States Meeting Transcript - 30th June 2014

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT MONDAY, 30th JUNE 2014

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ......................................5

1.2 Welcome to His Excellency The Lieutenant Governor...................................5 The Deputy Bailiff :............................................................................5

1.2 Welcome to Distinguished Visitor – Right Honourable Diana Abbott, Member of Parliament for Hackney North and Stoke Newington....................................5 The Deputy Bailiff :............................................................................5

QUESTIONS......................................................................................6

2. Written Questions........................................................................6

1. DEPUTY T.A. VALLOIS OF ST. SAVIOUR OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL'S POWERS TO ACCESS COMPUTER DATA:..........................................................7
2. DEPUTY S.S.P.A. POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT'S ACCESS TO BANK ACCOUNTS:................................................................8
3. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE RESULTS OF THE TAXI CONSULTATION:......................................................................8
4. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY GRANTS:............9
5. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING P.S.V. LICENCES:...................14
6. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY GRANTS:..............26
7. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE J.E.C. CABLE LINK:..............................................27
8. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING PARISH RATES:....................27
9. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE SITE FOR THE NEW POLICE HEADQUARTERS:....................................................................28
10. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING RESOURCE SUPPORT FOR THE DEAN OF JERSEY: ..............29

3. Oral Questions...........................................................................29

1. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade of the Chief Minister regarding the levels of births over deaths in Jersey since 2010:............................................................29

Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):.................................30

1. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................30
2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................30
3. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................30
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................31
5. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................31

2. Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the current balance and recent uses of the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund:..................31 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................31

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................32
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................32
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................32
4. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................33
5. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John : ....................................................33
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................33

3. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Housing regarding the annual rent rises proposed by Andium Homes for October 2014:........................................34 Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier (The Minister for Housing):..............................34

3.3.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................34

4. Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the alleged failure of the States of Jersey Police to properly investigate a child protection case:..............35 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................35

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................35
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................35

5. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier of the Solicitor General regarding the disclosure of information by the Viscount's Department in the bankruptcy case of the former Deputies Pitman:.................................................................................36 Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:..................................................36

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................36
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................36
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................37
4. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................37

6. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the implementation of the Scrutiny Report into the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service: ................................................................................38 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):.................38

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................38
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................39
3. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................39
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................39
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................40
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................40
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................40
8. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................40

7. Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding action taken in relation to a child protection matter:...........................................41 The Deputy of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):........................41

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................42
2. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................42

3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................42

4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................42
5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................43

8. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding a full review of the Income Support scheme:................................................................43 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ..............................43

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................44
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................44
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44

9. Deputy S. Power of the Minister for Housing regarding the rights of tenants to keep pets: .........................................................................................45 Deputy A.K.F. Green (The Minister for Housing):............................................45

1. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................45
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................45
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................46
4. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................46

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Housing....................46

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................46 Deputy A.K.F. Green (The Minister for Housing):............................................47

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................47
   2. Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement : ........................................................47
   3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................47
   4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................47
   5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................48

4.5.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................48

6. Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade:.................................................48
7. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................49
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................49

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

9. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................49
10. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................49

5. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister............................50

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................50 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................50

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................50
   2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................50
   3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................50

5.3.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................51

4. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................51
5. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu of St. Helier:....................................................51
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................52

5.6.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................52

7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................52
8. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................53

5.8.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:..................................................................53

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................54

6. The Chairman of the Comité des Connétable s - statement regarding the Island-wide rate for 2014 .............................................................................54

6.1 Connétable J.L.S. of Gallichan of Trinity (Chairman, Comité des Connétable s):........54

1. Senator P.F.C Ozouf :...................................................................54
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................55
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................55

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................55

7. Draft Shops (Regulation of Opening) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.76/2014)...............................................................................56

7.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................56

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................59
2. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................61
3. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................62
4. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin:...........................................64

5. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................67
6. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................68
7. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................68
8. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................69
9. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................70
10. Deputy J.A. Hilton:..................................................................70
11. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................70
12. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:..............................................70
13. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................71
14. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................71

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................74

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER 1.2 Welcome to His Excellency The Lieutenant Governor The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, first, as usual, I am very pleased to welcome His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor on behalf of you all. [Approbation]

1.2 Welcome to Distinguished Visitor – Right Honourable Diana Abbott, Member of Parliament for Hackney North and Stoke Newington

The Deputy Bailiff :

I am also very pleased to acknowledge in the public gallery the Right Honourable Diana Abbott, Member of Parliament for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, very welcome to watch our proceedings for as long as she can bear it. [Laughter] [Approbation] Members will be aware that we have a very long Order Paper. A couple of propositions have been withdrawn or delayed, but I thought I would share some statistics with you in advance of our sitting. We have this afternoon plus 6 days, so that is 39 hours from tomorrow, and there are 48 propositions now to be debated. Four of them are amendments to the proposer's proposition, so if the proposition is proposed as amended we are left with 44. If the average time for debate of a proposition is an hour, we will be 5 hours short. A more practical approach might be to accept that there are some controversial debates, and Members will forgive me for saying that there appears there are several potentials for that. If we had 3 such debates, taking the best part of a day each, that would take some 19.5 hours from our bank of 39. It would leave 20 hours for 41 propositions. Assume for a moment, if you will bear with me, that 12 of those are straightforward and take a quarter of an hour each, that would be 3 hours from the bank and you are left with 17 hours and 29 propositions, roughly 35 minutes each. I would suggest that obviously will not be enough. It would suggest also, therefore, that the longer debates may have to be curtailed. Now, there is no point today in asking why we are in this position. The fact is that we are and the questions and the debates will need to be managed if we are going to get anywhere near finishing the business bearing in mind that the Order Paper for the next sitting looks as bad for length, if not worse, than the present one. I think there are these consequences. The first is this. If possible, we should try to get through questions and one or more propositions this afternoon. I do not, therefore, expect to allow more than 4 minutes per question. Standing Orders say that the purpose of Question Time is to get factual answers. Ministers should in particular please curtail their answers to giving factual responses to the questions as concisely as possible. Questioners should focus on what information they want to extract, not on what message they want to deliver. Secondly, Standing Orders on the content of speeches will, I hope, be strictly enforced for relevance and repetition. Repetitive speeches are not necessary and we do not have time for irrelevant ones. I expect to approach the

debates by being reasonably accommodating with repetitive material during the first 4 speeches on each side of the debate. Thereafter, Members can expect to be pulled up by the Chair unless they have something new to say. I choose 4 because some lawyers have been heard to say that judges need to be told something at least 4 times [Laughter] before you can be sure that they have understood the point. Although that is quite wrong [Laughter], I will adopt that principle this week. Thirdly, Members should ask themselves before they get up whether they have anything valuable to contribute to the debate. Sometimes we have heard Members start with a conversational statement like: "I am not sure what I think about this proposition." Well, if I may say so, if you not sure, stay seated. Almost certainly one of your colleagues will not suffer from the same self-doubt and by the time he or she has finished that speech you may be closer to knowing

what  you  think.   Finally,  almost  certainly,  I  will  cause irritation,  annoyance  and  disquiet  to Members over the course of the next 3 days while I am presiding. Sometimes I am bound to make a wrong call or a harsh call. I would like to apologise for that in advance and I ask Members to agree to keep their eyes fixed firmly on the wider picture in the management of this very long order of business, both for this sitting and the next one. [Approbation]

QUESTIONS

2. Written Questions

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

May I ask a point of procedure and possibly a point of order? While I appreciate your direction and I also agree we need to act expediently, it seems to me, though, slightly unfair that Question Time should be penalised because at the last sitting we agreed to meet a day early to get through Question Time. We did not agree to move Public Business to a day early. Also, given the fact that certain Members are not here who might have been wishing to partake in even some of the less important debates, I think it should be put to a vote so that the proposition should be we carry on to questions until they are finished.

[14:45]

I imagine we will still have time left over anyway, and then if there is time at the end of that we proceed with Public Business as suggested.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, I have given an indication of the way I propose to do it, but ultimately I am in the hands of the Assembly.  If you wish to make that proposition you can make it. Is it seconded? [Seconded] I take it Members do not wish a debate on it. Those Members in favour of adopting that .. the appel is called for. The proposition from Deputy Tadier is that we allow, if necessary, the full amount of time provided for by Standing Orders on Question Time.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I do not understand the voting. What are we voting on? The Deputy Bailiff :

The proposition from Deputy Tadier is that .. you missed the earlier section. Senator Ozouf , for your benefit I shall say that I had given an indication that I was proposing to allow 4 minutes per question in order that we could get on to the substantive propositions in good time this afternoon.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Sorry, I was here and I did listen to it. I just did not understand the question. The Deputy Bailiff :

Oh, I see. The proposal from Deputy Tadier is that we allow up to the full amount of time provided for by Standing Orders for questions.

1. DEPUTY  T.A.  VALLOIS  OF ST.  SAVIOUR  OF H.M. ATTORNEY  GENERAL REGARDING THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL'S POWERS TO ACCESS COMPUTER DATA:

Question

Will H.M. Attorney General clarify, with reference to recommendation 5 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's (C & AG) report R.77/2013 (Public Audit in Jersey') the full extent of the C&AG's existing legal powers to access computers in the execution of her statutory duties and, in particular, whether those existing powers would permit access for the purposes of assessing the operation of computer systems including standards of information security?

Answer

The relevant part of recommendation 5 of the C & AG's ReportR77/2013 stated that where a legislative opportunity arises, specific provision about rights of access to computers should be made.

The C & AG's existing legal powers are contained in the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005 (the Law).

Article 46 of the Law imposes a duty on the C & AG to provide the States with independent assurance that the public finances of Jersey are being regulated, controlled and accounted for in accordance with the Law. This provision is drafted in broad terms but also makes reference to particular  duties,  and  how  the  requirement  is  taken  to  apply  to  States  funded  bodies  and independently audited States bodies.

For the purpose of performing these functions the C & AG has statutory powers. Article 55 of the Law enables the C & AG to summons a person to produce a specified record, or to require a person who has access to a record to provide the information contained in it. Article 56 of the Law enables the C & AG to enter a building or other premises and while there inspect any records.

The meaning of "record" for the purposes of the Law is "information recorded in any form and, in relation to information recorded otherwise than in legible form, a reference to its provision or production includes a reference to providing or producing a copy of the information in legible form". Information recorded in "any form" includes electronic records whether those are held on computers, USB drives, discs, or in any new format that may be developed in the future.

In my opinion, these statutory powers could be relied on where the C & AG, for the purpose of regulating, controlling and accounting for the public finances of Jersey, needs to access the records on a States computer system to assess whether the way the system operates and its standards of information security are adequate.

Where technical expertise would be required, the C & AG could authorize others to carry out her functions in accordance with the Public Finances (Transitional Provisions) (No.2) (Jersey) Regulations 2005.

2. DEPUTY S.S.P.A. POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT'S ACCESS TO BANK ACCOUNTS:

Question

Could the Minister clarify whether the Taxes Office has the legal right to directly access and withdraw funds from what it deems to be delinquent individual and business accounts locally and, if so, could he detail the number of individual accounts accessed and the amount of funds withdrawn in this way over the past 6 years (2008-2013) in Jersey?

Answer

The Taxes Office has no legal right to directly access or withdraw any funds from a bank account held in the name of an individual, company or any other entity.

The Taxes Office may seek to recover payment of an income tax or GST debt by applying for a judgment in either the Petty Debts Court or the Royal Court. Once granted, the judgement is passed to the Viscount's Department who will take action to recover the debt due to the Treasurer of the States. This may be through the distraint of goods belonging to the debtor or securing funds from the debtor's bank account

The Taxes Office has not maintained a detailed record of the number of occasions on which the Viscount Department has enforced a judgement against a debtor's bank account. However, this action has been taken on several occasions over the past 10 years.

3. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE RESULTS OF THE TAXI CONSULTATION:

Question

Will the Minister inform the Assembly of the conclusions, if any, he has reached from his extensive consultation on taxi regulation throughout his term of office, what action he has already implemented to put these conclusions into effect and what action, if any, he will be taking before his term of office is completed?

Will the Minister further inform the Assembly whether he considers he has secured any improvements in the taxi service or addressed any of the recommendations of the Channel Island Competition Regulatory Authority or do these remain outstanding?

Answer

Yes, there are a number of regulatory reform initiatives I  intend to implement as a result of consultation and these will be presented as a Regulatory Policy Report to the States Assembly before the end of its present term.

The recommendations of CICRA have been fully considered as an integral part of the review process and these recommendations will be incorporated where I consider this appropriate. However, as I am sure the Deputy understands, I am not able to divulge particulars at this time, as the detailed policy remains under development and has the potential to be commercially sensitive.

As well as, establishing the policy objectives to fulfil my regulatory duty to ensure that "there is an adequate, efficient and reasonably priced cab1 service available throughout Jersey at all times"2

into the future. I also recognise the need to respond to more immediate customer concerns.

The consultation results published in my White Paper Report this year, clearly showed, above all else, customers were confused about the two types of taxi and the different fares they charge. The consultation found a proposal to set an industry-wide maximum fare for all taxi-cabs has wide spread public support. Of the 742 individual responses received more than 90% agreed that the TTS Minister should set a maximum level of fares for all taxis.

Organisations in favour of introducing an industry-wide maximum tariff included:

• Jersey Chamber of Commerce
• Jersey Consumer Council
• Channel Islands Competition and Regulatory Authority
• Jersey Cab Drivers Association
• Jersey Taxi Drivers Association

Therefore, I have recently written to all taxi-cab companies, the Jersey Taxi Drivers Association and the Jersey Cab Drivers Association to advise them of my intention to set an industry-wide maximum fare tariff for all taxi-cabs. Preparatory work for this has started and industry engagement will take place later this year.

I am, as always, happy to meet with the Deputy to consider ideas he might have or any concerns he wishes to raise.

1 A cab service defined as one where the vehicle is hired as a whole, generically referred to as a taxi-cab. 2 Motor Traffic Law 1935

4. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY GRANTS:

Question

Will the Minister publish the recent Internal Audit Review of the Energy Efficiency Services Grants carried out at the request of the Environment Scrutiny Panel and, if so, when?

Further to the response given on 29th April 2014, will he provide an explanation of the system for establishing eligibility for grants to carry out improvement work to privately owned properties and explain –

1. how the criteria set for eligibility are applied to grant decisions;
2. whether all or a single criteria are applied;
3. whether grants have been made to home owners who fall outside the capital asset disregard limits set by Social Security?

Would he inform the Assembly what arrangements, if any, he has made to secure the cost of grant against value of the property, identify the increase in property values as a result of undertaking such works and whether the costs can be recovered from the onward sale of the property?

Answer

The recent Internal Audit Report was carried out by the Chief Internal Auditor (CIA) of the States and it is the CIA which controls the issuing and distribution of audit reports. The role of Internal Audit is to provide assurance on systems and controls in the States of Jersey, is internal to the States of Jersey and Internal Audit Reports are not published. Internal Audit presents quarterly to the Audit Committee on Internal Audit activity including reports issued. Both the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and Scrutiny Panels can request information, including that of Internal Audit.

In response to a request by the Environment Scrutiny Panel, the CIA agreed to share the Audit Report with Scrutiny and a copy of the full report was sent to Scrutiny earlier this month in confidence.

Personally, I was satisfied that Internal Audit's thorough investigation of the energy efficiency grant schemes has shown that my Department is administering the scheme in accordance with the relevant Financial Directions. Internal Audit raised some recommendations during their review and I am pleased to say all recommendations were addressed during the audit fieldwork and this was confirmed in the report.

1. how the criteria set for eligibility are applied to grant decisions;
2. whether all or a single criteria are applied;

The eligibility criteria for all applications to the Home Energy Scheme are as follows and based on the circumstances of the applicant.

This scheme is currently available to households that meet any of the following criteria:

• households registered on Income Support
• individuals registered on the 65+ Health Plan (Westfield)
• individuals that receive the Food Costs (GST) Bonus
• anyone aged over 65 that currently holds less than £50,000 in savings if married / co- habiting or £30,000 savings if living alone

(Members are referred to the detailed information on the scheme available on gov.je for further information[1] and application information on the scheme)

If an individual is applying on the basis that they are registered on Income Support, the 65+ Health Plan or the Food Costs Bonus scheme, the information that the applicant provides is sent to the Social Security Department (under a secure data sharing agreement) for verification. The Department refer to their database and confirm that the applicant is in receipt of the benefit as claimed. Thus the verification process in these cases is led by the Social Security Department who has already carried out their own eligibility checks on the individuals concerned.

The Scheme has expanded since it began in 2009. Previously, the eligibility criteria have referred to smaller sub-sets of recipients of Income Support (e.g. receipt of the Cold Weather Payment) but nevertheless, the eligibility verification route through the Social Security Department was the same.

Of the 1,330 successfully complete households assisted by the scheme 1,204 have been accepted on one of the three eligibility criteria outlined above.

There is a fourth criteria for eligibility that applicants may apply under – anyone aged over 65 that currently holds less than £50,000 in savings if married / co-habiting or £30,000 savings if living alone'. This age based criteria was added after approval the Jersey Energy Trust and the Minister in 2011 and initially open to people of low savings older than 70. Later in 2013, this category was widened to reduce the age from 70+ to 65+. These criteria aim to assist people that are vulnerable by virtue of their age but that fall outside (or do not claim) of Income Support. In this case, the applicant declares their savings which does not include the value of their home. In applying for the grant, the applicant is advised that their information must be true and accurate and that the Energy Efficiency Service should be notified of any relevant change in circumstances.

Of the 1,330 of households assisted by the scheme 122 have been accepted on this last eligibility criteria.

In all cases, the application form states that the information provided may be cross checked and any person who knowingly makes any false representation for any purpose is liable to repay the amount fraudulently obtained.

There is a further route if applicants are found to be ineligible for grant assistance under the usual criteria but that they feel their circumstances mirror the eligibility of the scheme in some way. In this case, they have the opportunity to make an appeal to the Minister directly. These are considered on a case-by-case basis and further investigation is gathered in order to provide a report and recommendation to the Minister who can choose to accept an application under his discretion using a Ministerial Decision. Since the Scheme began in 2009, only 4 cases have been considered by the Minister under this route.

The verification and application of grant eligibility was a matter covered by the Internal Auditor's sampling. No breaches of procedure were identified.

3. Whether grants have been made to home owners who fall outside the capital asset disregard limits set by Social Security

The Energy Efficiency Service does not consider capital asset disregard limits in evaluation of its grant applicants – the eligibility for grants is based solely on the criteria outlined. There are some specific rules on capital assets for the benefits administered by Social Security.

Depending on the type of Income Support household, a certain amount of savings and investments are completely disregarded, but benefit is progressively withdrawn above this level. However, Income Support does not recognise the capital value of a household's main home, and so many elderly people will be in the position of being "asset rich, but cash poor" as they occupy a potentially valuable property but have little or no income to fund day-to-day costs, let alone energy efficiency improvements to their home.

In terms of households qualifying for the Food Costs Bonus, the answer to the question is likely to be a qualified yes, since households who qualify for this benefit are by definition just outside the eligibility criteria for Income Support, and so some of these will be prevented from receiving Income Support due to their capital assets. That said, the Food Costs Bonus is also targeted towards low income households, as it requires that the applicant is not eligible to pay Income Tax. Therefore, a household disqualified from Income Support on the grounds of capital assets but still eligible for the Food Costs Bonus would have to be in a position that they pay no tax whatsoever on the income from their assets.

The 65+ Health Plan (Westfield), also has the requirement that a person does not pay Income Tax, but additionally has an asset threshold of £20,000 for a single person and £30,000 for a couple.

Grants to individual home owners are not secured against the value of a property. Not all applicants are owner-occupiers since in many cases they are tenants. Tenanted properties are eligible for a selection, but not all, of the available energy efficiency measures.

Energy efficiency measures carried out to a property that is applicant-occupied include: loft and/or cavity wall insulation; the provision of low energy light bulbs; draught proofing; pipe lagging and heating system improvements including potentially including a new boiler or storage heaters. Measures are only installed if deemed appropriate (by a survey) for the property in question. The benefit for the vulnerable home owner is increased comfort and a lower energy bill, the benefit to the Island is a reduction in energy use and the associated carbon emissions.

Since 2012 when applying to the Scheme applicants are advised that if their property is put up for sale during the HES process, they will no longer be entitled to any works from the EES, because the vulnerable applicant as the homeowner themselves will not benefit from these measures directly. Applicants are advised that a re-assessment can be carried out if properties are removed from the market.

If the applicants go on to sell their property once the energy efficiency service works are completed this is beyond the scope of the scheme or provision of a grant. It is worth noting that the scheme caters to some of the most vulnerable people in our community. They have often lived in their homes for their whole lives and have no wish to move. Often it would be more logical for them to down-size' into a smaller more modern accommodation but for many reasons they do not choose to do this. Our Scheme respects this and aims to help as many eligible vulnerable Islanders as possible.

At the inception of the Scheme it was agreed that it needed to be as simple as possible in order to assist as many eligible applicants. Claw-back provision was felt to be difficult to administer and potentially deter applications. Should treated home go on to be sold, the measures remain in place and continue to deliver the intended benefits i.e. carbon savings, financial savings and improvements in comfort to the new occupants.

Properties which are tenanted  by eligible  applicants can receive  some of the  suite of energy efficiency measures offered but not boiler or storage heater replacements. In carrying out work in tenanted properties, the Landlord gives their consent for the work to go ahead but first they are offered the opportunity to use the survey information to either do the work themselves or to pay for the Scheme to carry out the work for them. If the Landlord does not take up these options then the EES will fund the work so that the tenant themselves still benefits from improved comfort and lower bills. It is important to remember that some of the most vulnerable Islanders are in rental accommodation that may be of a very poor standard. When developing this scheme, the Minister and the Jersey Energy Trust agreed that this group should not be excluded from the benefits that the Scheme can bring to them. Upon agreeing to works the landlord is required to sign a declaration to agree not to raise the tenants rent for one year as a result of the property improvements carried out by the Scheme.

In contrast, energy efficiency grants offered to Community Buildings are treated differently. If the eligible organisation is an owner-occupier then there is a provision that covers the onward sale of the building within a period of five years. The value of energy efficiency improvements to this category is often larger than to individual home owners. Thus these grants are underpinned with several conditions including that the organisation must confirm that it has no plans to sell or change the use of the property in question in the next 5 years. They are required to inform the Department is if this position were to change. If the property were to be sold within the 5 year period, an appropriate proportion of the grant funding is required to be paid back to the Department. The Department has no need to invoke this clause since the inception of the scheme.

If the eligible community building is tenanted, then the landlord is required to agree that they will not increase the rent to the tenant as a result of the improvement in the fabric of the building as paid for by the grant. Typically, tenanted community buildings assisted by this scheme have landlords that are not within the private sector e.g. the Parishes or religious groups.

Conclusion

The Environment Scrutiny Panel has received a copy of the Internal Audit Review of the Energy Efficiency Services Grants and in his capacity as Chair of this Scrutiny Panel; Deputy Young will have seen the report. I was satisfied that the review has shown that my Department is administering the scheme in accordance with the relevant Financial Directions.

The Deputy is reminded of the open invitation that he has received to attend the Department to further discuss any queries he may have in respect of this Scheme.

The Department takes its' financial controls very seriously; if the Deputy has evidence of ineligible applicants receiving grant assistance then he should provide that to the Minister so it can be fully investigated. If it is found that an applicant provided false information/representation in order to obtain a grant then the Department will have the opportunity to recover the value of the grant back.

5. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING P.S.V. LICENCES:

Question

Will the Minister inform the Assembly of his legal powers to issue, suspend, revoke or refuse a Public Service Vehicle (PSV) badge or impose conditions on badge holders, how such powers are administered in practice, to whom they are delegated, the criteria or policy tests applied, the internal checks to ensure transparency, objectivity and fairness of these quasi-judicial decisions, the appeal arrangements and the safeguards he has implemented to ensure the integrity of the PSV licensing system for the public and badge holders generally?

Would he further provide the Assembly with the following information in respect of PSV decisions since he was appointed as Minister -

1. The number of badges issued and the total number of current badges
2. The number of badges revoked
3. The number suspended. the reasons for such decisions and period of suspension
4. The number of appeals lodged by PSV holders and their outcomes
5. The number of complaints received fromPSV holders
6. The number of complaints received from the public about badge holders
7. whether there were any prosecutions involving PSV badges ?

Answer

Through the Inspector of Motor Traffic, Article 29 of the Motor Traffic Law (Jersey) 1935 provides the Minister for Transport and Technical Services with the power to issue PSV badges, for a person to hold a badge to drive different types of vehicle, where that person is of age, is fit (both as to health and as to character) to drive public service vehicles of the specified type, is capable of safely driving public service vehicles of the specified type and has an adequate knowledge of Jersey.

Article 29 states that the Inspector of Motor Traffic shall not issue a badge to drive a PSV vehicle where he is not satisfied of the above criteria, set out in the law. Where a badge is not issued the applicant has the option to appeal to the Minister and the right to appeal to the Royal Court under Article 33.

Article 30 of the Law provides that the Minister for Transport and Technical Services may suspend the authority the badge gives the person to drive a public service vehicle, either for a specified period or for an indefinite period, on the grounds that the Minister is satisfied that, by reason of the person's conduct the person is either permanently or for the time being, not a fit person to drive a public service vehicle of the type specified on the badge.

The Minister has delegated authority to certain officers under Article 30, namely the Inspector of Motor Traffic, the Deputy Inspector of Motor Traffic and the Senior Traffic Officer, all of whom have taken oath before the Royal Court to well and faithfully discharge the duties of their respective offices, to grant and suspend public service vehicle badges, subject to the Minister approving policies and standard conditions. However, only the Minister may revoke a PSV Badge.

Policy and Tests Applied

All applicants for a PSV badge must:

1. Hold a full Jersey driving licence
2. Complete anenhanced Disclosure andBarringService(DBS)checktoprovethey are fit as to character. This is done to find out if the applicant has any criminal convictions including

motoring offences. 1 3. Attend a briefing to receive a code of conduct and ensure the applicant understands what is expected of a PSV badge holder (Appendix A). 4. Submit a medical certificate to prove their fitness to drive a public service vehicle. 5. Pass a PSV driving test, to demonstrate that the applicant understands and has attained the driving standards expect of a PSV driver. 6. Pass an Island knowledge test, to demonstrate the applicant has a good knowledge of the location of places and areas in the Island as it is essential for them to be able to perform their job. This part of the process is divided into two sections, written and oral, the time allowed for the full knowledge test is two hours.

1 The results of all DBS checks are vetted by using the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Jersey) Law 2001

All PSV badge holders must adhere to the Motor traffic (Jersey) Law 1935 and the Code of Conduct published pursuant to Article 37(4) of the law.

Complaints received regarding PSV badge holders are considered against the criteria set out in the Motor Traffic Law (Jersey) 1935. Where necessary law officer advice is sought to provide clarification in its interpretation.

When requested, the identity of complainants is always treated with strict confidence. However, in order to allow the PSV badge holders a full opportunity to respond to the complaint, they are provided with a résumé of the allegations and supporting evidence. For any complaint to be heard evidence is required, either in the form of a written statement or other documentary information.

PSV badges cannot be suspended or revoked without a valid reason. Depending upon the seriousness of the allegation received by DVS, a full enquiry including interviews with badge/licence holders may be undertaken. Interviews are always attended by two TTS Officers, where serious allegations have been made these may be both the Inspector of Motor Traffic and Deputy Inspector. All complaints are considered in the light of the individual circumstances. Drivers attending interviews are allowed to be accompanied by representatives, should they feel it necessary.

Following any complaint and enquiry, badge holders are provided with a letter setting out the decision and basis it was made upon, with the route of appeal available to them should they contest the outcome.

Where upon the balance of probability a compliant is found to be justified:

• A first offence will usually result in a warning and a record of the incident being placed on file for future reference.

• A second offence may result in suspension of the PSV badge/licence with an option of appeal to the Minister.
• A third offence can result in the suspension by the Inspector of Motor Traffic and where appropriate, possible revocation of the licence upon review by the Minister.

In all instances PSV badge holders have a right of appeal to the Royal Court against the decisions of the Minister, Inspector of Motor Traffic or Senior Traffic Officer.

1. Total Number of Current PSV Badges

Category Count

1. Taxi-Cab 480
2. Omnibus 288
3. Char-à-Banc 319
4. Mini Bus 163
5. DUKW 21
6. Double Decker 5
7. Limousine 3
8. Limo Bikes 5

Total 1,284

Total Number Of PSV Badges Issued from 01/10/11 to 23/06/14

Category Count

1. Taxi-Cab 560
2. Omnibus 320
3. Char-à-Banc 394

4. Mini Bus 186
5. DUKW 21
6. Double Decker 5
7. Limousine 3
8. Limo Bikes 5

Total 1,494

Total Number of First Time PSV Badges Issued from 01/10/11 to 23/06/14 Total 88

There are no restrictions on the numbers of PSV badges issued

2. Number of badges revoked Total 9
3. Number of badges suspended Total 12 Reasons for suspension:

• Smoking in a public service vehicle
• Operating with expired PSV badges
• No vehicle provided to operate service
• Drinking and driving (Appendix B)
• Awaiting outcome of serious court proceedings
• Medically unfit to drive a public service vehicle

Periods of suspension vary from 3 days, 1 week, 1 month, or an indefinite period in cases awaiting court proceedings or medical fitness.

4. The number of appeals lodged by PSV badge holders and their outcomes Total 0
5. Number of complaints received from the Public about badge holders from 01/10/11 to 24/06/14

2011 = 12 2012 = 15

2013 = 13 2014 = 5 Total 45

6. Number of PSV badge holder drive on driver' complaints received from October 2011 – 23 June 2014

2011 = 11

2012 = 10

2013 = 9

2014 = 6

Total 36

7. Number Prosecutions

None by DVS, prosecutions are undertaken by either Parish Authorities or States Police. These authorities advise DVS where the outcome of any parish hall enquiry or trial is considered relevant to the defendant's PSV status.

Public service vehicle licences and badges - review of policy following disqualification of a public service vehicle driver

A decision made 1 October 2010 regarding: Public service vehicle licences and badges - review of policy following disqualification of a public service vehicle driver.

Decision Reference: MD-T-2010-0094

Decision  Review  of  Policy  on  Issuing  Public  Service Date  of  Decision 15 Summary  Title Vehicle  Licences  and  Badges  Following  a Summary: September (File Name): Driving  Disqualification  of  a  Public  Service  2010

Vehicle Driver

Decision  Head of DVS &  Decision  Public Summary  Summary:

Author:  Inspector of Motor Traffic

Public or Exempt?

(State  clauses from  Code  of Practice booklet)

Type of Report:  Written Person Giving  N/A

Oral or Written? Oral Report:

Written Report  Review  of  Policy  on  Issuing  Public  Service Date  of  Written 15

Vehicle  Licences  and  Badges  Following  a Report: September Title  (File Driving  Disqualification  of  a  Public  Service  2010 Name): Vehicle Driver

Written  Report Senior Traffic Officer Written Report :  Public Author:

Public or Exempt?

(State  clauses from  Code  of Practice booklet)

Subject: Review of Policy on Issuing Public Service Vehicle Licences and Badges Following a Driving Disqualification of a Public Service Vehicle Driver

Decision(s): The Assistant Minister under his delegated authority agreed to adopt a formal policy for  issuing Public Service Vehicle licences and badges  following driving disqualifications for Public Service Vehicle drivers.

Date Signed:  Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed)

TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

REVIEW OF POLICY ON ISSUING PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLE LICENCES AND BADGES FOLLOWING A DRIVING DISQUALIFICATION OF A PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLE DRIVER

Purpose of the Report

To obtain the agreement of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services to a policy for issuing a Public Service Vehicle licence and driver's badge to a Public Service Vehicle badge holder following the end of his/her domestic driving ban.

Background

On 15 July 2010 a Public Service Vehicle licence holder (Driver A) was found guilty in the Magistrate's Court of driving without due care and attention and fined £650, disqualified from driving for two months and ordered to retake a driving test. As such it was considered that the person was no longer able to provide an efficient taxicab service nor continue to hold a Public Service Vehicle badge or licence. Subsequently, in accordance with delegated authorities, Driver A's Public Service Vehicle licence and driver's badge were suspended.

Discussion

Article 10(1) of the Motor Traffic (Jersey) Law 1935 (MTL), as amended, allows the Minister to revoke or suspend a PSV licence when a person is considered no longer "fit and proper" to operate the public service. Similarly, Article 30(1) of the MTL allows the Minister to suspend or revoke the authority a badge gives a person to drive a Public Service Vehicle.

In previous instances where a Public Service Vehicle driver has been disqualified by the court from driving the driver has, on completion of the disqualification, successfully applied to have his/her licence and badge returned, depending on the seriousness of the offence and providing the offence did not occur whilst they were carrying out the duties of a Public Service Vehicle driver.

Two such instances are recorded.

Driver 1 was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. At the time of the offence he was not working as a taxi driver. The driver's PSV licence and badge were suspended. Following the return of his domestic driving licence he was granted a badge and licence.

Driver 2 was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. At the time of the offence he was actively working as a taxi driver. The driver's PSV licence was revoked and his PSV badge suspended. Following the return of his domestic driving licence Driver 2 applied for the return of his Public Service Vehicle licence and badge. The then Inspector of Motor Traffic granted the driver a badge but refused to grant a Public Service Vehicle licence. Driver 2 appealed to the Home Affairs Committee against the decision of the Inspector of Motor Traffic not to grant a controlled taxicab licence/plate. The Committee supported the Inspector and refused to grant the driver a PSV taxicab licence. The Committee agreed that a clear policy should be developed for use in the future should similar cases arise. It would seem this was not done at the time.

Driver A is the first Public Service Vehicle licence holder to be disqualified from driving by the courts since that Home Affairs Committee decision of 24 November 2005.

Considerations

To be a holder of both a Public Service Vehicle driver's badge and a Public Service Vehicle licence a person has to be "fit and proper". A person requires a badge to drive a taxi. He/she does not need to be the holder of the licence; he/she can be employed by a licence holder.

It is possible, as in the case of Driver 2, for a badge to be returned following the end of a driving disqualification but not a Public Service Vehicle licence permitting the operation of a taxicab service. It could be considered ambiguous that a person is judged to be fit and proper to be the holder of a badge but not fit and proper to be the holder of a Public Service Vehicle licence.

The relevant legislation appears to provide guidance that clarifies matters.

Article 29(2) of the MTL provides that the Inspector shall not issue a badge to drive a Public Service Vehicle unless satisfied that the applicant –

"(a) has attained the age of 21 years;

2. is fit (both as to health and as to character) to drive Public Service Vehicle s ofthe specified type;
3. is capable of safely driving Public Service Vehicle s of the specified type; and
4. has an adequate knowledge of Jersey."

Article 30(1) of the MTL provides that the Minister can revoke or suspend "the authority the badge gives the person to drive a Public Service Vehicle if the Minister is satisfied that, by reason of the person's conduct, or a physical or mental disability, the person is, either permanently or for the time being, not a fit person to drive a Public Service Vehicle ".

Article 9(1), (2) and (3) of the MTL provide that the Minister shall grant a PSV licence if satisfied –

" (a) that the applicant is the owner of the vehicle;

2. that the applicant is a fit and proper person to operate the public service to be provided by the vehicle;
3. that an appropriate certificate of fitness is in force in respect of the vehicle; and (d ) that the grant of the licence would not be contrary to paragraph (6).

2. The Minister may grant a Public Service Vehicle licence unconditionally or subject to conditions, which shall be set out in the licence.

3. The conditions shall be such, as in the Minister's opinion, are necessary or desirable to ensure the proper operation of the vehicle and the public service to be provided by the vehicle."

Article 10(1) of the MTL provides that the Minister may revoke or suspend a PSV licence, "if it appears to the Minister –

1. that its holder is no longer a fit and proper person tooperatethe public service provided by the vehicle having regard to the holder's conduct, whether in respect ofthe provision ofthat public service or otherwise, the manner in which the vehicle has been used oroperated or the manner in which the public service has been provided (or has failed to be provided); or
2. that the vehicle to which the licence relates has been used or operated in contravention of a condition set out in the licence."

The conduct of the person is important in both, however, a badge should not be issued unless criteria are met. Prior to a badge being awarded, a satisfactory police check is carried out, the applicant is interviewed, passes a knowledge test and passes a driving test. If a badge holder is the subject of a driving disqualification, he/she can continue to meet the criteria for issuing a badge. If, however, there is a second disqualification or the offence carries a significant disqualification period, it is unlikely the person would have been issued a badge based on the police check.

The Minister is expected to grant a PSV licence, subject to conditions, as long as the applicant satisfies certain criteria. The process to offer a plate involves the applicant building up a reliable reputation for providing a satisfactory level of service over a number of years such that he/she can be relied upon by the Minister to meet the conditions of licence, provide a satisfactory taxicab service as an owner/driver and assist the Minister in ensuring an adequate cab service. If the licence holder  is  the  subject  of  a  driving  disqualification  while  operating  the  taxicab  service,  it  is appropriate  that  an  assessment  is  made  on  whether  the  licence  holder  compromised  his/her reputation and can continue to be considered reliable and trusted to provide a satisfactory cab service  once  the  disqualification  is  finished.   The  assessment  should  take  into  account  the seriousness of the offence, whether passengers were being carried whose safety was compromised, whether any conditions of licence were breached and the manner in which the vehicle was being used and the service provided.

The proposed policy is set out in the table below.

Disqualification period  Initial  Decision on application

decision

Badge  Up to 3 years Suspend  Issue badge

Badge 3  years  or  more  or  second Revoke Follow  standard  procedure  for  first

disqualification application.

Licence Less than one year Suspend Subject to assessment

Licence One  year  or  more  or  second Revoke Refuse licence

disqualification

There is provision in the MTL for the applicant to appeal to the Royal Court against the Minister's decision.

Recommendation

Public Service Vehicle licence holders and/or badge holders disqualified from driving should apply for the issue of a PSV badge and the grant of a PSV licence on return of their domestic driving licence. The decision to issue a badge and a licence should be made on the basis of the table above.

Drivers given a long disqualification period or who have been given a second disqualification should not be issued with a badge until they can satisfy the Minister that they are unlikely to re- offend. This should be a period of at least three years, when their domestic driving licence is endorsement free. If a badge is issued, they can apply to have their name added to the taxicab plate waiting list.

Those drivers who are given a disqualification of less than one year and apply for the grant of a licence, will be subject to an assessment that takes into account whether the offence took place while operating the taxicab licence, the seriousness of the offence, whether passengers' safety was compromised, any conditions of licence were breached and the manner in which the vehicle was being used and the service provided.

If the policy is adopted Driver A, on completion of the driving disqualification, the suspension would be lifted on the driver's badge. An assessment, including an interview, will be carried out to determine whether a Public Service Vehicle licence will be granted.

Written by: Senior Traffic Officer Approved by: Acting Director of Transport.

6. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY GRANTS:

Question

Will the Minister inform the Assembly whether the Energy Efficiency Grants Scheme administered by the Planning and Environment Department, which has carried out a significant number of improvement works to privately owned properties funded by approximately £4 million from taxpayers, complies fully with the requirements of financial regulation policies issued under legislation governing public finances in Jersey and, in particular, whether there is adequate disclosure of works and whether arrangements need to be in place for identifying the enhanced value of such properties as a result of these improvements works, securing the public's interest in this enhanced value and ensuring its ultimate recovery to public funds in the event of onward sale of these properties, and if not, what action, if any, will he be taking to ensure that the scheme is revised to ensure that such arrangements are in place in the future?

Answer

The delivery of the Energy Efficiency Grants Scheme is the remit of the Planning and Environment Minister and all questions relating to its detailed operation and the policies it operates within should be directed to that Minister.

It is for the accounting officer of a department to satisfy him or herself that the activities of the Department comply with relevant legislation, to include financial directions issued by the Treasury under the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005.

The Minister for Treasury and Resources can report that the service has been subject to a recent Internal Audit report initiated by the Environment department as part of a wider review of grants across the States. The Minister understands that the results have already been shared confidentially with the Environment Scrutiny Panel. The purpose of Internal Audit is to assist management. As such it is not appropriate for the Minister for Treasury and Resources to disclose the contents of an audit report.

7. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE J.E.C. CABLE LINK:

Question

Has the Environment Department been consulted on whether the JEC will be using lubricant to assist drawing their new French link cables through the conduit they have laid and, if so, can he assure members that this lubricant is biodegradable and will not adversely affect wells or boreholes if it should seep into the ground?

Answer

The Environment Department has been widely consulted on the Normandie 3 Submarine Cable project but not specifically on the type of lubricant used to facilitate the pull-through of the power cables through the ducts. The assessment of its use has been completed by Jersey Electricity and its contractor in accordance with its own Health, Safety and Environmental Policy.

The lubricant is Techlube Multi Cable Lubricant (product code: 10698A). It is used worldwide by many companies for such purposes and is water based biodegradable and non-toxic with very low concentrations of lubricating oil and gelling agents. Very small volumes of the lubricant are used. Even with the small volumes in use, almost all of it is held within the duct (which is a closed pipe) or contained at the entrance or exit of the duct.

Under the European Union REACH and other applicable Directives the lubricant is not classified as hazardous and does not adversely affect the water table.

8. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING PARISH RATES:

Question

Further to the answer given to my question on 17th June 2014, would the Chairman advise whether parish rates are raised mainly to cover services required by properties and, if so, would he confirm that unoccupied properties have a far less cost to the parish than occupied ones?

Would he explain why the Parishes do not differentiate between occupied and non-occupied properties?

Answer

No; rates are not raised mainly to cover services required by properties.

Article 15(1) of the Rates (Jersey) Law 2005 ("the 2005 Law") provides that:

"Each parish shall levy for each rateable year a parish rate consisting of the foncier and the occupier's rate, the proceeds of which shall be applied for the payment of the general expenses of the parish "

The parish rates therefore cover the general expenses of the parish.

As explained in the answer given to the question on 17th June 2014, the definitions of "owner" and "occupier" in the 2005 Law mean that there is an "occupier" for all property so far as the Rates (Jersey) Law 2005 is concerned. Therefore the parishes do not differentiate between occupied and non-occupied properties.

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

Question

Can the Minister set out the Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) required for large builds in constrained sites in respect of the new Police Headquarters at the Green Street car park site?

Would the Minister advise whether there will be any access through Green Street Cemetery to the new Police Headquarters?

Would he confirm the commencement date for the works on site? Answer

In compliance with Condition 24 of the Planning permit, the tender documents recently issued to local contractors require a Construction Environmental Management Plan to be submitted and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment prior to commencement of the Police Headquarters development. This plan must be implemented in full and any variations agreed in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment prior to such work commencing.

This plan will include a programme of mitigation measures to minimise any adverse effects of the scheme based on guidance issued by States of Jersey Environmental Health. This includes, but is not limited to:

1. A demonstration of compliance with best practice in relation to noise from demolition and construction activities, including specified hours of working.
2. Control of vibration from demolition/construction activities.
3. A demonstration of best practice in thecontrolof dust and emissions from construction and demolition.
4. Communications processes for neighbours and details of complaints procedure, including office hours and out of hours contact numbers;
5. Details of any proposed crushing/sorting of waste material on site.

In addition, other specific Planning permit conditions include complying with Codes of Practice relating to Noise, vibration and dust (Condition 6) and providing a scheme for the parking of vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors; the loading and unloading of plant and materials, and the storage of plant and materials used for the development (Condition 8).

In seeking to minimise disruption further, other requirements have been included within the tender documentation such as Considerate Constructors' registration, specified working hours, parking, approval of site set up and waste management. These are technical requirements which will be enforced by the Design Team on Property Holdings' behalf with some aspects requiring approval by Planning and Environment or Transport and Technical Services.

The contractor will not be able to access the site through Green Street cemetery, which will be hoarded off from the site during construction. Whilst there will be no direct access from the cemetery to the Police HQ when the scheme has been completed, the existing pedestrian access route from the cemetery to La Route du Fort will be maintained.

It is currently anticipated that tenders will have been received and evaluated before the end of August and that preliminary works on site will begin in the early part of September.

10. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING RESOURCE SUPPORT FOR THE DEAN OF JERSEY:

Question

In view of the passing of interim episcopal oversight from Winchester to Dover announced by the Dean of Jersey in the Assembly on 13th May 2014, and the recognition by the Deanery Synod on 3rd June 2014 of the additional administrative burdens laid upon the Dean in consequence, would the Chief Minister consider investigating the resources available to the Office of the Dean of Jersey and consider whether some assistance should be provided to support the Dean in the performance of his official duties?

Answer

I am content to consider the resources available to the Office of the Dean of Jersey and whether some assistance should be provided to support the Dean in his official duties.

Although the Office of the Dean of Jersey is a non-Ministerial States funded body, and no Minister is responsible to the States Assembly for its administration or funding, given the unique circumstances, I am content to consider this matter, consult with the Deanery Synod and make recommendations.

3. Oral Questions

1. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade of the Chief Minister regarding the levels of births over deaths in Jersey since 2010:

I rise with a slight degree of trepidation having just voted against Deputy Tadier 's proposition. Given that R.77, which is the births, deaths, marriages and civil partnerships statistics for 2013, shows the excess of births over deaths in Jersey has been 269, 366, 361 and 298 for the past 4 years, 2010 through to 2013, showing a potential growth in population in the 4 years of 1,294 persons before net inward migration, does the Minister intend to factor in and use this information in controlling population and migration on the aspirational limit set and, if so, how?

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

Could I ask my Assistant Minister to act as rapporteur?

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

The Interim Population Policy, which runs until the end of 2015, supports a planning assumption of 325 individuals per year. It was developed using the population model produced by the Statistics Unit, which includes trends in births and deaths as well as figures for inward migration. This Assembly's longer-term population policies should be based on the same sound statistical analysis. In this way, this Assembly can plan for changes in our overall population, whether through births, deaths or immigration.

1. Deputy S. Power:

If I might be allowed to respond to that: the birth rate is staying at a much higher level than has been for some time. We have had previous years where it has been less than 200 per year and in the halcyon days of 1997 and 1998 it did exceed 300. Is the Minister taking into account the spike in birth rates and has he discussed this in any population modelling that will need to be done with the Statistics Office to arrive at a proper and long-term population policy for the foreseeable future?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I am assured by the Statistics Unit that they are monitoring the excess of births over deaths and they are including that within their forecasts for the future.

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

When will the Assistant Minister be coming to this House with an estimate of what our actual population is now and where they have gone in the workforce?

Senator P.F. Routier:

As the Deputy is aware, the Statistics Unit is an independent organisation which will be publishing their figures when they are ready. We know that they are working on them to bring them forward as soon as possible.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

That was not an answer. It was: "As soon as possible." Is that the best the Assistant Minister can do?

Senator P.F. Routier:

At the present time, yes.

3. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

In his supplementary, the Assistant Minister said: "We are using this figure for planning assumptions." Can he tell me which figure and what are we planning for? Is every department involved in it?

Senator P.F. Routier:

During the Interim Population Policy debate, it was very clear that the assumption of 325 - which is what the Housing Advisory and Work Group are working to for new licences - does include the births and deaths figures within the .. well, that is what the Statistics Unit is including within their assumptions.

4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:

Can the Assistant Minister confirm that in these assumptions the predicted upsurge in construction activity is not going to affect the figures; that he is going to handle it very happily within the 325 limit?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I am not quite sure how that fits in with the original question, but certainly we are very conscious that the construction industry will be looking to have capacity to cope with the upsurge in building which is going to happen in the Island and we will be working with them and with other industries to ensure that we do try and meet our target of 325.

5. Deputy S. Power:

Would the Minister accept that if he factors-in an increase of 150 households per annum plus the natural excess of births over deaths that within 10 years the population of the Island will be between 115,000 and 120,000?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I would need to take advice from the Statistics Unit to verify those figures, but obviously there will be an increase in our population during that time.

2. Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the current balance and recent uses of the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund:

Further to the response given in a written answer on 17th June this year, will the Minister advise Members of the current balance of the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund and also advise Members how these funds have been used in the last 6 months, explaining who has received what and for what purposes?

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

Sir, without incurring your wrath, can I just ask; I am confused about the vote on questions. Members voted against 4 minutes per answer so what is the guidance that we are being given in terms of answering oral questions? I just do not understand where we stand.

The Deputy Bailiff :

You are please to do what Standing Orders requires, which is to be as concise as possible in giving factual responses.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

How many minutes do we have per answer?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, the usual rule has been 90 seconds for a Minister to answer. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Thank you. The current balance of the C.O.C.F. (Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund) not paid out is £13.5 million and I have sent an email to all States Members with a comment dealing with all of the matters that have been spent from the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund. Members had that on Saturday and the comment will be formally lodged during the course of the afternoon or by the earliest tomorrow.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Thank you. Nothing for the moment.

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:

From memory, the Minister when he sent round the figures said he had recently changed the ruling on how to withdraw money from this fund. Could the Minister inform the House exactly when and why?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Yes, very happy to do that. I wanted to strengthen the arrangements by requiring a Council of Ministers step, ensuring that any recommendations that I would be presented by the Treasury after having gone through the modalities of checking with the Attorney General that they fall within the purposes of the law, that I would not make that decision by myself but rather I would take it to the Council of Ministers. I also looked at the delegations that could be made under Treasury delegated arrangements and clarified them so that no possible situation could be where an official signed-off expenditure that I thought politically should be done so. So now the new arrangements are much stronger than they were previously.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Does the Minister not accept that his use of this particular Fund to indirectly pay for Plémont, while it may be legal, stretches the bounds of what constitutes the outcomes of crime to a point of absurdity?

The Deputy Bailiff :

I will allow that question only because of the forthcoming debate, but we are not going to get into supplementary questions on a supplementary.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

No, I do not think it is. I think it is perfectly correct for Deputy Southern to say one thing: indirectly taxpayers' money is going to fund Plémont. I think that is absolutely right to say that and any statement by the National Trust or otherwise is incorrect. It is a 2-stage process and it is the only process that the Treasury, upon advice, has been able to do. If building a police station does not fulfil the requirements of the use of the Fund, then I do not know what does, because clearly it does. Secondly, I am pleased to inform Members that the Attorney General has confirmed that it does fulfil the requirements of the Fund. Therefore, in the event of the States approving it, then I will be able to process the decision with Member certainty. So I hear the Member saying: "Shame." That is the reality of the way that this is. It is a taxpayer-funded decision and Members need to decide.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy Martin, do you have a supplementary to the question rather than a supplementary on Plémont?

3. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Well, the supplementary is a supplementary which you did allow, and I know I have been away for the week, but did the Minister for Treasury and Resources just tell me we are building the police station at Plémont?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , if you have a question to put to the Minister for Treasury and Resources in relation to building the police station using the monies from the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund, that is broadly a legitimate question.

Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

Can I give notice that tomorrow I hope the Attorney General is here because I want to question him about his decision making?

4. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Then the question I asked before, the Minister said he has strengthened to allow the money to go out of the Fund to be made by the Council of Ministers, not just himself. Did he change the criteria of getting money out of this Fund? Because I just do think it is a very long stretch, the criteria.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

On the contrary, the criteria have not changed. What I was concerned about well before even the opportunity for doing the 2-stage process by the police station and, therefore, being able to fund Plémont, I changed the rules for the C.O.C.F. well before any of that was discussed. The arrangements, what you can use the Fund for, is again not the Minister for Treasury and Resources' decision only. It has to be requested by a department and then cleared by the Attorney General's Office as to whether or not it is a legitimate use. I would have thought that Members would be pleased with the fact that I have put a further layer of controls so that the Minister for Treasury and Resources is not in a position of adjudicating over the appropriateness of the use of the funds that are legitimately for that so that it is clear and transparent and more eyes on the decision. It has been strengthened, not weakened, but none of the purpose of the funds have been changed, of course. That would be a matter for this Assembly under law.

5. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John :

Could the Minister for Treasury and Resources explain, since he is taking this decision - reference funding for Plémont - to the Council of Ministers, given a number of Ministers have shown their hand in favour of Plémont, can they now be in a position to sit and make judgment on whether the money should go or should not go? That seems rather absurd to myself.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

It is going to be a matter for Members. The proposition asks 2 things. It asks whether or not the States approves the grant and then requests the Minister for Treasury and Resources to implement it. I would be criticised if we start the debate without telling Members how to do it. I can say to Members that the only way of funding it is through the route that has been proposed: reduction in the police budget and increase, therefore, to allow it. If Members do not like it, they will vote against it, but there is no other way that the Treasury can deliver on the amount of money in that period of time. We just cannot do it. Members would be surprised if we could find £3.5 million just like that.

6. Deputy M. Tadier :

The Minister has commented elsewhere that using the funds in such an unprecedented way would not create a precedent. Does he agree that if we proceed on this proposed course of action the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund could be used for any ordinary spending of the States? Can he confirm that that has not been the case up until now, that this Fund is not and has not been used for ordinary spending of the States, of which the Police Department is?

[15:00]

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I would not describe the new building of the police station as ordinary. It is capital. It is one-off. I think that Members have seen the list of grants that have been made by the C.O.C.F. and they are all absolutely legitimate for the purposes of this Fund. Perhaps it would have been in retrospect better but we did not know when we set the police station budget that this would be the balance in the C.O.C.F. Now, the Fund can be used for the prescribed purposes, of which the detection and prevention of crime is a source. So perhaps it would have been a fair criticism to say that we should have thought of this earlier in order to fund the police station but, of course, we did not know that. No, it does not create a precedent: (a) because there is only a finite amount of money available in the Fund; and (b) the uses of the Fund are the uses that it can be used for, of which the police station building is one of them.

Deputy M. Tadier :

It does not cover the detection and protection of puffins, though, does it?

3. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Housing regarding the annual rent rises proposed by Andium Homes for October 2014:

Will the Minister state what annual rent rise Andium Homes has under consideration for October 2014 and whether this conforms to his policy on rent rises of R.P.I. (Retail Price Index) plus 0.75 per cent? Will he state what effect, if any, this policy will have on the figures in the table on page 64 of R.15/2013 - States of Jersey Housing Transformation Programme: Full Business Case - and, if not, why not?

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

The rent policy approved by the States Assembly requires Andium Homes' rents be adjusted annually on 1st October by R.P.I. plus 0.75 per cent - I noticed when the Deputy read out his question he corrected his mistake because he had asked 1.75; it is actually 0.75 but I notice the Deputy corrected that - subject to the revised rental not exceeding 90 per cent of market equivalent. I can confirm that rent increases applied by Andium Homes will be in line with the rent policy approved by this Assembly and in accordance with their memorandum of understanding with the Minister for Treasury and Resources. The R.P.I. rate used for calculation will be the Quarter 2 R.P.I. figure published by the States of Jersey Statistics Unit in July and, therefore, Andium Homes is not able to determine the rental increase until this index is published. But if the R.P.I. figure is unchanged from the 1.7 per cent level as it was in quarter 1, the rent increase applied would be 2.45 per cent, which is lower than the projected 3.65 per cent in the report. This would result in lower rentals being received by Andium Homes and, therefore, lower income support costs for Social Security on the same basis of £77k. Increases in the annual return by the States are also linked to the same R.P.I. figure and the majority of the loss of income for Andium Homes will be offset by lower annual return payments.

3.3.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :

For new tenancies, I have figures showing that the average for a one-bedroom flat is a 7 per cent rise and for a 3-bedroom house is 10 per cent. Will the Minister inform Members not only what the average rent charge is but the median and the range of rents to be charged on particular properties?

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

That is far too wide a question for me to have all those figures in my head, but I am quite happy to provide that information. What I will say, though, is that the rents are based on 90 per cent of market rate. New tenants coming into the need of social housing are quite unlikely to be paying the full rental rate. They will be supported by Social Security. I am quite happy to get my officers to work out those figures.

4. Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the alleged failure of the States of Jersey Police to properly investigate a child protection case:

Following information given to the Minister about the alleged failure of the States of Jersey Police to properly investigate video evidence contained on a USB stick of a sexual act and the inaccurate report to the Multi-Agency Child Protection body and subsequently to the courts, will the Minister advise what he has discovered and state what steps have been taken to correct the records and notify all the parties concerned?

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

The question contains allegations of failure on behalf of the police which are not accepted. What I have discovered is this. The case which the Deputy refers was first reported to the States of Jersey Police in December 2011. As is standard practice now with all safeguarding or child protection referrals, this was formally considered and assessed on a multi-agency basis at a strategy meeting. The case was properly investigated and the evidence was then assessed by a Crown Advocate on behalf of the police in order to determine whether or not on the facts alleged there was a criminal offence shown. The advice from the Crown Advocate was that there was no criminal offence shown on the facts. Finally, the case and all the material, on information provided to me, was also assessed and dealt with through the Family Court.