States Meeting Transcript - 4th March 2014

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 4th MARCH 2014

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ......................................8

1. Tribute to the late Charles Alan Le Maistre, M.B.E. – former Connétable of Grouville ............................................................................................8

The Deputy Bailiff :............................................................................8

2. Welcome to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor...................................8 Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................................8

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

2. Written Questions........................................................................8

1. DEPUTY R.J. RONDEL OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE PAYMENT TRIAL AT SAND STREET CAR PARK:...................................................................8

2. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRE OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE DAME HEATHER STEEL REVIEW:............................10
3. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE PROCESSING OF INCOME SUPPORT APPLICATIONS:......................................................................10
4. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING INCOME SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES:........................................................................11
5. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF RATES ON STATES' PROPERTIES:.........................................................................13
6. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING ADVISORY AND OVERSIGHT GROUPS:...........................................14
7. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE INVOLVEMENT OF NON-EXECUTIVE MEMBERS IN POLICY DEVELOPMENT: .....................................................................15
8. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE ROLE AND MEMBERSHIPS OF GROUPS ESTABLISHED BY DEPARTMENTS FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT:..................................16
9. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING DISCIPLINARY CASES AT H.M. PRISON LA MOYE: ..............16
10. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE RECOURSE AVAILABLE TO AN APPLICANT FOR PLANNING PERMISSION:..............................18

11. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF BUILDING CONTROL REGULATIONS TO LISTED BUILDINGS:................18
12. DEPUTY T.A. VALLOIS OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING LEGISLATION AND POLICY GOVERNING THE PROVISION OF HOUSING IN JERSEY:................................................................19
13. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE PROVISION OF CERPETS, FLOORING AND WINDOWS IN STATES AND TRUST ACCOMMODATION: ........................................21
14. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE OPERATIONS OF THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL IN JERSEY:...............................................................21
15. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE MINIMUM WAGE: .............22
16. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE ISLAND'S CREDIT RATING: .............23
17. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING A DATA PROTECTION INVESTIGATION:...............25
18. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS IN THE INCOME SUPPORT SCHEME: ..................................................................26

3. Oral Questions...........................................................................28

1. Deputy R.J. Rondel of St. Helier of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the publication of the results of the trial for the new parking charge system at Sand Street car Park:....................................................................28 Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): .....28

1. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................28
2. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : ........................................................29
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................29
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................29
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................29
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................29

7. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................29
8. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John : ....................................................30
9. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ...................................................30
10. Deputy R.J. Rondel:.................................................................30

2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the States' liability topay Parish Rates .................................................30 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................31 Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources -..........31 rapporteur):...................................................................................31

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................31
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................31
3. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................31
4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................31
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................32
6. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................32
7. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................32
8. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................32

9. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................32
10. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:..............................................32
11. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................33
12. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................33

3. Deputy M. Tadier of the Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel regarding recent allegations of misconduct at the Prison by past members of staff:.....33 Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade (Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):..................................................................................33

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................33
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................34
3. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................34
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................35
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................35
6. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................35
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................36

4. Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding an update of the King Sturge report: .................................................................37 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................37

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................37
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................37
3. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade:......................................................38
4. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................38
5. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................38
6. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................39
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................39
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................40
9. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................40

5. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the policing methods used in relation to Jersey lifts':...............................................40 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................40

3.5.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................41

6. Deputy J.H. Young of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the total capital expenditure by the Ports of Jersey and its predecessors on the 1937 Airport Building during the last 5 years: ........................................................41 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................41

1. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................42
2. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................42
3. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................42
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................42
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................43
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................43
7. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................43

8. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................44
9. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................44

7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the security checks applied to civilian employees working within H.M. Prison La Moye: ..................44 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................44

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................45
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................45
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................45

4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................45
5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................46
6. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................46
7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................46

8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................47

8. Deputy J.H. Young of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding complaints from those subjected to enforcement proceedings for alleged infractions of the Planning and Building Law:......................................................................47 Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour (The Minister for Planning and Environment):.........49

1. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................49
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................50
3. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................50
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................50
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................51
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................51
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................51
8. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................51
9. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................51
10. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................52
11. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:....................................................52
12. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................52

9. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding the recent I.M.F. discussion paper Redistribution, Inequality and Growth':................................................52 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................52

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................53
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................53
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................53
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................54
5. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................54
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................54

10. Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Social Security regarding a review of the policy whereby individuals who were hospitalised for more than 28 days lost their entitlement to certain Income Support components: ................................................55 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ..............................55

1. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................56
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................56
3. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................56

11. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of the Minister for Social Security regarding the future rent rebate policy:...........................................................................57 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ..............................57

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................58
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................58
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................58
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................59
5. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................59

12. Urgent Oral Question....................................................................59 Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Economic Development regarding action taken to avert the prospect of serious disruption at Jersey Airport as a result of a baggage handlers' dispute: ......................................................................59 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................60

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................60
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................60
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................60
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................60

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Economic Development....60

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................61 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................61

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................61
   2. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................61
   3. Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier:......................................................61
   4. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................62

4.4.1 The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................62

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................62
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................63
7. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................63

2. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................63
3. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................63

8. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................64

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

9. Connétable S.W. Rennard of St. Saviour : ..............................................64

5. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Housing....................65

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................65 Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier (The Minister for Housing):..............................65

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................65
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................65

2. Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement : ........................................................66
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................66
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................66
5. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................67
6. Deputy R.J. Rondel:....................................................................67

5.6.1 Deputy R.J. Rondel:....................................................................67

7. Deputy J.M. Le Bailly of St. Mary:.....................................................67
8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................68

5.8.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................68

9. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................68

5.9.1 The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................69

10. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................69

5.10.1 The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................69

11. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................69

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................70

6. Deputy T.A. Vallois (Chairman, Public Accounts Committee): ........................70

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................70
2. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................71
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................71
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................71
5. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................72

6. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................72
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................72
8. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................72
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................73
10. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................73

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER .....................................73

7. Appointment of Deputy Bailiff to succeed Bailiff - Royal approval....................73 The Bailiff :...................................................................................73

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................73

8. Draft Shipping (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.3/2014).....................74

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................74

1. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................75
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................75
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................75
4. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................75
5. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................75

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................76
3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................76

1. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................76
2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................77

9. Draft Employment of States of Jersey Employees (Amendment No. 6) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.7/2014) .............................................................77

9.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................78

10. Jersey Overseas Aid Commission: reappointment of non-States Commissioner (P.11/2014)...............................................................................78

10.1 Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................79

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................79 Deputy J.M. Maçon:..........................................................................79 Senator L.J. Farnham :........................................................................79 The Connétable of St. John:..................................................................79

11. Draft Drainage (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.6/2014)...........................80

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): ..............80

1. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................81
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................81
3. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................82
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................83
5. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................84
6. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..........................................................84
7. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:..............................................................84
8. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................84

2. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................86

1. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................86
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................86

3. Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................87
4. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................87
5. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................87

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................90

12. Deputy J.M. Maçon (The Chairman of Privileges and Procedures Committee): ........90

12.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................90

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................90

[09:30]

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

1. Tribute to the late Charles Alan Le Maistre, M.B.E. – former Connétable of Grouville The Deputy Bailiff :

As has just been mentioned by the Deputy of Grouville , Members might be already aware that Charles Alan Le Maistre died last week aged 87. He was Connétable of Grouville from August 1976 until his retirement in January 1989. Alan served on a wide variety of committees during his 12 and a half years in the States; Public Health, Tourism, Agriculture and Fisheries, Education, Establishment, Island Development and the Resources Recovery Board. On the so-called minor committees too; Industrial Relations, Elizabeth House, Telecommunications, Deliberation Anniversary Committee and the special Committee on Defence and International Representation. His activity in committee work shows that he was very popular among Members and that he was recognised as a man who did not talk unless he had something to say but when he did he spoke with clarity and good sense. He was Chairman of the Comité des Connétable s, over which he presided with his usual robustness. The former Connétable of St. Lawrence, Mrs. Iris Le Feuvre, recalled that when she was elected and she went along to her first meeting of that committee one of the Connétable s asked if the Chairman would introduce her to the Comité: "No" said Alan: "Everyone knows who she is" and I have no doubt he was right. [Laughter] Alan was a farmer and a passionate Grouvillé(?). He served in the Honorary Police before he became a Connétable and after his retirement he continued to work for the good of the Parish community. He was the church warden for many years, indeed stepping into the breach again at the last moment only a few years ago when there was an unexpected vacancy. He and his wife Matt have opened their home at Les Prés Manor for the Grouville fete every year of my adult memory. In 1994 he was awarded an M.B.E. (Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire) in Her Majesty the Queen's Birthday Honours list as a recognition of his selfless service to his Parish over some 40 years. Sometimes one hears or reads of a tribute being given that the deceased was a man of the old school, to the extent that means a person had the old-fashioned virtues of loyalty, of hard work, of honesty and commitment, Alan was of the old school. If it means he was stubborn and difficult to shift once he had made up his mind he was of the old school there too, as I know when he berated me last year in church for not wearing a tie. But, most of all, he was a family man. He and Matt had 4 sons, including the present Connétable of Grouville , and a daughter, many grandchildren and great-grandchildren, to whom Members will want to extend their sympathy. I ask Members to

stand as the usual mark of respect in his memory. May he rest in peace.

2. Welcome to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor

Deputy Bailiff :

Turning to the Order Paper more directly, as usual, on behalf of Members, I would like to extend the warmest welcome to His Excellency, the Lieutenant Governor. [Approbation]

QUESTIONS

2. Written Questions

1. DEPUTY R.J. RONDEL OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE PAYMENT TRIAL AT SAND STREET CAR PARK:

Question

Could the Minister give the following information to the last known month end in relation to the trial that began on 12th November 2012 for a new parking charge system in Sand Street Car Park -

1. What has been the difference in monthly income for parking excluding fines?
2. How many vehicles have exceeded the 3 hour nominal limit broken down toupto 4 hours,up to 6 hours and longer than 6 hours?
3. How much was the fine'income for Sand Street car park for the 12 month period (broken down into months) prior to the commencement of the trial?
4. How much income has been received from fines' during the period of the trial, if any?
5. Is the Minister considering charging those with blue badges' from outside Jersey for parking? Answer

1. Prior to the introduction ofthe ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) system in Sand Street the accepted method for estimating the income from paycard or season ticket sales per parking site was periodic occupancy surveys, made at set times ofthe day. The ANPR now provides  much  more  accurate income  information for  parking at Sand St. Adjusting  for inflation, using original occupancy surveys, average monthly income for the 12 month period prior to the commencement ofthe trial was £ 41,735. Following the introduction ofthenew system, the average monthly income from parking is £50,310.
2. Since the introduction ofthe new system 49,405 vehicles have stayed for between 3 and 4 hours, 31,334 vehicles have stayed for between 4 and 6 hours and 32,597 vehicles have stayed for longer than 6 hours. Included in the last figure will be vehicles that park overnight and on non-chargeable days so many ofthe vehicles staying longer than 6 hours will have done so in non-chargeable periods.
3. The fine income for Sand Street Car Park for the 12 month period prior to the trial is:

4. Since the introduction of the trial £22,575.00 has been collected through payment of fines, this includes a period of light touch policing during the early partofthe trail while the public familiarised itself with the ANPR system.
5. The guiding assumption behind the European Blue Badge disabled parking permit is that Blue Badges issued in one EU country are given equal recognition in others. This reciprocal agreement also applies to non-EU countries or jurisdictions such as Jersey, Guernsey, Iceland, Isle ofMan, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland whoalsohaveagreedto participate in the scheme.

This agreement means that Jersey Blue Badge holders visiting another signatory country, for instance the UK or France, have the same rights and access to disabled parking facilities as granted to residents of that country. Conversely, a visiting Blue Badge holder from those countries can use Jersey's parking facilities in in the same way as a disabled islander.

While I have no intention of departing from the underlying principles of the Blue Badge scheme, I will be undertaking a review of its application during 2014.

2. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRE OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE DAME HEATHER STEEL REVIEW:

Question

Could the Chief Minister provide an update on a likely date for the publication of the Dame Heather Steel review?

Answer

The position has not changed since I made my statement to the States Assembly in January. I continue to expect that the Bishop of Winchester will honour the commitment made in the terms of reference of the investigation by Dame Heather Steel that, upon receipt of the final report, the Bishop of Winchester will supply a copy to the Bailiff , the Dean and the Ministry of Justice. Lambeth Palace confirmed in January that the reports being conducted by Dame Heather Steel and Bishop Gladwin will be completed in due course. I hope that the Steel report will be completed as soon as possible  in order that our community can be strengthened through reconciliation and healing based upon integrity and transparency.

3. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY  REGARDING  THE  PROCESSING  OF INCOME  SUPPORT APPLICATIONS:

Question

Will the Minister inform members what the average turn-around time for processing Income Support applications or Change of Circumstances forms from the date of issue to delivery of payment currently is?

Does he believe that this period can contribute to income support applicants getting into debt and, if so, what measures does he propose to reduce any such hardship?

What figures does the Minister have for over and under-payments in income support? To reduce the potential hardship through repayment of "overpayments" will he agree to re-instate the previous cap on such repayments of £21 weekly?

Answer

As stated in my answer to similar written questions tabled on 26th June 2012, 17th July 2012 and 15th January 2013, and furthermore an oral question on Tuesday 24th September 2013, Income Support benefit is always paid in advance, on either a weekly or four-weekly basis. Any change of circumstance that occurs after a payment has been made and during the period paid for, which affects the value of the claim rate, will result in the need for a payment adjustment in respect of the over or under payment.

This means that small overpayments are an expected and inevitable part of a benefit system that pays in advance, and in most cases simply result from the short-term repayment of extra income that households have received above their actual benefit entitlement. The alternative, which I do not support, would be to make Income Support payments in arrears - which could lead to real hardship amongst low income families.

As part of the States wide lean' initiative to improve customer service, officers of my Department have recently launched a same day service that allows many changes to existing Income Support claims to be processed in the customer's presence, subject to them supplying all supporting evidence. Based on the first few weeks performance, approximately 60% of customers visiting the department to notify us of a change of circumstances have benefited from this improved service. This was not a service available previously. For new applications for Income Support, the current time for processing is 10 working days, providing all relevant information is supplied at the outset.

The figure of £21 weekly for the recovery of over-payments is a guide used by officers to determine an appropriate weekly amount to be recovered from ongoing benefit. The recovery of overpayments is always set at a level that the customer should be able to afford, and those overpayments that exceed the guide figure of £21 weekly are typically agreed with customers who have started employment and wish to clear the overpayment as soon as possible.

As stated in my answers to previous similar questions, I do not believe these recoveries cause hardship. It is an important principle that taxpayer-funded benefits must be recovered whenever they are overpaid, particularly when the household has failed to take appropriate action required under the Income Support Law to notify the Department of changes.

4. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING INCOME SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES:

Question

Can the Minister confirm that the net result of R&O75/2012 and R&O47/2011 is to maintain the top-up sum required by Article 6(1) of the Income Support transitional provisions for a household previously in receipt of attendance allowance for a child at 100% from 1st July 2012 and to reduce the TUS for a household previously in receipt of Child Disability Allowance (CDA) (but not attendance allowance) to 40%.

Will he state how many of the 55 households with children claiming Personal Care (PC) components level 3 do so because of the child's disability and how many of those are in receipt of carer's component? How many of those on PC level 3 because of the child's disability were previously on attendance allowance/CDA and how many are getting the equivalent through discretionary payments from the Minister? Are these discretionary payments counted here or elsewhere?

How many of 82 on PC level 1 and 36 on level 2 are claiming because of the child's disability? How many of those were on CDA previously and subject to reductions in TUS above?

Will the Minister give his rationale for reductions in the level of benefits for these households with a child with disability?

Answer

Following question 8028, tabled on Tuesday 10th December 2013, I am pleased to confirm that, as suggested in my answer at that time, my Department's 2014 business plan contains an objective to reform the way that benefits are paid in respect of children with very high personal care needs. A detailed brief for law drafting has been submitted to the Law Draftsman's Department and my proposals will be lodged as soon as the law drafting process is complete.

The effect of various amendments to the Income Support Transitional Order made by myself, and previous Social Security Ministers, has been to extend 100% transition protection for all groups for nearly two years beyond the original timetable, and to further extend 100% protection for claimants previously receiving disability benefits for an additional year. As per my answer to question 8028, I can confirm that R&O.75/2012 maintained the sum payable for a child with a severe disability who was in receipt of Attendance Allowance prior to the introduction of the Income Support scheme in January 2008. In summary, transitional payments for Attendance Allowance in respect of children are now being fully maintained at 100% until the child reaches school leaving age, at which point they can make a claim for Income Support in their own right. I can confirm that previous claimants of Child Disability Allowance, who do not otherwise qualify for Income Support, are currently receiving a transitional payment which is now equivalent to 40% of the value of the historic benefit.

The detailed figures quoted in the question relate to Table 38 in the 2012 Social Security Annual Report. In some instances these represent the number of individuals, not claims. The figures quoted only relate to Income Support households that include children. The report referred to 52 households claiming a total of 55 Personal Care level 3 components. Of these there were 40 claims (and 43 children) that included a Personal Care level 3 component in respect of a child. 36 of these claims were also in receipt of the carer's component.

Of those children in receipt of Personal Care level 3, 28 were either in receipt of Attendance Allowance or Child Disability Allowance before 2008. 9 further claims, in respect of children who were not in receipt of either benefit before 2008, are paid as exceptional payments  from the Minister. These are in addition to those counted above.

In terms of other households including a child with lower levels of personal care needs, there were 34 claims (and 36 children) qualifying for the award of Personal Care level 1; 21 claims (and 21 children) qualified for the award of Personal Care level 2. 21 of the total 57 children were formerly in receipt of Child Disability Allowance. There was no direct equivalent to Personal Care level 1 in the previous benefit system and these children may not have qualified for any financial assistance before the introduction of Income Support. Child Disability Allowance was only available to children with a disability, rather than an illness. There is no such distinction in the current system where the actual care needs of the child are considered, rather than the cause of those needs.

The TUS referred to in the question relates to the transitional payments that are made to claimants who were entitled to compensatory "protected" benefit payments at the start of Income Support in 2008 as their entitlement to Income Support was lower than the total of their benefit entitlement under the various previous benefit systems. In almost all cases the reduced entitlement was due to the level of household income. Claims where there was no household entitlement to Income Support in 2008 only received the TUS payments and these payments are now being reduced in the case of previous claimants of Child Disability Allowance. There were 7 claims remaining in this category at the time of the data extract.

The changes in policy and legislation culminating in the current Income Support system have been endorsed several times by the States Assembly and have been subject to extensive scrutiny and public debate since the year 2000. The previous situation of a range of uncoordinated, separate benefits, each with its own entitlement conditions and application process, has been replaced with a single Income Support scheme based on household income. The range and value of support available to families that include a child with a long term illness or disability has been extended, a consistent assessment process has been introduced and a single method established for determining household income. As Income Support is designed to target support at families with lower incomes, some higher income families who would have received benefits under one of the previous benefits available are no longer eligible for financial assistance due to the level of their household income.

However, as noted above, in the case of children with the highest level of personal care needs due to a severe disability or very serious long term illness, support has continued to be provided, irrespective of the financial circumstances of the family. Regulations to formalise this arrangement will be debated in the next few months.

5. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF RATES ON STATES' PROPERTIES:

Question

Will the Minister state what meetings have taken place between Treasury and St. Helier Parish officials since the Minister stated in the debate on 4th June 2013 on the proposition (P.40/2013) "Parish rates: the States' liability' that he "would like to work with the Parish constructively on an open-book basis" on the rates issue?

Will he further state what progress he has made in " finding a solution, and presenting that solution to members . well in advance of the next MTFP" that he was "committed to" in June and, if none, will he state why?

Would he state when he intends to bring a report to the Assembly on this issue and the wider issue of taxation of land and will he undertake, as part of any such report, to consider the issue of Land Value Tax (LVT) which has proved successful elsewhere?

Answer

In June 2013 the Minister stated that he would like to work constructively with the Parishes on an open-book basis concerning the States' liability for Parish rates. The Minister is now pleased to advise members that a very productive dialogue is taking place with the Chairman of the Jersey Association of Rates Assessors.

Firstly, as far as quantification of the potential liability is concerned, a considerable amount of progress has been achieved to produce an assessment of the likely costs of rates to the States based on the 2013 position.

This essential background work has been undertaken at no cost to the Public and provides an independent assessment that will inform the next steps to delivering the commitment made to the States Assembly. Once the final estimate of the likely cost of the States paying rates has been established in the next few months, the Minister intends to discuss his proposals with the Comité des Connétable s before reporting to the States. An update will be provided in the draft 2015 Budget in July 2014.

Secondly, as part of a broad-based review of property tax looking at how costs could be met, the Minister is considering a number of property tax matters, including the issue of Land Value Tax.

Land Value Tax must be distinguished from Land Development Tax. Land Value Tax can be either an annual or a one-off charge on the owner of a property, based on the value of that property. Land Development Tax, in the format that has been discussed by the Assembly in the past, would be a tax on the uplift in the value of land when rezoned for development. The review is considering both of these types of taxes, with appropriate economic advice.

Thirdly, as far as proposals to pay for the potential liability are concerned, a Green Paper is to be issued alongside the draft 2015 Budget. The responses received will inform a White Paper to be issued in 2015.

6. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING ADVISORY AND OVERSIGHT GROUPS:

Question

Will the Chief Minister provide an comprehensive up to date list of all advisory or oversight groups which have been established by members of the Council of Ministers for the development or revision of public policy, the list to include for each group –

1. details of the constitution of the group;
2. its terms of reference;
3. the membership of Ministers, Assistant Ministers and other elected members, if any, and the civil servants advising the group;

4. the frequency of its meetings;
5. whether formal minutes are produced and published;
6. whether the group has any delegated authority from the members ofthe Council of Ministers for spending decisions; and
7. the date of the last meeting. Answer

Yes.

At the meeting of 21st February 2014, the Council of Ministers agreed to publish a list of ministerial groups in response to the third recommendation of the Machinery of Government Review Sub-Committee's Interim Report April 2013 (R.39/2013), which was lodged by the Privileges and Procedures Committee. The recommendation reads;

Recommendation 3 – The Council of Ministers should be required to publish, and to keep updated, a collated list of all advisory and oversight groups formed to progress the development or revision of policy.

The list will be published during March 2014, responding to each of the points a) – g) above.

7. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE INVOLVEMENT OF NON-EXECUTIVE MEMBERS IN POLICY DEVELOPMENT:

Question

Will the Chief Minister inform the Assembly whether the Council of Ministers recognises the role of democratically elected members of the Assembly in contributing to the policy proposals of Ministers before they are adopted as official States' policy and, if so, would he inform the Assembly in detail of the arrangements the Council of Ministers has made, and currently relies upon, to ensure it is fully aware of the opinions of non-executive members in policy development?

Would the Chief Minister further state whether any non-executive members of the States are included in any the multiplicity of policy or working groups established by Ministers, whether across ministerial departments or within a single department, state whether these groups are operational or for policy formulation and if there is no involvement of non-executive members, what proposals, if any, does the Chief Minister currently have under consideration to address this issue?

Answer

I recognise the essential contribution non-executive members of the States Assembly can make to the development of policy.

This happens in a number of ways. There are formal groups that develop policy, such as the Access to Justice Review Advisory Panel, the Regeneration Steering Group and the Health Transformation Ministerial Oversight Group. There are also workshops held to debate the development of major initiatives like the Strategic Plan, as well as informal discussions. I am aware of many meetings between Ministers and Members to discuss policy. This week, all States Members have been invited to workshops on the development of "Preparing for Our Future", the framework being produced for the future development of policy, and the clear intention is to make this process inclusive, bringing in the views of non-executive Members of the States.

I said when standing as Chief Minister that I would support a reinvigorated Scrutiny function. During this term of office I believe Scrutiny has operated more successfully, which is essential for effective government. As well as the Scrutiny process, there is a requirement for Ministers to be accountable to, and to listen and respond to, the States Assembly. In my view, this, and the fact that we have no party politics, all makes the Executive branch of government highly responsive to the States Assembly as it formulates policy, perhaps more so than elsewhere.

The Machinery of Government Review Sub-Committee: Final Report, presented to the States Assembly on 9th September 2013 by the Privileges and Procedures Committee (R.105/2013) concluded that, whilst the States have little appetite for a direct return to the committee system, the range of work conducted by all 3 branches of government is sufficiently challenging and diverse as to provide ample opportunities for all Members to contribute. The Review recommended that Members should benefit from a formal mechanism through which they might express an interest in serving in a particular executive or non-executive capacity, supported by a brief rationale for wishing to pursue those particular roles. This recommendation has been supported by the Steering Group taking forwarded the Review recommendations and I hope that this will gain the support of the States Assembly in due course.

8. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE ROLE AND MEMBERSHIPS OF GROUPS ESTABLISHED BY DEPARTMENTS FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT:

Question

Would the Chief Minister provide an updated reply to the question previously asked by Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondre on 9th October 2012 providing full details of the role and membership of all groups established by all Departments , including Transport and Technical Services (for example working parties, policy, advisory, oversight groups) which are either cross-departmental, of which membership comprises only/mainly States officers, or groups of which membership comprises States officers and external third parties) which influence the workings of a Department, and/or development of Ministerial proposals, decisions or policies, and which have met since 1st January 2012 including the name of the group, attendees, frequency of meetings and remit?

Answer

The detailed list produced on 9th October, 2012 is being updated and will be published in March 2014, including information from Transport and Technical Services. It will demonstrate the cross- departmental nature of the public sector.

9. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING DISCIPLINARY CASES AT H.M. PRISON LA MOYE: Question

Will the Minister advise members how many disciplinary cases there have been in the past 10 years at the HMP La Moye Prison for employees, and in how many of those cases the employee was either dismissed or resigned pending, or after, the action?

Will the Minister provide a summary of any alleged misconduct, in terms of its nature (i.e. sexual, drug dealing, etc)?

Will the Minister, in particular, inform members whether the former member of staff in charge of the drug and alcohol counselling services who is alleged in a national newspaper to have had an inappropriate relationship with a prisoner was the subject of a disciplinary investigation and, if so what was the basis for, and result of, that investigation? Will the Minister make the case notes, if any, for any such disciplinary action available?

Answer

Prior to 2007, data on the number and outcome of disciplinary cases was not collated. Therefore the information requested could only be extracted through an examination of all staff personal files. Further to discussion with the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, I believe Deputy Tadier has helpfully agreed that I should focus on Gross Misconducts where dismissal is a disposal available to the Prison Governor.

Between 1 January 2007 and 26 February 2014, 16 Gross Misconduct Investigations were initiated. The outcomes were as follows:

• 1 Prison Officer dismissed
• 2 Senior Officers reduced in rank to Prison Officer
• 1 Senior Officer, 3 Prison Officers and 1 Civilian grade given Final Written Warnings
• 3 Prison Officers given Written Warnings
• 1 Senior Officer, 2 Prison Officers and 2 Civilian Support Grades resigned before the disciplinary process was concluded

The nature of the offences committed included:

• 7 of the 16 Gross Misconducts and 2 of the resignations arose as a consequence of events while off duty in the community. 2 related to inappropriate behaviour in public and 5 due to criminal charges;
• 2 involved trafficking (1 x mobile phone and 1 x confectionary and stationery items);
• 1 related to a breach of the States Information Systems policy;
• 1 involved inappropriate use of a Dictaphone;
• 1 inappropriate disclosure of confidential information;
• 1 failing to report a significant breach of security;
• 1 leaving a part of the prison insecure and failing to complete core duties;
• 1 harassment of a prisoner;
• 1 breach of security while on an external escort (left a prisoner locked in the escort vehicle unsupervised).

With reference to the specific questions related to the ex Manager of Drug & Alcohol Counselling service at La Moye, on 14 September 2010 the Prison Governor would have suspended this individual pending an investigation into whether she had been trafficking items into Prison but she immediately resigned and is believed to have left Jersey within a matter of days thereafter. Because this matter did not proceed to the stage of a disciplinary investigation, it is not included in the figure of 16 Gross Misconduct Investigations set out above.

There has not been an investigation related to any form of sexual activity in the prison.

It is not appropriate to make the case notes in relation to disciplinary matters, or potential disciplinary matters, available.

10. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE RECOURSE AVAILABLE TO AN APPLICANT FOR PLANNING PERMISSION:

Question

Would the Minister state what recourse, if any, is available to a planning applicant whose application is supported on "appeal" by the Planning Applications Panel and who is then, on direction from the Minister, expected to negotiate an outcome with the officer whose reasoning was contested and then overturned?

Answer

Recommendations to the Planning Applications Panel are those of the department, not an individual officer. They are counter-signed by the relevant Director, or in his absence, a Principal Planner. If the Minister disagrees with the Panel's decision (to depart from the department's recommendation), the current protocols allow him to direct the department officers to carry out his alternative instruction.

Ultimately, any applicant who is dissatisfied with a planning decision can appeal to the Royal Court under article 113 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002.

11. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF BUILDING CONTROL REGULATIONS TO LISTED BUILDINGS:

Question

Would the Minister confirm whether the Building Control regulations in regard to listed buildings are applied with flexibility and would he outline what appeal processes exists for owners who are aggrieved by what they consider to be the inflexible application of the regulations?

Answer

Building work carried out in connection with listed buildings is subject to the same building control requirements as other buildings. In all cases the bye-law requirements are applied in a reasonable and appropriate way.

I have published detailed technical guidance which sets out how the functional requirements prescribed for building work can be satisfied for the more common building situations. This guidance provides flexibility in that it recognises there may well be alternative ways of achieving compliance and as such the solutions provided in the published guidance are not mandatory. A designer simply needs to demonstrate that adequate provision has been made.

In terms of appeal provisions my officers will give advice on appropriate design solutions and always provide a full explanation for decisions made in respect of applications for building permission. Should building permission be refused there is a right of appeal to the Royal Court in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002.

12. DEPUTY T.A. VALLOIS OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING LEGISLATION AND POLICY GOVERNING THE PROVISION OF HOUSING IN JERSEY:

Question

Could the Chief Minister provide a list of all legislation and policy used by Ministers that relate to all initiatives for the provision of housing in Jersey (both private housing and social housing) and give an analysis showing how the legislation and policy relate and interact with each other for the betterment of the public of Jersey?

Answer

A Strategic Housing Unit (SHU) has been established, under the leadership of the Minister for Housing, to co-ordinate all housing policy. This follows an Assembly debate on "The Reform of Social Housing" (P33/2013).

A Ministerial "Strategic Housing Group" has been established to advise the SHU, with ministerial representation from Health and Social Services, Treasury and Resources, Planning and Environment, and other Ministers as required. Social housing providers and officer groups will support this ministerial group.

This structure will help to develop housing policies for the betterment of the public of Jersey, and will culminate in the production of a housing strategy. This is a complex piece of work. Research is being undertaken in 2014 so the strategy can be published in 2015.

The "provision of housing" as outlined in the question is taken to relate to all laws, policies and functions that govern the supply and management of housing.

The relevant laws:

• Planning and Building (Jersey) Law, 2002
• Building Bye Laws and supplementary planning guidance
• Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Law, 2012
• Lodging Houses (Registration) (Jersey) Law 1962
• Dwelling-Houses (Rent Control) (Jersey) Law 1946
• Statutory Nuisance (Jersey) Law 1999
• Loi (1934) sur la Santé Publique

Various organisations have relevant functions:

• The provision of social housing by the Housing Department and housing trusts
• The development of housing by the States of Jersey Development Company
• The provision of States owned land by the Treasury and Resources Minister through the Property Holdings Department to provide social housing

There are also a range of policies which affect housing, including:

• Our tax and benefit regimes
• Support for home ownership, for example, the Building Loans (Jersey) Law 1950, and the Starter Homes Deposit Loan Scheme
• the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law

Legislation and policies interact with each other in a number of ways, for instance:

• Improvements need to be made in some areas, for example, in coordinating the regulation of housing standards across social housing, registered housing (formerly called unqualified housing) and private rented accommodation. This is why, for example, the Chief Minister's Department, Strategic Housing Unit, Public Health Department, and others, are developing new policies in this area to improve standards.
• We need a focused approach to the issue of affordability in Jersey. This is why, for example, the Strategic Housing Unit is developing a housing strategy, and why the Economics Unit is reviewing barriers to housing supply.
• The Housing Transformation programme will deliver a wide range of benefits for social housing. This includes £250 million investment to improve standards and supply, and the removal of hidden rental subsidies through changes to rent policy and Income Support rules.
• The draft Revised Island Plan aims to tackle the shortfall in social housing provision, providing sites where additional funding from the Housing Transformation Programme can be invested.
• The Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Law, 2012, significantly improves the regulation of landlord and tenant relationships, providing protection against eviction and from excessive utility charges.
• The new Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law, 2012, enables registered people to lease property. This gives them the same protection as entitled residents for the first time in more than 60 years.

This work will continue and accelerate.

13. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE PROVISION OF CERPETS, FLOORING AND WINDOWS IN STATES AND TRUST ACCOMMODATION:

Question

Will the Minister provide a summary of the history of the policy and practice of providing carpets and flooring in States' accommodation, including all exceptions and, if relevant, state when the policy and practice changed?

Will the Minister advise whether he is aware if the Trust providers also have a similar requirement for new tenants to lay their own flooring?

Will the Minister advise whether there are any plans to require new tenants to provide their own windows in future?

Answer

I would like to start by saying that this is not a new practice at all. The Housing Department has never provided carpets to ingoing tenants. The Department currently provides appropriate flooring to both kitchens and bathrooms in all of its homes. Properties are let without carpets at allocation, unless there are good quality serviceable carpets left behind by the previous tenant.

Where the Department requires a tenant to move to a new homes so that their existing home can be redeveloped or refurbished, the cost of carpeting the new property will be met by the Department. The annual budget is usually in the region of £10,000. This has been increased this year to £40,000 in recognition of the increased refurbishment and development activity.

In 2013 a total of 416 homes were allocated; if a new policy were adopted to provide carpets for that number of homes an additional £300,000  would be added to the annual budget for void property refurbishment. This cost increase cannot be justified and would simply translate into a reduction in property maintenance elsewhere and impact significantly on the ability to deliver other commitments such as achievement of the Decent Homes Standard within 10 years.

I have been in contact with the Islands other social housing providers and our counterparts in Guernsey and the Isle of Man to establish their respective policies and practices. I am not surprised to learn that their practices are overwhelmingly similar to those of the Housing Department.

The answer to the Deputy 's third question regarding windows is no.

14. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE OPERATIONS OF THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL IN JERSEY:

Question

Will the Minister inform members what activities the Discovery Channel will be engaged in on the Island when it opens an office here and what benefits will accrue to Jersey? What safeguards, if any, does the Minister have to ensure that the office is not just a conduit to funnel profits and revenue streams through Jersey to avoid taxes elsewhere, thereby reinforcing the reputation of the island as a centre for tax evasion?

Answer

As the Deputy is no doubt aware my Department, through its Locate Jersey team, is tasked with attracting highly mobile, premium quality inward investment to the Island.

The company in question will in fact be operating the secretariat function of its business in the Island, in a fashion similar to that of a corporate secretary, albeit with a generally higher level of oversight, required owing to the size and global nature of the business.

As a direct result of a recent process of standardisation undertaken by the organisation, the company has decided to relocate its administrative centre of decision making to Jersey, bringing with it much needed employment and an increased positive international profile for Jersey's Digital sector. In short, the benefits to Jersey are 6 high quality jobs for local people, significant levels of personal income tax arising from these salaries and associated other States income from GST, Stamp Duty and additional local expenditure with local supplier companies.

In terms of safeguards, this business will operate within the same safeguards as any other business operating in the Island, such as the Jersey Financial Services Commission and Control of Work and Housing Law.

15. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE MINIMUM WAGE:

Question

Will the Minister state whether he agrees with the following statements and, if so, state what steps he is taking to correct or improve the situation and, if he disagrees with them, state fully why, giving evidence to support his contentions -

1. that Jersey has, or is in danger of creating, a two-tier labour market in which a growing number of workers will earn little more than the minimum wage;
2. without new thinking on the minimum wage there is a risk that its purpose will be perverted and might be seen as a drag on wages;
3. that the minimumwagewassetto avoid extreme exploitation but instead is now being seen as a going rate for entry level staff;
4. the minimum wage shows little sign of transforming people's lives as it keeps the majority of people on subsistence levels of wages.

Answer

Data collected by the States Statistics Unit via the average earnings surveys undertaken in 2012 and 2013 provides no evidence that there is a growing number of minimum wage earners in Jersey, or that Jersey has a two-tier labour market. In both June 2012 and June 2013;

- 6 percent of jobs (around 3,000) were being paid at the minimum wage

- Less than 100 jobs were being paid at the trainee rate.

- Less than 100 jobs were being paid between the trainee rate(s) and the minimum wage.

Minimum wage jobs in Jersey are primarily in two sectors that are export oriented and that rely on international competition; agriculture and fishing (48% of jobs in that sector are minimum wage jobs) and hotels, restaurants and bars (40% of jobs in that sector are minimum wage jobs).

Given the low percentage of minimum wage jobs overall and the concentration of around two- thirds of minimum wage jobs in the hospitality and agriculture sectors, the Minister is not aware of any evidence to suggest that the minimum wage has a drag effect on wages generally. Minimum wage increases contribute to annual increases in the average earnings index and often have a differential impact on wages throughout a business.

The minimum wage was intended to remove the worst cases of low pay whilst taking into account business realities and supporting a competitive economy. The intention is to balance the desire for minimum wage increases against the risks for businesses, e.g. job losses if staff costs become unsustainable. The minimum wage is reviewed each year allowing the independent Employment Forum to react to new information and evidence  in relation to jobs, competitiveness and the economy. In addition, the States of Jersey has established its intentions regarding the future of the minimum wage by deciding that the minimum wage should be increased to at least 45% of average earnings over  a 5 to  15 year  period.  The Minister reminded the Employment Forum of that objective in 2013.

The Minister is not aware of any evidence to suggest that the minimum wage has become a going rate for entry level staff in Jersey or that it keeps the majority of people on subsistence wages, particularly given the low percentage of minimum wage jobs overall, the concentration of those jobs in the hospitality and agriculture sectors and the comparatively low number of minimum wage jobs in the remainder of the economy.

It has never been the stated purpose of the minimum wage to transform lives. The purpose of the minimum wage is to set a minimum standard in the employment relationship and to create a level playing field between employers, irrespective of their size and sector.

The level of the minimum wage will always be constrained by the need to take into account the two most affected sectors and it is likely that the rate is lower than it might have been if the disproportionate impact on the hospitality and agriculture sectors was not taken into account.

Work is underway to investigate the introduction of a voluntary Living Wage for Jersey.

16. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE ISLAND'S CREDIT RATING:

Question

Does the Minister believe that Jersey's credit rating from Standard and Poor's is in danger of being downgraded following the downgrading of the Isle of Man's credit rating from AA+ to AA because it is constrained by its undiversified small economy which makes it vulnerable to external shocks and a global downturn threatens its core industry, finance and, if he does not, would he state why, bearing in mind Jersey's higher reliance on finance than the Isle of Man and the prospect for continued low interest rates for depositors, greater competition from, and regulation applying to, offshore financial centres?

Answer

Jersey's credit rating from Standard and Poor (S&P) was announced on 22nd November 2013. It is AA+ with a stable outlook. The "stable outlook" comment from S&P is a formal part of their rating and provides certainty and confidence in Jersey's future, as expressed in their initial report: "The stable outlook reflects our view of Jersey's high wealth and its strong public policy settings and government finances." Last week the Treasury confirmed directly with S&P that they do not anticipate any changes in Jersey's rating.

In accordance with their Regulatory obligations and their routine cycle, S&P plan to publish an up dated report on 23rd May 2014.

For Members' ease of reference, the full text of the S&P initial report is reproduced.

OVERVIEW

• The States of Jersey has mature political and institutional settings, transparent economic decision-making, and high fiscal flexibility--the latter underpinned by no direct public debt and strong fiscal discipline.
• It also has a wealthy, market-oriented, and open economy.
• We are assigning our 'AA+/A-1+' long- and short-term sovereign credit ratings to Jersey.
• The outlook is stable, reflecting our view of Jersey's high wealth, as well as its strong public policy settings and government finances.

RATING ACTION

On Nov. 22, 2013, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its 'AA+/A-1+' long- and short- term foreign and local currency sovereign credit ratings to the States of Jersey. The outlook is stable. Jersey is the 128th sovereign rated by Standard & Poor's.

RATIONALE

The ratings on Jersey reflect our view of its high wealth, strong fiscal flexibility, and public-policy stability. These strengths are moderated by Jersey's dependence on its financial services sector, its lack of monetary policy flexibility, and data deficiencies on the external side that hamper our full assessment of external risks.

Jersey is one of three British Crown Dependencies (the others are Guernsey and the Isle of Man). It has an open and wealthy economy; we estimate 2013 real per capita GDP at nearly US$60,000. Following six years of economic contraction, we expect Jersey to return to modest real per capita growth of

0.1% in 2014 and to average a similar level over 2013-2015 (1% growth in real GDP terms).

Growth will depend on Jersey's financial services sector (banking, trusts, funds management, and legal, accountancy and investment advisory services) recovering in line with global financial and economic trends. That said, recovery is likely to be uneven and comparatively shallow given the sector's high contribution to GDP (more than 40% in 2012) and the uncertain growth prospects of key European trading partners. The other main external risk to Jersey's growth prospects is the potential tightening of international financial sector and taxation agreements, which would affect off-shore financial hubs globally.

Offsetting these risks are the Jersey government's strong fiscal position and mature institutional arrangements, which are conducive to swift policy responses if required. Broad community and political support for prudent fiscal policies have resulted in balanced budgets on average over the past 10 years. The government has also accumulated financial assets that can be drawn-down to support growth during more difficult economic times, such as the past five years. While we expect the government will continue to stabilize its fiscal position over the next three years, we project that lower taxation revenues stemming from financial system weakness (the sector generates 75% of corporate tax revenues) and higher capital expenditure will delay a return to surpluses until 2015.

The government has no direct debt. Its balance sheet is also not materially at risk from contingent liabilities pertaining to its related entities (mostly housing authorities, utilities, and pension funds), whose debt we estimate to be about 6% of GDP.

Incomplete data constrains our assessment of Jersey's private-sector balance sheets, but they do not appear to be under pressure. While the financial services sector poses risks, these are partly mitigated by Jersey's high per capita income; strong system liquidity and capital; the same lending and underwriting standards as the (mostly U.K.-based) parent banks; a funded banking sector depositors' compensation scheme (of up to £50,000 paid to depositors, with a total scheme cost capped at £100 million or about 2.7% of GDP); and the sector's role in providing offshore banking services to clients of U.K. banks. We do not see immediate risks to the sector nor do we believe that Jersey's government would likely be called upon to support an ailing institution, if required.

Jersey's monetary policy flexibility is limited by its currency board arrangement with the British pound sterling. The Jersey pound is not accepted internationally. We find that this long-standing arrangement is credible in light of the island's fiscal assets (over 100% of GDP) and its economic links with the U.K.

Like other British Crown Dependencies, Jersey does not collect external data and its economic data is limited in coverage and is published with lags, which complicates our analysis.

OUTLOOK

The stable outlook reflects our view of Jersey's high wealth and its strong public policy settings and government finances. We could raise the ratings if more-complete data were available to assess Jersey's balance of payments and external risks, and if we saw an increase in economic diversification.

We could lower the ratings if we saw that Jersey's strong position as a financial center was declining or if the island's very strong fiscal position were to weaken.

17. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING A DATA PROTECTION INVESTIGATION:

Question

Will the Home Affairs Minister inform members whether there is an investigation into the Police by the Data Protection Commissioner and, if so, whether it is centred around the role of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, the Deputy Chief Officer and Human Resources Officer accessing or attempting to access sensitive personal information on a police officer without permission of the police officer concerned?

Answer

It is not appropriate for me to comment on any investigation that the Data Protection Commissioner may be undertaking.

The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (ODPC') is independent of government, although the general area of data protection falls within the responsibility of the Chief Minister.

Requirements to report and / or publish its activities are defined by statute (Part 6 of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005) and by any applicable policies:

• Each year, it produces an Annual Report which provides statistics on complaints.
• Article 59 of the 2005 Law restricts the disclosure of information obtained by or disclosed to the Commissioner.
• ODPC has issued a Policy Statement and Guidance on Complaint Handling and a Policy Statement and Guidance on Communicating Enforcement Activities.

18. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS IN THE INCOME SUPPORT SCHEME:

Question

Will the Minister state what figure he has for the application of sanctions under income support for –

1. Being insufficiently active in seeking work
2. Leaving a position without "good reason"

Can the Minister inform members whether any of the following constitute a breach of job-seeker's terms and be sanctioned?

1. Turning down a zero-hours job;
2. Missing one appointment with a mentor in six months;
3. Being off the island for a short period;
4. Being advised by a GP to stop work for health reasons.

Does the Minister believe that the use of sanctions can simply worsen hardship, as has been highlighted in the United Kingdom in a report from certain bishops of the Church of England?

Answer

Members will recall the reasons for recently strengthening the Income Support sanctions, and why these changes were so strongly supported in the debate in October 2013. The sanctions are not aimed at the majority of Income Support claimants, they do not save my Department money and there is no intention to create hardship. They target a small minority of people who are able to work, and able to take up the support offered by my Department to find work, but choose instead to remain reliant on the benefit system.

The debate in October examined the evidence that a stronger deterrent was required to reinforce the message that financial support from the taxpayer is conditional on taking personal responsibility; this  involves  jobseekers  upholding  their  end  of  the  bargain  and  actively  engaging  with  the Department to look for suitable work.  The taxpayer is funding the costs of the benefit, as well as the costs of the employment services we provide.

Academic evidence clearly suggests that the best way to help people into employment is through targeted support, backed up by a clear system of financial penalties for the minority who do not do enough to find work. The evidence shows that the benefits of work are as much social and psychological as they are financial, and so it is always our aim to help people find employment.

I therefore reject the suggestion that our fair use of proportionate sanctions creates hardship. On the contrary, it is unemployment itself that can lead to hardship and to reduce unemployment it is essential  that  the  support  we  provide  to  jobseekers  strikes  an  appropriate  balance  between incentives and sanctions. I believe that the recent changes to the sanction regime, accompanied by the active and diverse approach to supporting jobseekers through the Back to Work teams does create that balance.

Under the approved regulations, people required to look for work as a condition of receiving Income Support face financial penalties if they do not do enough to look for work. Anyone at risk of financial penalty is given a clear written warning the first time they fail to be actively seeking work. This written warning has no effect on their benefit payments and clearly explains what they must do in order to avoid a financial sanction. People who later choose to ignore that warning will receive a financial sanction if they cannot subsequently demonstrate a good reason why they failed to be actively seeking work. As with all other decisions under Income Support, people issued with a written warning or financial penalty are informed of their right to request a second decision from another officer. If they do not agree with the second decision they then have the right of appeal to an independent tribunal.

Since the new Income Support rules were brought in on 15 October 2013, the following numbers of sanctions have been applied to jobseekers claiming Income Support:

As  a  condition  of  receiving  Income  Support,  all  jobseekers  are  required  to  agree  with  the Department the actions they will take to find work, and the conditions that will apply to them in order to satisfy the work requirements of Income Support. As stated above, in the first instance of a person failing to meet one of these conditions they will be sent a written warning that will inform them that their benefit payments are at risk if they fail again to undertake jobseeking tasks.

In response to the specific examples in the question, each of numbered items 1-3 could represent a failure to be actively seeking work, but officers are always required to consider whether a person had good reason for failing in each instance. For example, although being present on the Island in order to look for work is a condition that applies to all jobseekers receiving Income Support; it is equally true that a person could demonstrate they had good reason to be off-Island, such as a family funeral or specialist hospital treatment. Furthermore, in each case the first offence would result in a written warning rather than an immediate financial penalty.

With regards to people required to stop work for health reasons, officers always consider these situations when the customer supplies a valid certificate of Short Term Incapacity. The Income Support guidelines have always incorporated detailed guidance for considering people who have a medical condition that limits their capacity to work, or to undertake certain kinds of work. For example, a person required to stop work on a building site because of a back injury would face no financial penalty for giving up that job.

3. Oral Questions The Deputy Bailiff :

We now come to oral questions and the first question is by Deputy Martin who is malade, so we will not be dealing with that question.

1. Deputy R.J. Rondel of St. Helier of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the publication of the results of the trial for the new parking charge system at Sand Street car Park:

Would the Minister advise the Assembly whether he proposes to make public the results of the trial for the new parking charge scheme system at Sand Street Car Park and, if so, when will this be available?

Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):

The evaluation report is in final draft and will be complete within 6 to 8 weeks. Its primary purpose is as a business support document to inform the procurement strategy for implementing the flexible payment system into as many parking locations as possible. The report's analysis and recommendations focus on systems' costs and procurement options for flexible payment technologies. This data is commercially sensitive; however, I am happy to publish a summary report concentrating, in particular, on the system's performance and public satisfaction levels, which are totally positive.

Deputy R.J. Rondel:

I thank the Minister for that detailed answer. [09.45]

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

Could the Minister explain why it is going to take 8 weeks to produce the report and also what areas of it are confidential?

Deputy K.C. Lewis :

Yes, it is a work in progress, it has been in progress for a while. It will be finalised in between 6 and 8 weeks. It is just that should we purchase a similar or another system this information would be commercially sensitive.

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

This system is obviously proving extremely popular with the general public. Could the Minister advise the Assembly when he plans to install this into our other car parks?

Deputy K.C. Lewis :

That will be subject to the report. We are just looking at multi-storey car parks at present and some of our, shall we say, walled or contained car parks, it would not be suitable for on-street parking but that will be subject to the report and evaluation.

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

Building on the Deputy of St. Martin's question, could the Minister confirm that part of the study will be to try and see whether the public are totally confused about the many different parking payment systems his department is currently operating?

Deputy K.C. Lewis :

I was not aware that we had many systems. We have a pay card or we have the A.N.P.R. (Automatic Number Plate Recognition). Obviously it is very difficult to manage change but once people got used to the A.N.P.R. I think the good people of Jersey took to it.

4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement :

In his opening reply the Minister gave me the impression he is bypassing the trial system and his report will move straight on to possible alternative systems and alternative venues. Would the Minister consider an interim report giving details of the success or otherwise of the trial?

Deputy K.C. Lewis :

I thought that I had made it clear that nothing had been decided yet, I will await the report. The technology is changing rapidly, so we are trying to keep ahead of the game on that one. I am more than happy to release an interim report as soon as possible.

5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Will the department be looking at other systems doing similar work because one is told that if you are close enough to the car in front you can actually get out of the car park without paying? Will he be looking at other more sensitive systems?

Deputy K.C. Lewis :

We will indeed be looking at other systems and I would say to the Senator, do not even think it. [Laughter] We have front cameras and rear cameras and they do record the registration.

6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

A supplementary. Perhaps the Minister would like to do a practical test. I am not speaking for myself [Laughter] but I am speaking for a reputable member of society who was trying to pay for his parking fee but, unfortunately, the machine did not register.

Deputy K.C. Lewis :

There are many factors involved. There could be an obscured number plate but everything is recorded. If there is a system failure it does register in the office nearby. I am delighted that the Senator is keeping to the straight and narrow.

7. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier :

In answer to a written question the Minister reports that over 32,500 vehicles have stayed for longer than 6 hours. He says included in this figure will be cars that parked overnight and on non- chargeable days. My question is that there has been concern expressed about shoppers' car park and the availability of that in St. Helier and I would like to know whether there is any evidence that the fact that commuters are now parking in Sand Street, whether this has impacted on the availability.

Deputy K.C. Lewis :

Yes, we are trying to discourage long-term parking, hence the fees go up exponentially. But that will form part of the report, which I will, of course, make available to Members.

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

Given what appears to be the success of the Sand Street Car Park, will the Minister look seriously at putting this in place at somewhere like Pier Road where there are always vacancies? Therefore, we could move some of that commuter/extended parking over into that part of town?

Deputy K.C. Lewis :

The Constable of St. John makes a very valid point. We do have spare capacity at Pier Road, sometimes between 250 and 300 spaces per day. That will be something that will form part of the report and we will indeed be looking at Pier Road.

9. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

Following on from Senator Ferguson's intervention, would the Minister like to comment on the rumour that came to my ears last night that 2-digit number plates cause some confusion with the system?

Deputy K.C. Lewis :

I was not aware of that but I would be more than happy to look into it.

10. Deputy R.J. Rondel:

Would the Minister just confirm exactly when the report will be available for States Members and the public and what form that report will take? Will it be in the form of a White Paper following that? Also, just quickly, has he been liaising with the Jersey Development Company as to their system they use on the Waterfront Car Park?

Deputy K.C. Lewis :

The system most used on the Waterfront is an excellent system. It is not something that I would particularly favour at the moment, a barrier system, because that would interfere with any commuter parking or people wishing to leave at any particular time. Sorry, I forgot the rest of the question.

Deputy R.J. Rondel:

Exactly when the report will be available and what format it will be in. Deputy K.C. Lewis :

It will just be a summary report in between 6 to 8 weeks' time.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the States' liability to pay Parish Rates

What progress, if any, has the Minister made on the issue of the States liability to pay Parish rates and when does the Minister intend to bring a report to the Assembly on this issue?

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

Assistant Minister Noel will answer this question.

Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):

I can inform Members that a very productive dialogue is taking place with the Chairman of the Jersey Rates Assessors. Firstly, significant progress has been achieved to produce an assessment of the likely cost of rates to the States based on the 2013 position. This essential background work provides an independent assessment that will inform the next steps to developing the commitment made to this Assembly. I would like to thank the Chairman and his fellow rates assessors for the work that they have undertaken at no cost to the public. Once the final estimate of the likely cost of States paying rates has been established in the next few months the Minister intends to discuss his proposals with the Comité des Connétable s before reporting to the States. Second, we have asked for a broad-based review of the property taxes to be carried out to look at potential ways of meeting the cost of the States paying rates. An update will be provided as a Green Paper, alongside the Draft 2015 Budget, which will be lodged in July of this year. Third and finally, we are intending to publish a White Paper in 2015 on proposals for the States paying rates to cover that liability.

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

Is the Assistant Minister aware that more than 5 years ago on 11th December 2008, when the Minister stood for election as Minister for Treasury and Resources, Senator Ozouf , a former Parish of St. Helier Deputy , agreed that the States should pay rates, quote: "Because there is an unfairness"? Would he agree to ask the Minister to refresh his memory of last year's debate when Senator Ozouf spoke against my proposition that the States should pay rates from the documents currently on the Parish of St. Helier 's website?

Deputy E.J. Noel:

I do not have to refresh the Minister's memory, he has an excellent memory. We are taking this matter forward and, as indicated, have set out that we will be bringing a Green Paper forward, alongside the Budget in July this year. We will be publishing a White Paper next year for implementation within the next M.T.F.P. (Medium Term Financial Plan).

2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Would the Assistant Minister like to give the States some idea of where the funds will come from to pay the rates?

Deputy E.J. Noel:

That is the whole purpose of having a Green and a White Paper is to go out to consultation on this and other works that we are carrying out on property taxes. It will be the outcome of those works that will determine where the States, if they are to pay rates, will find the money.

3. Senator L.J. Farnham :

Can the Assistant Minister share with the Assembly the estimated costs of the States paying rates? Deputy E.J. Noel:

We have had some preliminary work. We have just, over last weekend, received an updated version. The Chairman is scheduled to meet with the Treasurer and Treasury officials this Friday but the indication is total costs of both occupiers and fonciers will be less than £2 million.

4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

The Deputy will be aware that this Assembly is not the only forum whereby the issue of Parish rates can be discussed but also a Parish Assembly, which can be called by parishioners of St. Helier. What would the Deputy 's response be if a Parish Assembly were to be called, asking for the Parish not to collect any more of the rubbish in St. Helier from States buildings until the States started paying rates in St. Helier ?

Deputy E.J. Noel:

That is a matter for the parishioners as an assembly of St. Helier, it is not a matter that I could pass comment on.

5. Deputy M. Tadier :

Would there be any contingency from the Property Holdings' properties, for example, if overnight rubbish were to not be collected, where would that money then come from for those services to be provided?

Deputy E.J. Noel:

We will have to deal with that situation as, when and if it arrives.

6. Deputy T.A. Vallois:

Could the Assistant Minister just make it clear that he stated that in order to pay rates to the Parishes that we would be looking at implementing a property tax?

Deputy E.J. Noel:

No, it was the answer to Senator Ferguson's question whereby how the States would cover this. We are saying that we would consider the different methods of covering the States paying rates after we have done the review, which we have given an undertaking to do, of property taxes.

7. Deputy J.A. Hilton:

Can the Assistant Minister confirm that if the States Assembly agrees, he is proposing that the money will be made available to the Parish in 2016 within the Medium Term Financial Plan?

Deputy E.J. Noel:

If the Assembly agrees that the States should pay rates then we will have to find that money. We are working towards this being implemented in the next M.T.F.P.

8. Deputy J.A. Hilton:

Can the Assistant Minister confirm that that is 2016? Deputy E.J. Noel:

It is from 2016 to 2019.

9. The Connétable of St. Helier :

Would the Assistant Minister agree with me that Deputy Tadier 's question, however well intentioned, shows a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of rates? They are not to defray the cost of municipal services for the Parishes but they are a form of local taxation.

Deputy E.J. Noel:

I could not agree with the Constable more.

10. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

Does the Assistant Minister think that if the States were to pay rates to the Parishes the Parishes could then be liable to rates themselves on the Parishes' own properties at all-Island rate and, therefore, most Parishes would be considerably worse off than they are now?

Deputy E.J. Noel:

That certainly is a distinct possibility of the outcome.

11. Senator L.J. Farnham :

I just wondered if the Treasury have identified any options of how these rates will be paid for. Deputy E.J. Noel:

As I have already indicated, we are keeping that side of things open because we need to carry out the work and make an informed decision. What we would not want to see is funds being taken away from departments from providing front line services to pay rates, that would be wrong.