stream for the Esplanade development and what support, if any, will the States of Jersey be providing?

How will the risk be carried and by whom? Answer

The States of Jersey Development Company Limited ("SoJDC") has advised the Minister that they have received outline funding approval for the first two office buildings from a local bank.

SoJDC operates within the mandate set down under P73/2010, its Articles of Association and a Memorandum of Understanding between it and the Company's Shareholder representative, the Minister for Treasury and Resources. For example, the office developments will be demand led with construction only proceeding with pre-lets in place. This is in accordance with P73/2010 and the Memorandum of Understanding and a condition of the private construction finance.

As construction will not be commenced until pre-lets are in place, and at this time there will be no States guarantees to this funding, there is no risk to the States of Jersey.

21. SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING NUMBER OF TEMPORARY CONSULTANTS:

Question

Would the Minister provide the following information in relation to a number of temporary consultants being employed on individual and block contracts to modernise, reform and update the health services -

1. how many temporary consultants are being employed;
2. how many are individually engaged and how many are working as part of a block contract to a single company;
3. what is their cost per contract;
4. what are the terms of employment and;
5. in what areas are they engaged?

Answer

Working to the States of Jersey definition of consultant, there are only 2 consultants deployed on individual contracts with external agencies to support modernisation and reform.

Specialist management support and consultancy in respect of reforming and modernising the Ambulance service, including ensuring an on-island succession plan for Chief Ambulance officer

1. 1
2. This is an individual contract with an external agency to provide a specialist Consultant on a temporary basis

3. The Health and Social Services Department's contractual agreement with the agency in respect of the payof the individual is at a total cost of £43,200 and provides for the Consultant's services for three days per week over a fixed period of 6 months.
4. The Consultant is employed by the agency, not the Health and Social Services Department and, as such, Health and Social Services is not aware of the individual's terms of employment.
5. Ambulance Department

The advice and support supplied by this consultant has facilitated the successful appointment of a local candidate to the post of Chief Ambulance Officer.

Pathology Modernisation Manager – consultant

1. 1
2. This is an individual contract with an external agency external agency to provide a specialist Consultant on a temporary basis
3. The Health and Social Services Department's contractual agreement with the agency in respect of the payof the individual is at a total cost of £98,700 and provides for the Consultant's services for a total of 141 days, over a fixed period of 9 months.
4. The Consultant is employed bythe agency not the Health and Social Services Department and, as such, Health and Social Services is not aware of the individual's terms of employment
5. Pathology Department

The current agreed contract is subject to further extension which has been agreed with The States Employment Board.

22. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING DEFINITION OF AGGRESSIVE TAX AVOIDANCE:

Question

Given that in his response to my question of 15th July 2013, the Chief Minister pointed out the difficulties of defining what constituted aggressive' tax avoidance and suggested that that this might form part of the remit of Sound Business Committee, will he inform members whether he has asked the Committee to work on such a definition, and if so, when we can expect to see a working definition produced and if not, why not?

Will he further inform members of the constitution, membership and schedule of meetings of this body, and state whether and in what form its findings and actions will be reported to the States?

Answer

I can confirm that the Sound Business Practices Committee has been requested to consider what constitutes aggressive' tax avoidance as part of a proposed wider Code of Good Practice' for the industry. This will build on the good practice that many financial institutions are already adopting. When the Code has been finalised and agreed by the Committee it will be made publicly available. It is anticipated that this work will be completed by year end.

As previously advised on the 15th July, the Committee is made of up representatives from government, regulator and industry - specifically the Director of Financial Services, the Director General of JFSC and the Chief Executive of Jersey Finance. Its overall purpose is to identify business practices in Jersey which may conflict with Jersey's aim to be an International Finance Centre which supports only legitimate business and recommend actions to address activities not in line with this aim. The Committee meets monthly or more often as required.

23. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING USE OF NET IMMIGRATION AND PROPOSALS FOR LONG TERM CARE:

Question

Will the Minister explain to members the reasons which underpin the choice of net immigration of 350 persons a year in the proposals for long term care?

Will he advise how the costs of the proposals are affected by annual immigration at 150, 250 and 500, prior to any debate on population control?

Answer

In September 2012 the Statistics Unit published a number of population projections based on the results of the 2011 census. (2012 Jersey Population Projections, States of Jersey Statistics Unit[2]). This included the scenario of net immigration of 350 persons per year. In advance of any other approved specific immigration target, this 350 assumption is being used as being consistent with the 2009 Strategic Plan. The detailed modelling undertaken in respect of long-term care costs has been built such that it can accommodate any alternative population scenario that may be chosen in future for strategic planning purposes.

The number of people aged over 65 in Jersey will increase under each of the population scenarios and in general terms, the number of people requiring care over the next 30 years is not strongly influenced by different population scenarios - the great majority of people who will require care before 2044 (when they are in their 70s, 80s and 90s) already live in Jersey. However the working age population is quite strongly dependent on the population scenario chosen.

• Increasing net immigration above 350 persons per year will increase the number of working age people and will decrease the LTC contribution rate required in 2044. For example, the LTC model suggests that net immigration of 700 persons per year would reduce the 2044 break- even LTC contribution rate from 2.7% to 2.5%.
• A net immigration level below 350 persons per year will lead to a decline in the number of working age people and this will increase the LTC contribution rate required in 2044. For example, the LTC model suggests that nil net immigration would increase the 2044 break-even LTC contribution rate from 2.7% to 3.0%.

24. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PROGRESS ON JERSEY VERSION OF T.U.P.E. REGULATIONS: Question

Will the Chief Minister inform members what progress, if any, he has made on a Jersey version of Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (T.U.P.E.) and when he will bring such measures to the States?

Answer

I will refer the Deputy to my answers to him of the 5th March, 16th April and 30th April 2013 and his attendance at a States Employment Board (SEB) meeting in September 2012.

The working party led by the CEO, Ports of Jersey continues and positive progress was reported at its most recent meeting which took place on 29th August. When this work is completed it will be presented to the SEB and will form the basis of a Code of Practice for public sector bodies to follow. A draft Code of Practice will be made available by 1st December, 2013.

It is also the intent to refer the Code of Practice to the Employment Forum for their consideration and consultation to determine if it is an appropriate subject area to be considered as an Island-wide code of practice for all employers.

5 Oral Questions The Bailiff :

So we then come to oral questions, and firstly a question which Deputy Trevor Pitman will ask of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture. Deputy Pitman.

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding an update of an incident involving the prank discharge of a starting pistol in a school gym:

Following the recent conviction of a teacher relating to an incident where a pupil suffered eye injuries resulting from an alleged prank discharge of a starting pistol in the school gym, will the Minister provide an update on the matter and advise whether the injured pupil's mother has been kept informed throughout?

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

Now that the legal proceedings have been completed by the police, an internal investigation is underway by the Education Department. The teacher is still suspended. This is now an operational matter that will be dealt with in accordance with H.R. (Human Resources) processes and procedures and my information is that the pupil's mother has been kept informed throughout.

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

A supplementary, Sir. I thank the Minister for that, and I would point out that I have always been a supporter of teachers. However, pupils, in my book, come first. I would just like to read from the message I received from the mother.

The Bailiff :

Are you asking a question, Deputy ? Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Yes, but I need to read this short comment out. It says: "Please help me. I am appalled to see on my son's timetable which he brought home today that he has got this teacher. My son is adamant that he will not attend, understandably so. How can this man be allowed to teach? I have contacted E.S.C. (Education Sport and Culture) but no one will return my emails. Please help me." Could the Minister explain how that fits in with what he has been told? I accept that he may have been not given the right information.

The Deputy of St. John :

First of all, dealing with the emails, as I understand it, the Director of Education has replied to both and all emails that he has received from the lady in question. It may be that at the point that the lady contacted the Deputy that that was not the case and I apologise if there are some short delays during the summer period where some people are on holiday, but my understanding is that certainly all who communicated have been responded to now. The first part of the question was to do with the fact that the teacher still appears on the curriculum and what the public need to understand is that these curricular are formulated some 4 to 6 months in advance, so that is the reason that the person's name, the teacher's name, is still on the curricular. I think I need to point out that the teacher is only suspended at this point and it would be wrong to pre-empt the results of an internal H.R. and procedural inquiry. I think that is really all I have to say on the matter. It is now very definitely an operational matter and obviously things may flow from the results of the internal inquiry.

The Bailiff :

Any further questions, Deputy Pitman? Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Yes, please, Sir.

The Bailiff :

A final question.

2. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Yes, absolutely. Probably the key thing here, we have seen obviously terrible incidents in America like Columbine, Sandy Hook now, and I do not want to relate that too much, but when you read - and it may be incorrect - that there was no actual policy for storing a starting pistol in a school, what assurances can the Minister give to parents that safety is taken seriously, as I know it is generally in schools, but the fact that this incident could happen, what assurances can the Minister now give that this cannot happen again?

The Deputy of St. John :

Firstly, there is in fact a policy in place regarding these kinds of starting pistols and that policy is in place for all schools. They are expected to adhere to national requirements for safe storage and handling of starting pistols, i.e. the guns have to be kept locked away in a secure location and only a limited number of designated staff have access to it. Whether or not the school adhered to this policy will obviously be part of the investigation. However, in response to the Deputy 's request as to what assurance I can give to the public, we are now in the process of withdrawing all such starting pistols from all schools in the Island and we have made the decision that it is not that important that schools have access to starting pistols for sporting purposes. There are other things that can be used to start races et cetera and we do not see the need for those starting pistols to be available in schools. So we are in the process of withdrawing them from all schools in the Island.

[10:00] The Bailiff :

Very well. We come next to a question which Deputy Le Hérissier will ask of the Minister for Home Affairs.

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the possible conflict of interest of the newly appointed Chairman of the Police Authority:

Given the appointee's chairmanship of Jersey Finance, would the Minister advise whether the issue of any conflict of interest in his appointment as the Chairman of the Police Authority was considered by the Appointments Commission and if so, why was it decided that the appointment should proceed?

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

The interview board included 2 members of the Appointment Commission. The issue of any possible conflict of interest that may have an impact upon the application for the role of Chairman for the Police Authority was raised in a direct question during the interview of each candidate. Neither the appointed Chairman nor any of the members of the interview board saw that there was an issue of conflict of interest and the interview board recommended his appointment to me. I also considered this issue before making the appointment and I do not see that there is any conflict of interest by reason of any other roles of the Chairman of the Police Authority.

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Thank you for that, I am afraid, disappointing answer. Could the Minister define what he means by conflict of interest, what test he applies, and secondly, would he not acknowledge, given the oft- expressed wish of Jersey Finance that Jersey's finance industry be seen as absolutely clean and that there be maximum co-operation with the judicial and police authorities in upholding that reputation, it is very odd that the Head of Jersey Finance should head up the very body who are allegedly to be peerless in their investigation of that industry?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am afraid, Sir, that Deputy Le Hérissier demonstrates that he does not understand the role of the Police Authority, so I will try to explain that as quickly as I can.

The Bailiff :

Concisely.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

As concisely as I can. The Police Authority does not set the Annual Business Plan. It does not set policies. Those are all the role of the Minister. The role of the Police Authority is simply to ensure that the Police Chief and officers are doing the things which have been set down in terms of policy by the Minister. So it is very difficult for me to see how the Chairman of the Police Authority at that level of not setting policy could have a conflict of interest. Furthermore, at individual case level, the Police Authority is not going to get involved in individual cases in general because of the principle of the independence of the police in terms of investigation of matters. So they are not going to be intervening or interfering in individual investigations in that kind of way. So I cannot see how because of the nature of the role - which is not a policy-setting role, but an implementation of policy already set - how there could be a difficulty.

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

In those policies is, one has to presume, that financial crime, aggressive avoidance and evasion are all issues on which the Police Authority will be deciding if the Chief of Police has fulfilled his remit, is it not? Given that the appointee just spent the past few years promoting Jersey Finance through Jersey Finance, could it not be seen as what is known in small jurisdictions as regulator capture in this particular case?

The sole interest of the police is in relation to financial crime, not in relation to avoidance or evasion, except insofar as those constitute financial crime. As I said, setting of policy in relation to matters and prioritisation rests firmly with the Minister. It is simply the role of the authority to ensure that the Police Chief is doing that which the Minister has decided in terms of policy without interfering in individual cases.

3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

The question that needs to be asked when looking at the test for a conflict of interest based on what the Minister has just told us is that on the one hand, you have the Police Authority Chairman, who is looking at how the Minister sets policy, and on the other hand, the question needs to be asked: "Does he have an interest in his other role in how that policy would affect financial services, indeed, Jersey Finance?" The question I think has to be yes, and if that is the case, how can the Minister say with a straight face that this does not imply a conflict of interest?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The regulatory body in relation to financial matters is the Jersey Financial Services Commission, not the States of Jersey Police, and so for the reasons I have already said, I simply cannot see any conflict whatsoever.

4. Deputy M. Tadier :

A supplementary: going beyond conflict, was any consideration given to the reputational damage of Jersey which is now from critics and also from impartial observers in the international community going to look at this as an example of regulator capture and think of Jersey as nothing but a tinpot soi-disant potato or banana republic on the basis that it cannot even find somebody who is perceived to be independent, and that it is just a brazen attempt from an out of touch and captured Government which cannot even see that when it is dangled in front of their faces?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I repeat, the regulatory body is the Jersey Financial Services Commission, not the States of Jersey Police. The fact that there may be all sorts of tittle-tattle on the internet and elsewhere by critics of Jersey, some of which is completely irrational, some of which have some partial basis, is neither here nor there. The objective test in relation to this is that there is no conflict of interest.

The Bailiff :

A final question, Deputy Le Hérissier.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I did have my light on, Sir. I do not know if you saw me or not.

The Bailiff :

I do beg your pardon, Deputy , and I had you down. I am so sorry. Deputy Pitman, yes.

5. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I could not put it as eloquently as Deputy Tadier , but my concerns are pretty much the same. Has the Minister not considered how this does to look to outside, because we have heard this concern raised in the past where we keep selecting from an ever-shrinking group of people. Conflict is not just about real conflict, it is also about perception and does he not consider that that is a matter worthy of true analysis, then perhaps the decision would have been different. That is not an attack on this gentleman, because I do not know him.