States Meeting Transcript - 15th July 2013

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

MONDAY, 15th JULY 2013

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER..........................................7

1. The Bailiff :....................................................................................7

QUESTIONS.............................................................................................7

2. Written Questions..............................................................................7

2.1  SENATOR A. BRECKON OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT REGARDING MONIES PAID OUT AS PART OF THE

EXIT STRATEGY:...........................................................................7

2. SENATOR A. BRECKON OF THE CHAIRMAN OF COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING THE EMPLOYMENT OF TRAINEES BY PARISHES:....................................................................................9
3. SENATOR A. BRECKON OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING

REGARDING THE PROVISION OF ACCOUNTS FOR PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT OF LES SQUEZ AND LES MARAIS:.................................9

4. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING PROBLEMS

AND BREAKDOWNS AT THE INCINERATOR:.......................................12

5. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING SITE OF

FORMER BOULEY BAY HOTEL:........................................................12

6. DEPUTY S.S.P.A. POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR

HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING DISPATCH TIMES FOR POLICE

VEHICLES:..................................................................................13

7. DEPUTY S.S.P.A. POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING REPORTS IN RESPECT OF FUTURE POPULATION STRATEGY:.................................................................................14
8. CONNÉTABLE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT

AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING USE OF UNSPENT FUNDS

FROM THE TOWN PARK CAPITAL VOTE:............................................14

9. DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH

AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING TREATMENT OF CHRONIC

FATIGUE SYNDROME PATIENTS:......................................................16

10. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING AN ENERGY

EFFICIENCY SCHEME:....................................................................17

11. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER

REGARDING COST OF COURT CASE AGAINST FORMER SENATOR SYVRET:....................................................................................19

12. DEPUTYT.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR

TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE BUDGET

ALLOCATED TO DATA PROTECTION TO FUND A COURT CASE:...............19

13. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FORHOME AFFAIRS REGARDING SUSPECTS IN CHILD ABUSE COURT CASE:............20
14. DEPUTYT.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR

EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING RECENT

INCIDENT IN A SCHOOL CONCERNING THE USE OF A STARTING PISTOL:......................................................................................20

15. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE RELOCATION OF LES SQUEZ YOUTH CLUB:........................................................................................21
16. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING FUTURE USE OF

THE LES SQUEZ YOUTH CLUB BUILDING:..........................................21

17. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING PLANNING

APPLICATIONS FOR THE RE DEVELOPMENT OF LES SQUEZ:..................22

18. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING A REPORT ON THE VALUE OF JERSEY TO BRITAIN:.............23
19. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING FIGURES IN THE REPORT VALUE OF JERSEY TO

BRITAIN FOR TAX EVASION:...........................................................25

20. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING JERSEY MANAGED WEALTH AND U.K. TAXES:...................26
21. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING CREDIBILITY OF A REPORT INTO THE VALUE OF

JERSEY TO BRITAIN:.....................................................................27

22. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING CLARIFICATION OF AGREEMENTS WITH U.K. PRIME MINISTER REGARDING TAXES:........................................................27
23. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF H.M. ATTORNEY

GENERAL REGARDING PUBLICATION OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE INQUIRY INTO PLÉMONT DEVELOPMENT:..........................................29

24. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING PRESERVATION OF A HISTORIC SEA WALL ON ESPLANADE:..............................................30

3. Oral Questions.................................................................................31

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding

the creation of a monopoly in fibre routers for the broadband fibre rollout by

Jersey Telecom:..............................................................................31 Senator P.C.F. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):..............................31

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:......................................................................31

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour :...................................................31
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:......................................................................32

2. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary of the Minister for Transportand

Technical Services regarding the introduction of a penalty points system for

minor traffic offences:.......................................................................32 Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour (The Minister for Transport and Technical

Services):.....................................................................................32

1. The Connétable of St. Mary :................................................................32
2. Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade :.....................................................33
3. The Connétable of St. Mary :................................................................33

3. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Services

regarding the treatment available to M.E./Chronic Fatigue sufferers within the

Health and Social Services Department:....................................................33 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):..................33

1. Deputy S. Pitman:............................................................................34
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...................................................................34
3. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen :..............................................................34
4. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :........................................................34
5. Deputy S. Pitman:............................................................................34
6. Deputy S. Pitman:............................................................................35

4. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade ofthe Chief Minister regarding the Minister

for Treasury and Resources' recent comments on the work of other Ministers

and Departments:............................................................................35 Senator I.J. Gorst :..................................................................................35

1. Deputy S. Power:............................................................................36
2. Senator L.J. Farnham :........................................................................36
3. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :............................................................37
4. Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................37
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..................................................................37
6. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :............................................................37
7. Deputy M. Tadier :...........................................................................38
8. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade :..........................................................38
9. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement :...................................................38

10. Deputy S. Power: .........................................................................39

5. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding the mechanisms by

which tax leakage' occurs through Jersey from U.K. tax revenues:......................39 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):...........................................................39

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :.......................................................................39
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :.......................................................................39
3. Deputy M. Tadier :............................................................................40
4. Deputy M. Tadier :............................................................................40
5. Deputy S. Pitman:............................................................................40
6. Deputy S. Pitman:............................................................................40
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :.......................................................................41

8. Deputy G.P. Southern :.......................................................................41

6. The Connétable of St. Brelade of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding the status of his department's draft I.T. skills strategy:.........................41 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. John (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):.............41

1. The Connétable of St. Brelade :..............................................................41
2. The Connétable of St. Mary :................................................................42
3. The Connétable of St. Mary :................................................................42
4. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :.........................................................42
5. The Connétable of St. Brelade :..............................................................43

6. The Connétable of St. Brelade :..............................................................43
   7. Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding

the decision to remove the children's play area at Les Quennevais Playing

Fields: ........................................................................................43 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (Assistant Minister for Education, Sport and Culture -

rapporteur):...................................................................................44

1. Deputy M. Tadier :............................................................................44
2. Deputy J.H. Young:..........................................................................44

8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Planning and Environment

regarding nitrate levels in the water supply:................................................44 Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour (The Minister for Planning and Environment):..........44

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...................................................................45
2. Deputy J.H. Young:..........................................................................45
3. Deputy J.H. Young:..........................................................................45
4. Deputy M. Tadier :............................................................................46
5. Deputy M. Tadier :............................................................................46
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...................................................................46

9. Deputy J.A. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding changes to the rental

market range under the Control of Housing and Work (Residential and

Employment Status) (Jersey) Regulations 2013............................................46 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):....................................46

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................47
2. Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................47
3. Deputy J.H. Young:..........................................................................47
4. Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................47

10. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier of the Chairman of the Privileges and

Procedures Committee regarding amendments to Option B to create greater

parity of weight of vote for St. Helier in comparison to other parishes:..................48 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures

Committee):..................................................................................48

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman:.....................................................................48
2. Deputy T.M. Pitman:.....................................................................48
3. Deputy T.M. Pitman:.....................................................................49

11. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding the proportion of the tax avoidance structures:.........................................................................49 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):...........................................................49

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :....................................................................49
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :....................................................................49

3. Deputy T.M. Pitman:.....................................................................50
4. Deputy T.M. Pitman:.....................................................................50
5. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................51
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :....................................................................51

12. Deputy S. Pitman of the Minister for Social Security regarding the number of

claimants of income support and other benefits by people with M.E./Chronic

Fatigue Syndrome:...........................................................................51 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security):................................51

1. Deputy S. Pitman:........................................................................52
2. Deputy S. Pitman:........................................................................52

13. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures

Committee regarding an investigation into apparent breaches of the Members'

Code of Conduct by the Assistant Minister with responsibility for External

Affairs:........................................................................................52 The Connétable of St. Helier (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):.............53

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman:.....................................................................53
2. Deputy T.M. Pitman:.....................................................................53

14. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Chief Minister regarding the introduction of

work permits:.................................................................................53 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):....................................54

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:................................................................54
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins:....................................................................54
3. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................54
4. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................54
5. The Connétable of St. Brelade :..........................................................55
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:................................................................55

15. The Connétable of St. Mary of the Chief Minister regarding compliance with

the requirements of Control of Housing and Work cards:.................................56 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):....................................56

1. The Connétable of St. Mary :.............................................................56
2. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................57
3. Deputy J.M. Maçon: ......................................................................57
4. Deputy J.M. Maçon: ......................................................................58
5. Deputy J.H. Young:......................................................................58
6. Deputy J.H. Young:......................................................................58

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

1. Deputy M. Tadier ............................................................................59 Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier (The Minister for Housing): ................................59

1. Deputy M. Tadier :............................................................................59
   2. Senator A. Breckon:..........................................................................59
   3. The Connétable of St. Brelade :..............................................................60

4.3.1 The Connétable of St. Brelade :..............................................................60

4. Deputy S. Power:............................................................................60

4.4.1 Deputy S. Power:............................................................................60

5. Deputy J.H. Young:..........................................................................61

4.5.1 Deputy J.H. Young:..........................................................................61

5. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Planning and Environment...................................................................................61

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins:........................................................................61 Deputy R.C. Duhamel (The Minister for Planning and Environment):..........................61

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins:........................................................................61
   2. Deputy T.A. Vallois St. Saviour :............................................................62
   3. Deputy T.M. Pitman:........................................................................62

5.3.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:........................................................................62

4. Deputy J.P.G. Baker St. Helier :.............................................................62

5.4.1 Deputy J.P.G. Baker:........................................................................63

5. The Deputy of St. Mary :.....................................................................63
   6. The Connétable of St. Helier :................................................................63
   7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...................................................................64

5.7.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...................................................................64

8. Deputy J.H. Young:..........................................................................64

5.8.1 Deputy J.H. Young:..........................................................................64

9. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity :.....................................................65

5.9.1 The Connétable of Trinity :..................................................................65

10. Deputy R.J. Rondel of St. Helier :...........................................................65
11. Senator L.J. Farnham :........................................................................65
12. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.........................................................................65
13. The Connétable of St. Brelade :..............................................................66

5.13.1 The Connétable of St. Brelade :..........................................................66

14. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John:.........................................................66

5.14.1 The Connétable of St. John :..............................................................67

15. Senator S.C. Ferguson:......................................................................67

PERSONAL STATEMENT..........................................................................68

6. Senator Sir Philip Bailhache - personal statement in response to allegations concerning confidential papers read in public view.......................................68

6.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache :.....................................................................68

ADJOURNMENT ......................................................................................70

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. [14:15]

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER

1. The Bailiff :

I have 3 matters to mention under A. The first is that His Royal Highness the Earl of Wessex will be visiting the Island on Monday, 16th September and Tuesday, 17th September. He is going to carry out a number of engagements but of particular interest to Members perhaps is that it is planned there should be a special meeting of the States in the Royal Square to commemorate the 350th anniversary of the presentation of the Royal Mace in 1663. There will be a community event and unveiling ceremony and an opportunity for His Royal Highness to meet youth groups and various sectors of the community. He will carry out an investiture on behalf of the Queen and also attend various other functions.

Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

Sir, is it possible to lift the défaut on Deputy Pitman? The Bailiff :

Yes. Does the Assembly agree to raise the défaut on Deputy Pitman? The défaut is raised. The second matter is that I have received the report of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for Regulation of Investigative Powers (Jersey) Law 2005 and the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003, and that it will be in Members' pigeonholes. The third matter is that, as Members may be aware, the Société Jersiaise is arranging for a sort of photographic record of much of the Island at present by a leading photographer and I have received a request as to whether the photographer could take photographs of some part of the sitting this week. As this is a project of the Société I hope Members would agree that the photographer may do that. Very well. Then under B and C, matters are as set out in the Order Paper.

QUESTIONS

2. Written Questions

2.1  SENATOR A. BRECKON OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING MONIES PAID OUT AS PART OF THE EXIT STRATEGY:

Question

Can the Minister advise Members how much, including monies paid as part of the exit strategy', has been paid to growers/glasshouse operators in each year from 1995 to the present day and to whom?

Answer

A detailed search of archived grower records is required to determine the extent to which this information was retained by the former Agriculture and Fisheries Committee, which will take a significant amount of Officer time. From 1995 to 2005 support payments varied with the type of crop grown ranging from no subsidy, up to £200 per vergée for outdoor spray carnations. Past subsidies varied each year depending upon the season, budget and crop type.

The 2005 Rural Economic Strategy (RES) discontinued the individual crop subsidy and replaced it with a Single Area Payment (SAP) per vergée, to prevent crops being grown simply for the subsidy they commanded. It also recognised the difficulties facing the protected crops sector (glasshouse and polythene tunnels) in the context of high fixed and variable costs and high levels of competition within export markets.

Following consultation with the protected crops sector, it was agreed that the States would provide a one off roll-up' payment in 2006, based on the average cropped areas planted in the years 2004 and 2005 to enable the growers either to adapt to the changing market, diversify or to leave the industry. Following this "exit strategy" ongoing crop support was given through the SAP.

The Department is only required to keep financial details for the previous 7 financial years. The following details the payments between 2006 and 2012, including monies paid as part of the exit strategy and SAP to the protected crops sector.

2. SENATOR  A.  BRECKON OF THE  CHAIRMAN  OF  COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING THE EMPLOYMENT OF TRAINEES BY PARISHES:

Question

In view of the various initiatives in place to get people back into work and as every Parish employs both manual and clerical workers, can the Chairman advise how many trainees, if any, have been employed in each year since 2010 and in which Parish?

Answer

The opportunities for trainees to gain work experience are limited in most parishes as the number of manual and clerical workers is small and, in some cases, positions are part- time rather than full-time.

Nevertheless, Parishes are prepared to offer work experience to trainees from schemes such as Advance to Work' and Back to Work'. St Helier has had a number of people from  various  initiatives  (detailed  information  regarding  the placements  from  these schemes, such as the number and year in which they were offered can be circulated in due course should this be required) and the replies received from other parishes are as follows:

2011 – 1 trainee St Martin;

2012 – 1 trainee Grouville ; 1 trainee St Clement

2013 – 1 trainee Grouville ; 2 trainees St Clement

Apprentice and trainee positions have also been offered as follows:

2010 – 1 trainee St Lawrence

2011 – 1 apprentice in St Helier

2012 – 1 trainee in St Helier

Permanent positions would also be advertised to those on the schemes.

3. SENATOR  A.  BRECKON OF THE  MINISTER  FOR  HOUSING REGARDING  THE  PROVISION  OF  ACCOUNTS  FOR  PHASES  OF DEVELOPMENT OF LES SQUEZ AND LES MARAIS:

Question

"Given that it was stated in the report accompanying P6/2007 (Social Housing Property Plan 2007–2016) approved on 17th July 2007, that the financing of Le Squez and Le Marais would be met from the £50 million sales of 208 properties to existing tenants and the receipts would fund the redevelopment of the whole estate, would the Minister provide the accounts for the phases of this development and identify the sources of funding?"

Answer

The table attached sets out the cost of each phase of the works to date, the numbers of homes sold the cash value realised, the value of deferred payment bonds held on the Department's balance sheet and the source of other funding which has contributed to the scheme.

Funding Source

Project - Description Cost Sales  Housing

Proceeds Rolling Vote*

Fiscal  Deferred Stimulus &  Units  Units Sold Bond Value

P40/2012 Constructed on Sale

Le Marias Low Rise (La Selliere) - HYC014

Le Marais Low Rise - Phase 2 (Les Hinguettes) - HYC027 Le Squez - Redevelop - Ph 1A (La Cambrette) - HYC020 Le Squez - Redevelop - Ph 1b (Les Cloches) - HYC024

Le Squez Phase 2 (Les Burons & Les Anquetils) - HYC028 Le Squez Phase 2c - HYR066 - Under Construction

Le Squez Phase 3 - HYR058 - Feasibility

4,831,134.16 4,870,500.00 -39,365.84

6,929,115.88 6,929,115.88

5,058,639.85 3,973,500.00 1,085,139.85

8,100,482.36 8,755,750.00 -655,267.64

11,155,456.75 3,017,494.75 8,137,962.00 4,986,114.00 486,114.00  4,500,000.00

150,125.21 150,125.21

41,211,068.21 17,599,750.00 10,973,356.21 12,637,962.00

37 23 541,166.67 47 0 -

19 18 441,500.00 65 40 2,918,584.00 60 0 -

24 0 -

- - -

252 81 3,901,250.67

* - Housing Rolling Vote includes sale proceeds from other properties and allocations from the Consolidated Fund.

4. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING PROBLEMS AND BREAKDOWNS AT THE INCINERATOR:

Question

With regard to the Energy from Waste Plant (incinerator) would the Minister -

1. update members on the tree screening progress;
2. advise whether there are problems with the travelling crane and hearth and, if so, give details of the malfunctions.
3. state whether any monies have been paid to the construction firm and, if so, what percentage ofthe total,
4. advise whether he has sought to re-negotiate the contract in view of the number of problems and breakdowns, and,
5. agree to arrange for a competent firm of engineers (independent of both the Transport and Technical Services Department and the contractor) to prepare a comprehensive report on the incinerator.

Answer

1. The Deputy may recall from my responses to his questions of15th January 2013 and 19th February 2013 that due to the sites exposure to salt laden winds, this is an extremely hostile site in which to establish trees. The trees are establishing slowly but as I have explained on previous occasions it will take several years before the final screening affect is achieved.

My previous offer for the Deputy to visit the site with an Officer from my department to look at the trees remains open.

2. There are nocurrent problems with the travelling crane or hearth however in recent months the control cabling to the crane did show signs of damage and as a result ofthis all ofthe crane cabling was replaced as a precautionary measure. The work and materials are to bepaid for in full by the contractor. The plant is large and complex;it is inevitable that it will from time to time suffer from mechanical or electrical breakdowns.
3. The plant has been successfully processing the Island's waste since December 2010. So far the States of Jersey has paidthecontractors95%ofthe Civil Works and95%ofthe Process Works.
4. The original contract is still intact and is working very effectively for the States of Jersey.
5. Competent Engineers (independent of boththeTransportandTechnical Services department and the contractor) have been working onthe project since its inception. The client's team are fully aware of all theresidual issues and we have an agreed schedule with the contractor to ensure the plant meets the original performance specification. Third party Engineers would not add any value at this stage of the negotiations.

5. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING SITE OF FORMER BOULEY BAY HOTEL:

Question

With regard to the site of the former Bouley Bay Hotel, would the Minister explain why this area has been allowed to deteriorate, does he consider that the pot-holes are a danger to vehicles and pedestrians alike and, if so, what action, if any, will he be taking?

Answer

The car park which the Deputy refers to is administered and maintained by the Environment department and not Transport and Technical Services. My officers have been in contact with the relevant officers at the Environment department who confirm the pot holes will be filled in and the area tidied up in the next four weeks

6. DEPUTY S.S.P.A. POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING DISPATCH TIMES FOR POLICE VEHICLES:

Question

Would the Minister indicate to the Assembly the estimated and proposed dispatch times for police vehicles responding to an emergency to most points on the Island from the proposed Green Street Police Headquarters location and can he compare those dispatch times to the seven minute average dispatch time of police vehicles attributed to most parts of the Island from the present location at Rouge Bouillon?

Would the Minister confirm whether there will be any calculated difference? Answer

Despite the best efforts of the States of Jersey Police and me, there has continued to be public misunderstanding of the way in which the States of Jersey Police respond to emergencies and I am grateful to Deputy Power for the opportunity to correct this misunderstanding.

There are no estimated or proposed despatch times for police vehicles responding to an emergency from the proposed Green Street Car Park Police Headquarters because the vast majority of emergency calls are responded to by police vehicles which are out patrolling the Island. About two vehicles per week leave Police Headquarters in order to respond directly to incidents occurring somewhere else in Jersey. However, most of these deployments are not emergency deployments but are specialist departments, such as Crime Scene Investigation, Police Dogs etc. who are responding in support of officers who have already deployed from locations elsewhere in the Island.

The target response time to incidents within the town area is 6 minutes and to incidents outside St Helier is 10 minutes. 90% of emergency responses (Code 1) are achieved within the above target response times.

Average response times from Police Headquarters are not recorded for the reasons set out above.

On the unusual occasions where an emergency response might be made directly from the new Police Headquarters, the estimation of the States of Jersey Police is that eastbound responses would be about 1 minute faster than westbound responses.

My own view, based upon my experience of the roads in Jersey, is that if a comparison were to be made between the current position of Police Headquarters and the future position, then the following would apply in the unusual cases in which an emergency deployment were to be made from Police Headquarters: -

1. deployment to the south-east and east of the Island would be faster;

2. deployment to the north-east, south, south-west and west ofthe Island would be about the same; and
3. deployment to the north-west and north of the Island would be slower.

Overall, bearing in mind the normal pattern of deployments from mobile units, neither the States of Jersey Police nor I believe that the proposed relocation will make any difference to the average response times.

7. DEPUTY S.S.P.A. POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING REPORTS IN RESPECT OF FUTURE POPULATION STRATEGY:

Question

Further to his response to a written question from Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier on 2nd July 2013, what information is the Chief Minister's Department studying, awaiting or appraising, in addition to the various reports produced by the Statistics Unit since the first 2011 Census report, in order to bring a report to the States so that Members can consider and then debate the future population strategy?

In the aforementioned response a reference was made to the consideration of the economy, the environment and the community and the type of Island "we" want, would the Chief Minister elaborate on this?

Answer

The Council of Ministers recognises that population, including attitudes to inward and outward migration, is of great interest to Islanders, which is why it was a strategic priority.

At the same time, the Council also included a priority to develop sustainable long term planning, recognising that there are a number of important long term issues that will affect the Island over the next 15-25 years, for example, our ageing population and the changing global economic environment.

These types of issues need to be addressed with co-ordinated strategies that deliver sustainability and liveability in the longer term, balancing economic, community and environmental considerations. It is therefore vitally important that we consider population policy in this context for future generations, and not in isolation.

The Council is currently reviewing what other jurisdictions are doing, including best practice, and what Islanders have said in previous consultations of this nature. In addition, work is underway to assess the long term consequences for our Island of different immigration scenarios based on the Statistics Unit Population Model, for example, with reference to housing, public services, and our economy.

In the autumn, we will be engaging with Islanders on a proposed vision, with a view to bringing forward a sustainable long-term strategy, including population, for debate in the first quarter of 2014.

8. CONNÉTABLE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING USE OF UNSPENT FUNDS FROM THE TOWN PARK CAPITAL VOTE:

Question

Despite the fact that the States Budget Management Report for the period ended December 2012 (page 6) states that half a million pounds of unspent funds from the Town Park Capital vote is to be returned to the rolling votes of Transport and Technical Services and Housing, would the Minister confirm whether this sum was identified for another project which was never undertaken and, if so, would the Minister explain what this 'other project' was, when it was agreed and by whom, why it was not undertaken and when that decision was made, and why the extra funding was included in the vote for the Millennium Town Park if it was never intended to be spent on that project?

Would the Minister provide a breakdown of how the £10 million sum allocated by the States was spent and what became of the earlier sums allocated to the Millennium Town Park project?

Answer

The half a million pounds relates to a proposal by the Council of Ministers in 2007 for landscaping improvements  to Victoria Avenue unrelated to the Town Park. This was proposed to be funded from the TTS Infrastructure and Housing Rolling Votes (£250k each). To allow the landscaping project to be explored more fully, however, a temporary transfer of £500k from the Town Park budget was to be made, with this to be reimbursed in later years from the two sources mentioned above.

Following  consideration  of  outline  schemes, the  landscaping  project  was  not  considered  an affordable priority and the scheme did not proceed. However, the reimbursements were still made, meaning the Town Park budget was showing an excess of £500k. As this project did not proceed there was a requirement to return the budgets to the original capital heads of expenditure, namely the TTS Infrastructure and Housing Rolling Votes.

This was affected in 2012. These accounting adjustments had no effect upon the funding approved for, and spent on, the Town Park and no variations have been made to capital funding approved by the States.

A breakdown of the £10m allocated by the States was spent is listed below. All earlier sums allocated to the Millennium Town Park Project were spent on the early concept, feasibility and initial design work.

Millennium Town Park - Cost Breakdown Summary Item Cost

(£1000's)

1 Preparation, Planning and Enabling £2,400 2 Contaminated Land Remediation £2,640 3 Utility Building £768 4 Services and Systems £1,050 5 Paving £1,200 6 Planting £996 7 Play area £228 8 Practice Court and Petanque £120

9 Park Furniture and Pergolas £280 10 Water Curtain £90 11 Water Field £156 12 Public Art £72

Total Cost £10,000

9. DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL  SERVICES  REGARDING  TREATMENT  OF  CHRONIC  FATIGUE SYNDROME PATIENTS:

Question

Would the Minister advise how many people have been treated for ME/CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) by the Health Service in the last 10 years and provide figures for each year 2000 to 2012?

Is there a specialist doctor or consultant that treats these patients?

What public information, if any, is provided by the Health Service to Islanders about the illness and the family support available?

Answer

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), also sometimes referred to as ME (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis) is a relatively common condition that causes persistent fatigue and exhaustion. It affects everyday life and it doesn't go away with sleep or rest.

Symptoms can be mild, moderate or severe. Although the condition can, in its most severe form, be seriously debilitating and require lengthy periods of rehabilitation, the vast majority of other cases are dealt with in the community by GPs.

The number of patients who present to the Hospital with severe, disabling CFS/ME is very low.

Hospital data – which is available for the past two years – records no cases of hospital admissions, where Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) has been the primary condition, while anecdotally, the Consultant Neurologist recalls that around five patients have required hospital admission for CFS in the past seven years.

No outpatient episodes are clinically coded, which is in line with UK practice.

While  we  have  data  showing  the  number  of  Outpatients  and  which  clinic  patients  attend, information about the condition for which they are being seen/treated is not routinely recorded within HSSD databases.

The information is retained in the patient notes and GP correspondence only, and HSSD does not have access to GP patient records.

A patient with suspected or diagnosed CFS/ME, referred by their GP to the Hospital, would initially be referred to the Consultant their GP felt would be the most appropriate, given the specific the symptoms a patient is displaying. This may be a pain clinic, orthopaedic, physiotherapy or neurology etc.

However, it is common practice that the patient will, ultimately, also be seen by the Neurology consultant, who has primary responsibility for this field, and fully understands the frustrations and challenges faced by those suffering with CFS.

In the event a patient is diagnosed with severely disabling CFS/ME, the Consultant may refer the patient to Kings College Hospital in London for a more specialist opinion on symptoms and potential treatment pathways.

This, however, happens very infrequently as the number of patients presenting to the Hospital with severe CFS symptoms is extremely low.

A dedicated ME/CFS website – www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Chronic-fatigue-syndrome - provides a wealth of helpful information, guidance and advice on the condition, as well as links to support networks and groups, and can be accessed via a link on our HSSD website www.gov.je/Health

Clinicians, nurses and other HSSD staff will assist patients with accessing this information, directing them to the websites and/or printing off relevant background information, support group contact details etc.

10. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCHEME:

Question

Can the Minister confirm whether the publicly funded energy efficiency scheme was temporarily suspended in 2011 and 2012 to be re-evaluated, due to internal procedural problems within the Department and, if so, would he further confirm that, as a consequence, significant amounts of public money was misspent by the programme officers through the funding of private applicants whose homes fell outside of the remit of the scheme and impacted upon the ability to gauge the benefits of such energy efficiency measures?

Answer

I can report that the Energy Efficiency Service (EES) has never suspended its services as a result of internal procedural problems', or for any other reason, and no programme officers, past or present, have misspent significant amounts of public money' as the question would suggest.

All EES staff operate within the mandate originally laid out to them by the States Assembly in 2008 when this workstream was established in the 2009 budget debate. The aim was to assist the vulnerable' with energy efficiency improvements.

The EES offers a 100% grant assisted turnkey service for vulnerable Islanders and has received 1,613 applications since 2009. To date, the EES has completed work (or is in the process of carrying out work) in 1,427 eligible households. The categories of eligibility for grants are set by the Minister who has been, and continues to be, advised by the Jersey Energy Trust (JET). JET was established in 2009 under MD-PE-2009-0114[1] and is an independent body that provides oversight and guidance to the Minister with respect to the energy efficiency services that are offered.

To assist further, I have set out below more details on how the EES operates.

Originally, eligibility for assistance from the EES was focused on a subset of people on Income Support in receipt of the Cold Weather Payment or those enrolled on the Westfield Health Scheme (65+ Health Scheme). As this priority group of clients were helped, the eligibility criteria has been expanded to include all those on Income Support, the Food Cost Bonus payment and a further

group of Low-Income Islanders who are over 70 and declare having limited savings2.

Since the scheme began, applicants who are not eligible for acceptance under the usual criteria but who feel that their circumstances merit further consideration, have the right to appeal to the Minister. On reviewing such a case, the Minister may decide to accept an applicant on to the scheme using his/her discretion; this route has been used for 4 individuals since 2009. Full details on eligibility are available on the EES website3.

In evaluating an application for eligibility, officers are required to make the appropriate checks to ensure that applicants are eligible for help. For example, if an applicant claims to be on Income Support or another benefit such as the Food Cost Bonus payment, officers back-check' with the Department for Social Security to ensure they are actually in receipt of this benefit. If the applicants declare they are over 70, and of limited savings, their age is checked with the Department of Social Security.

When the householder receives assistance they sign an agreement document to authorise the prescribed energy efficiency works to their property. There is a clause that allows the States of Jersey to reclaim the value of the grant if information given in the application is found to be untrue. We have never had reason to enforce this provision but if the Deputy has evidence of ineligible people receiving State's assistance then he is invited to contact me and I will thoroughly investigate this.

All EES staff, both past and present, operate in accordance with the relevant States of Jersey Financial Directions: Financial Direction 5.1 the Purchase of Goods and Services' and 5.5 The Management of Grants'. The officer responsible for the EES budget meets with the Department financial manager every month and the Department's Senior Management Team review the Department's overall spend at their 6 weekly Senior Management Board Meeting. The JET Board members receive an update on the EES budget every month by email and this includes expenditure and open orders. The budget is a standing agenda item at every JET Board meeting (held at least 4 times a year).

All energy efficiency work undertaken by contractors appointed by the EES are ordered and receipted through the States of Jersey Financial Management system – JD Edwards. The member of the EES team raises an order within the system and their senior manager and budget holder (in this case the Director for Environmental Policy) approves that order. All client records are held in a bespoke Client Relationship Management System. A combination of the financial data and operational data held in JD Edwards and the CRM allows the Energy Efficiency Service to report and analyse in great detail on all its activities and areas of spend.

The number and cost of each intervention (e.g. loft insulation, cavity wall insulation) ordered by the EES is known and quantified. The environmental benefit, in terms of carbon savings, as well as cost savings to the customer can then be evaluated. The analysis of the interventions and their benefits are then externally validated by the UK's Energy Saving Trust to which the EES is accredited. The EES report this data both to the Minister and the JET Board, an example of this report is the EES's Phase 1 report which covers the period 2009 and 2010 and was lodged au

Greffe in November 2011 under MD-PE-2011-01194.

2Less than: £50,000 savings if they are married/co-habiting or £30,000 savings if they live alone. This category of applicants is approximately 10% of the total applicants that are accepted on to the scheme.

3

http://www.gov.je/ENVIRONMENT/GENERATEENERGY/ENERGYEFFICIENCY/Pages/EnergyEfficiencyService Grants.aspx

4http://www.gov.je/Government/PlanningPerformance/Pages/MinisterialDecisions.aspx?docid=5c3da955f99ed95aba12 9ad0dc6e639a_MDs

11. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING COST OF COURT CASE AGAINST FORMER SENATOR SYVRET:

Question

Now that the secret court case against former Senator Stuart Syvret has concluded and given that data protection matters fall within the remit of the Chief Minister's department, will he detail –

1. the total cost of the case from public funds;
2. who authorised this sum and oversaw its allocation;
3. whether any ofthe 4 individualsbringing the case withthe assistance of theData Protection Commissioner also had to contribute theirownfundsand,ifso, were these differing amounts and what were those sums;
4. whether former Senator Syvret was afforded 'financial equality of arms' from the same public funds;
5. whetherany background checks were carried out on the 4 individuals to ascertain whether they had a history of similar allegations made against themselves;

If the Chief Minister is unable or is the wrong person to provide the relevant information, will he clarify under whose authority these Data Protection matters fall?

Answer

The legal proceedings are not yet concluded and the Court order remains in place regarding the disclosure of information to any non-party. Therefore the position remains that further discussion would be sub judice. Once the proceeding are concluded, and subject to the decisions of the Court, it would it would then be appropriate to consider the extent to which further information can be provided.

12. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE BUDGET ALLOCATED TO DATA PROTECTION TO FUND A COURT CASE:

Question

Will the Minister clarify what was the total amount of monies allocated or transferred to the office of the Data Protection Commissioner to fund the case against former Senator Stuart Syvret relating to 4 private individuals and breaches of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005?

Answer

No funding has been allocated or transferred to the office of the Data Protection Commissioner to fund any case. The costs incurred associated with cases are met from the Court and Case Cost budget. In 2013, a total budget of £7.7 million has been allocated to fund court and case costs incurred by the Judicial Departments, Police and Customs. It is not possible to outline total monies to be allocated to any on-going case.

In answer to the question once proceedings are complete the Minister, and the Data Protection Commissioner, will need to have regard to:

• the Code of Practice on Access to Information held by the States, Committees of the States and Departments of the States;
• any stipulations of the Court concerning disclosure; and
• the principles of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 insofar as they relate to the rights of data subjects

when reaching a view on what information can legally be released.

13. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING SUSPECTS IN CHILD ABUSE COURT CASE:

Question

In the course of the abuse case brought against James Donnelly in 2008/9 how many suspects were investigated in addition to Donnelly; how many initial suspects were not even interviewed, how many, if any, in addition to Donnelly were arrested and how many cases were sent to H.M. Attorney General's office for consideration to be given to the individuals being charged?

Answer

In respect of this case, there were three other individuals who were considered as suspects and they were arrested and interviewed. Prosecution case files were prepared and presented to the Law Officers' Department by the States of Jersey Police for consideration of criminal proceedings. None of the other three individuals in this case were charged with any associated offences.

14. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING RECENT INCIDENTIN A SCHOOL CONCERNING THE USE OF A STARTING PISTOL:

Question

Following an incident at a secondary school involving a male pupil and a starting pistol, would the Minister confirm whether the school concerned dealt with the incident in line with established procedures?

Would the Minister advise whether the school contacted the injured child's mother to inform her about the incident or did she only learn about it after school from her son?

Did the school transport the child to hospital after the incident and, if not, why not and who did? Answer

A police investigation into the incident has been undertaken and we are still awaiting the outcome.

Police inquiries and legal processes always take precedence in such cases. Once they have been completed, the Education, Sport and Culture Department will commission its own inquiry.

Until this takes place and in fairness to all parties involved, it would be inappropriate to comment on any details of the incident.

15. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE RELOCATION OF LES SQUEZ YOUTH CLUB:

Question

Would the Minister confirm the assurances that he has given to Le Squez Youth Club that they will be re-located on the opposite side of the road as part of Housing's re-development of the site, and will he give the latest estimate of when this might occur?

Answer

As the Deputy knows, the proposed relocation of the Le Squez Youth Club to a new location on land presently occupied by social rented homes at Le Squez was always contingent on an exchange of various parcels of land at Le Squez between Samares School and the Housing Department. Therefore it was by no means a certainty that the new facility would be built and no absolute assurances to that effect have been given.

It is fair to say that an in principle agreement for these exchanges of land had been in place since at least 2010 and the Housing Department hoped that the whole scheme including the Youth Club could be delivered. However, in September 2012 in response to an increase in pupil numbers it became clear that the School was going to require increases in parking provision and amenity space which meant that the land exchanges originally proposed were not going to be feasible and would not be pursued. However, many of the other benefits arising from the master plan relating to improvements to parking, providing safe pedestrian access routes through the estate and the creation of a direct link between the School and the FB Fields are still important features of the proposed scheme.

The existing Youth Club is structurally sound and capable of being refurbished or extended and the Education Department has a £2m bid in the States long term capital programme for 2017 to undertake this project. The redevelopment of all of Le Squez is to be completed over approximately the next 5 years meaning that should the Education Department's capital bid be successful the improved Youth Club could be delivered in a very similar timescale.

16. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING FUTURE USE OF THE LES SQUEZ YOUTH CLUB BUILDING:

Question

Would the Minister confirm that Le Squez Youth Club is due to be moved during Housing's re- development of Le Squez estate and, if so, would the Minister state, in light of the imminent replacement of the club roof, what future use the building is destined for and assure members that the premises are not to be refurbished only to be demolished a year or so later?

Answer

Jersey Property Holdings Maintenance has, in consultation with the Youth Service, held off undertaking the roof works until funding could be secured. Funds are now in place for 2013. The repairs to the roof of Le Squez Youth Club are essential and urgent if the youth and community activities are to continue in the property.

The roof slates have deteriorated to the point of becoming porous and are not fit for purpose. The effect of this deterioration is that water penetrates the roof slate and enters the building when it rains. This water ingress means the sports hall has to be closed to all activities until the weather improves and a clean-up operation is undertaken.

JPH Maintenance engaged a local architect to undertake the design and document submission, and has received approval to proceed with the works. The application had to conform to the Bye-Laws for energy conservation and, as a result, included the installation of insulation under the new roofing slate. This will provide an enhanced environment in the club and will assist the Youth Service in reducing energy consumption with regard to the heating and cooling of the sports hall. The project is currently out to tender and is due to start around the beginning of September 2013, lasting for approximately 10 to 12 weeks.

The relocation of the youth club building is not imminent or a certainty at this stage. Discussions will continue with Housing about how the school and youth club integrate into their redevelopment. However, it is likely that, due to its proximity to the school, the youth project building will remain an asset of the States of Jersey. The investment in the building is therefore justified for both the short and long term and will help improve what the Youth Service can offer young people in the Le Squez area.

17. DEPUTY  G.C.L.  BAUDAINS  OF ST.  CLEMENT OF THE  MINISTER  FOR PLANNING  AND  ENVIRONMENT  REGARDING  PLANNING  APPLICATIONS FOR THE RE DEVELOPMENT OF LES SQUEZ:

Question

With regard to Housing's re-development of Le Squez estate, could the Minister confirm, given Housing's ongoing alterations to the original plan, that each variation has and will be the subject of an application to Planning, together with appropriate advertisement so that interested parties are aware and have a chance to make input and, if not, why not?

Answer

I am happy to reassure the Assembly that the Housing Department need to apply to my department for permission to carry out works and alterations to the Le Squez housing estate as set out in the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002. Indeed, my officers are already engaged in discussion with the Housing Department's architects on a redesign of the next phase of development. All planning applications received are advertised and interested parties are able to comment within 21 days and these comments are considered before a planning decision is made.

Major schemes with planning permission may incur minor and inconsequential alternations from time to time and my department deal with this for the Le Squez housing estate in the same manner as they would on any other site.

In addition, under the Planning and Building (General Development)(Jersey) Order 2011, there are a number  of works  and  alternations that can be made  without requiring planning permission providing the relevant conditions are met.

To assist further, I have set out below the recent planning applications relating to the Le Squez housing estate:

18. DEPUTY  G.P.  SOUTHERN  OF  ST.  HELIER OF THE  CHIEF  MINISTER REGARDING A REPORT ON THE VALUE OF JERSEY TO BRITAIN:

Question

With regard to the report The Value of Jersey to Britain' by Capital Economics published on 2nd July 2013, will the Chief Minister inform members –

1. who paid for this report, how much did it cost and what was the source ofthe States contribution towards this;
2. what bodies in the UK or Jersey provided the figures on which the report is based;
3. were any ofthe critics of Jersey's finance industry spoken to;
4. how independent' is Capital Economics; does this body have declared sponsors, were enquiries made regarding previous publications and their sponsors before commissioning this report and, if so, would the Chief Minister provide details;
5. is Capital Economics a commercial company which provides economic and financial investment advice for investors and, if so, has this report been subject to critical peer review;
6. what trackrecord have the authors ofthe report (Andrew Evans, Rachel Lund and Mark Pragnell) in respect of publication in authoritative, peer- reviewed academic journals?

Answer

1. Jersey Finance Limited (JFL) commissioned this report at a cost of £176,000. Government supported JFL in its commissioning of the report through the transfer of funds by Ministerial Decision (MD-TR-2013-0027).
2. Information was taken from a number of sources including but not limited to Jersey Financial Services Commission, Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, HM Treasury, National Audit Office and the States of Jersey Statistics Unit – all sources are referenced are in the report.

Detailed industry information was provided by the Jersey financial services industry and quality checked and approved by Capital Economics researchers.

3. This report is based on facts and data collected over an extended period. The economic analysis was based on this data and on facts. On that basis it would be inappropriate to seek such opinion for a report of this nature.
4. A number of companies were sent the Request for Proposal for this work and a thorough competitive tender process took place. Capital Economics was judged to have submitted the best tender which included strong commendations on their previous work. The company has an excellent reputation and were awarded the Wolfsson Economic Prize for their research work on the Euro.

Capital Economics is an independent company and the report was commissioned and researched on an arms length basis. Their reputation has been built on their capabilities and their independence.

5. Capital Economics is a highly reputable consultancy which provides independent economic analysis to institutional and corporate clients around the world. They do not provide investment advice to anyone.

Full details of Capital Economics range of services can be found on their website www.capitaleconomics.com.

I am unsure what is meant by the question of critical peer review? The firm was commissioned to provide an economic report on a commercial basis. It would not be normal practice to commission a peer review in such circumstances.

6. Capital Economics is a highly regarded institution who provide expert economic analysis and reporting to a wide range of institutions on a commercial basis and as such would not be involved in academic research.

The firm provides regular analysis of global issues as well as regional and sectoral analysis. Examples of specific research work include:

• Assessment of the future benefit to the UK economy of the roll out of '4G' mobile Internet technology for a telecommunications network company
• Critical evaluation of passenger demand forecasts and development of credible scenarios to underpin a franchise bid by a train operating company
• Appraisal of long term drivers of liabilities for a large pension fund
• Survey of City attitudes to government borrowing to help a trade body develop new policy ideas to stimulate construction sector

19. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING FIGURESIN THE REPORTVALUEOFJERSEYTOBRITAIN FOR TAX EVASION:

Question

Does the Chief Minister accept the figures contained in the report The Value of Jersey to Britain' that the United Kingdom loses around £150 million in tax evasion through Jersey channels and a total of £600 million in tax "leakage" (avoidance and evasion)?

What measures, if any, has the Chief Minister in hand to reduce these sums in the short term? Answer

The estimates of tax loss produced by Capital Economics are the very best estimates we have. They are based on much more comprehensive analysis than that of other estimates. The report suggests that this is the maximum level of tax evasion plausible although the report states that the actual level is probably much lower.

The tax evasion figure of £150 million (which is included in the tax leakage total of £600 million) is expected to be significantly reduced as a result of the Disclosure Facility offered by the UK, and recently presented to the States, and the automatic exchange of information with the implementation of the intergovernmental agreement based on the US FATCA that is currently being negotiated.

The tax avoidance figure is also expected to be reduced as a result of the intergovernmental agreement. Again the report estimates that in all probability the actual number is much lower.

In addition it will be reduced by our own policies directed at discouraging the use of the Island for those aggressive avoidance schemes that would be damaging to Jersey's reputation as a quality international finance centre. One of the recommendations of McKinsey was that there should be set up a Sound Business Practice Committee, comprised of representatives of government, the industry and the regulator, and this Committee is already up and running.

20. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING JERSEY MANAGED WEALTH AND U.K. TAXES:

Question

Does the Chief Minister accept that the chart (Figure 1) contained within the Capital Economics report published on 2nd July 2013, summarising the sources and destination of Jersey managed wealth, demonstrates that the total for the United Kingdom sourced funds must include the £150 billion of funds from non-doms, who only place funds in Jersey to circumvent the taxes due in the UK?

Does he further accept that the chart shows that

1. less than 50% of funds managed in Jersey are invested in the UK, and;
2. a significant proportion of funds invested in the UK from Jersey did in fact come from the UK in the first place and only went to Jersey to avoid or evade tax by taking advantage of our tax- neutral status?

Answer

I do not accept that those who qualify under the UK tax system as resident non-domiciled (non- doms) place funds in Jersey to circumvent the taxes due in the UK. The use of Jersey by the non- doms is the result of deliberate UK Government policy. UK non-doms could place their assets anywhere outside the UK with the same tax effect.

It is important to understand that the UK tax system has for many years encouraged non-nationals to live and work in the UK. Indeed Prime Minister Cameron quite openly welcomed wealthy French non UK domiciled people to London when French income taxes were being raised.

These non-doms' are welcomed to the UK and encouraged to stay there by the UK tax system which for non-doms only taxes UK source income and foreign income remitted to the UK. There is no UK tax liability arising in respect of foreign income that the non-doms do not remit to the UK.

The non-doms can hold their foreign income anywhere outside the UK and only pay UK tax on any sum remitted to them in the UK. The advantage for the UK in having this foreign income held in Jersey is that, in addition to ensuring that the UK is seen as a most favoured place of residence for the non-doms (which has also helped to attract foreign manufacturers and financial institutions to locate in the UK with employment and tax revenue benefits), the funds placed in Jersey are included in the funds upstreamed to the UK by the Jersey banks.

The Chart (Figure 1) in the Capital Economics report to which the second part of the question refers is a pictoral presentation of the more detailed information contained in Figure 36. This shows that of the value of assets held, administered or managed in Jersey it is estimated that 47% of the underlying asset is located in the UK. This figure reflects two aspects of Jersey role as an international finance centre. One is its importance to the UK economy and the other is the international nature of its business.

Figure 35 in the Captial Economics report shows the value of assets held, administered or managed in Jersey by location of ultimate contributor, settlor, investor or depositor. This shows a figure for the UK of 36%. However this does not mean that the funds came from the UK. A third of the UK figure is attributed to the non-doms who while resident in the UK will have placed foreign income in Jersey. A proportion of the money arising from UK based corporates will be money invested by institutions in Jersey funds that had a non UK source. It is incorrect therefore to state that the figure shown for the UK in Figure 35 represents money that " only went to Jersey to avoid or evade tax" It is also incorrect to suggest that all the money invested into the UK from Jersey and all the money that the UK is identified as the contributor are the same money.

Some of the UK investment funds are routed through Jersey for investment in Europe or elsewhere around the world.

Similarly we know that many of the funds received by our banks internationally are then upstreamed' to the parent bank in the UK. Additionally wealthy individuals from around the world use Jersey to pool funds for investment into the UK.

21. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING CREDIBILITY OF A REPORT INTO THE VALUE OF JERSEY TO BRITAIN:

Question

Can the Chief Minister account for the discrepancy between the statement in the Capital Economics report that Jersey is custodian of £1.2 trillion of wealth: £200 billion in banks; £400 billion in trusts established by private individuals; £400 billion in specialist structures for businesses and institutions; and £200 billion in administered or managed funds' and the figures given in the quarterly report of Jersey Finance Limited that the total value of banking deposits held in Jersey increased by £3bn from £152.1bn to £155.1bn during the first quarter of 2013'?

Does this cast the credibility of the report into some doubt? Answer

I would refer the Deputy to Page 39 Figure 27 in the report which provides a breakdown of the £200bn figure in banks. This figure includes deposits, customer loans and other assets. The deposits figure quoted by Jersey Finance relates to bank deposits only.

22. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING CLARIFICATION OF AGREEMENTS WITH U.K. PRIME MINISTER REGARDING TAXES:

Question

Notwithstanding the response given on 2nd July 2013, will the Chief Minister clarify for members what changes, if any, he has recently agreed with the UK Prime Minister, in relation to

1. how much information exchange Jersey has entered into;
2. why Jersey refuses to provide corporate tax transparency;
3. why Jersey still has no register of trusts;
4. why Jersey does not commit to full automatic information exchange under the terms of the existing European Union Savings Tax Directive;
5. why Jersey opposes the extension of the European Union Savings Tax Directive;
6. when Jersey will sign the OECD tax mutual assistance agreement;
7. what information Jersey will exchange under its new commitment to automatic information exchange, and when?

Answer

1. Following what has recently been agreed withthe UK Prime Minister, the arrangements for tax information exchange with the UK already include or will include the following –

• Tax Information Exchange Agreement (in force November 2009)
• Double Taxation Arrangement (in force 1952)
• EU Savings Tax Agreements (in force July 2005)
• Disclosure Facility ( in force April 2013)
• Intergovernmental Agreement based on US FATCA (under negotiation),
• OECD Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance on Tax Matters (awaiting extension of UK ratification).

2. Jersey has not refused to provide corporate tax transparency. Quite the contrary. Jersey is recognised internationally as a model' to follow. Jersey joined withthe G8 countries in producing an Action Plan on how to improve the transparency ofthe ownership and control of companies and trusts. To quote from the Action Plan –

"Jersey has access to all the information on beneficial ownership that is required to meet the present international standards and to respond effectively to requests for information from tax authorities or law enforcement agencies as required by statute."

"Should international agreement be reached that steps should be taken to allow tax authorities and law enforcement agencies to have access to beneficial ownership information held on a central registry, Jersey will comply with any new international standard in this respect that has global application covering G8, G20, OECD and EU member jurisdictions plus other major financial centres. Because of the quality of the beneficial ownership information already held in the Island such compliance will present far less of a challenge for Jersey than for most if not all other jurisdictions"

Jersey is also committed to take the steps set out in the Action Plan which include "Undertake a general review of corporate transparency, having regard for the development of international standards and their global application, starting with the publication of a pre- consultation paper before the end of 2013."

3. Jersey shares with the G8, the G20, OECD and EU Member Jurisdictions plus other major financial centres in not requiring a registeroftrusts. The Financial Action TaskForcethatis the international standard setter for anti-money laundering revised its recommendations in February 2012 and focussed on the role ofthe trustees as the source of information on the identity of the settlor and the beneficiaries of trusts. This is also reflected in the G8 Communique issued following the Summit held in Northern Ireland last month. Jersey is recognised internationally as a jurisdiction that, because of the licensing and supervision oftrust service providers, has more information availablethanother countries. This information is available to tax authorities and law enforcement agencies in accordance with existing statutes.
4. Jersey has always made it clear that it has no problem with the principle of automatic exchange of information (AEOI) under the terms of the existing European Union Savings Tax Directive. What has been said is that a change from the present retention tax option to AEOI should await a clear indication from the European Union that such a change is in prospectfor Austria and Luxembourg. Accordingly Jersey has responded to the recent statements made by Luxembourg on the adoption of AEOI in 2015, and the expectation that Austria will follow

suit before the end of the year, and has consulted with the industry. The results of that consultation will be considered by the Financial Services External Relations Advisory Group (FERAG) at its next meeting.

5. Jersey has not opposed the extension ofthe European Union Savings Tax Directive. The present position is that we are waiting for an approach from the European Union. This is expectedtotake place once the European Commission has made sufficient progress with the mandate it was given last month to negotiate a revised Savings Tax agreement with Switzerland and the other four non-EU European third countries.
6. Jersey cannot sign the OECD/Council of Europe Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters because only sovereign states can be signatories. Jersey in common with the other CDs will have to rely on the UK issuing a Letter of Declaration extending the UK's ratification of the Convention to Jersey. Under the provisions of the Convention it will enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of three months after the date of receipt ofthe Declaration by the Secretary General ofthe Council ofEurope . The Letter of Declaration is currently under discussion with HM Treasury.
7. The intention ofthe OECD is that there should be a single standard for AEOI based on the US FATCA model. This will be reflected in the intergovernmental agreement with the UK, the joint project initiated by the UK and four other EU member states in which Jersey has agreed to join together with twelve more EU Member States, and bilateral AEOI agreements under the terms of the Multilateral Convention. The information to be provided will include –

• Name, address, date of birth and, where applicable, the National Insurance Number of specified persons and the name and address of each entity;
• The account number
• The name of the reporting financial institution
• The account balance or value
• The total gross amount of interest, the total gross amount of dividends, and the total gross amount of other income generated with respect to the assets held in the account
• The total gross proceeds from the sale or redemption of property paid or credited to the

account.

Under the proposed intergovernmental agreement with the UK, information relating to calendar years 2013 and 2014 shall be exchanged no later than 30 September 2016. Subsequently the information shall be exchanged within nine months after the end of the calendar year to which the information relates. For 2013 and 2014 the information to be exchanged is limited to that covered by the first four bullet points above.

23. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING PUBLICATION OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE INQUIRY INTO PLÉMONT DEVELOPMENT:

Question

Will H.M. Attorney General inform the Assembly whether under the Planning and Building (Public Inquiries) (Jersey) Order 2008, the Inspector who was appointed by the Minister for Planning and Environment to hold a public inquiry into the redevelopment of Plémont Holiday Village is required to prepare and publish a transcript or record of the hearing which took place on 25th and 26th September 2012 and, if so, would he inform the Assembly of the legal procedures which are available to the public to obtain access to that record or transcript and to formally challenge the content of the Inspector's report to the Minister in respect of alleged omissions, factual errors and erroneous analysis contained therein?

Answer

Article 4 of the Planning and Building (Public Inquiries) (Jersey) Order 2008 deals with the general functions of the Inspector. Article 4(2) of the Order provides:

"The inspector shall conduct the public inquiry as he or she thinks fit, subject to the requirements of this Order and of the terms of reference."

Article 14 of the Order deals with the conduct of hearings. Article 14(5) of the Order provides: "The inspector shall cause a record to be made of a hearing."

Subject to any direction in the terms of reference it is a matter for the Inspector as to how he discharges the duty placed on him by Article 14(5).

The Order itself does not require the Inspector to publish a record made by him for the purposes of Article 14(5).

The rights of Members to information held by a Minister are set out in the Report of the Privileges and Procedures Committee to the States of the 23rd December, 2011 (R.153/2011).

The Attorney General refers to the answer to Written Question 7348 which sets out the relevant provision under the 2008 Order concerning the scope of the Minister's discretionary power to reopen a public inquiry.

24. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING PRESERVATION OF A HISTORIC SEA WALL ON ESPLANADE:

Question

Will the Minister inform the Assembly whether, in the light of information and representations which have subsequently come to light, he will be modifying his decision in respect of Unit 4 of the States of Jersey Development Company (SoJDC) office development on the Esplanade to ensure that the historic sea wall alongside the Esplanade remains as an integrated feature of the SoJDC scheme to guarantee the wall's conservation and heritage interpretation and, if so, will he provide details of such modification?

Answer

I am pleased to advise the Assembly that, following a meeting between myself, the applicant and representatives of Save Our Shoreline on 4th July, a compromise agreement has been reached.

27 metres (75%) of the 36 metres of sea wall that would have been destroyed as a result of the construction of the Jersey International Finance Centre Building 4 will now be retained. 9 metres of the sea wall is still being demolished.

I have imposed a condition on the planning permission to this effect and will consider the details prior to the commencement of the work.

I was pleased that the meeting allowed a collaborative approach to this important matter, which resulted in such a positive outcome.

3. Oral Questions

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the creation of a monopoly in fibre routers for the broadband fibre rollout by Jersey Telecom:

Are J.T. (Jersey Telecom) attempting to create for themselves a monopoly in fibre routers for the broadband fibre roll-out, and if so, what action, if any, does the Minister, as the shareholder representative, intend to take?

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

I am advised by J.T. Retail that this is not the case. J.T. are providing free fibre routers to their subscribers in the same way that routers were provided free during the many promotional offers that ran while copper broadband services were being rolled out. If a J.T. Retail subscriber wishes to connect an alternative router to the J.T. network, they can. They should ensure that they contact J.T. to ensure that the fibre service will function with their router. J.T. obviously advise me that they will not provide support for any alternative routers. J.T. also inform me that the provision of routers is a technically complex area and subscribers need to be very careful when choosing alternatives as the network might not work with them. I am advised that other wholesale providers will be able to utilise other routers as part of their own fibre service; other providers will of course provide the service and support where necessary.