States Meeting Transcript - 23rd June 2015

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 23rd JUNE 2015

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ......................................6

1. Mr. H. Sharp, Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General - retirement.................................6 The Deputy Bailiff :............................................................................6

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS..........................6

2. Nomination of members of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel.......................6

2.1 Deputy S.M. Brée:.......................................................................6

3. Nomination of Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement as a member of the Privileges and Procedures Committee (as a representative of the Chairmen's Committee)............7

3.1 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .............................................................................7

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

4. Written Questions........................................................................7

1. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING TAXI REGULATION:................7
2. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING VISIT JERSEY: ......................................8
3. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING JOB OPPORTUNITIES IN THE MINING AND EXTRACTION SECTOR:...............................................................9
4. DEPUTY T.A. MCDONALD OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH COMPLAINTS:.................................................................10
5. DEPUTY T.A. MCDONALD OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING ACTIONS TAKEN BY OFFICERS ACTING IN THE NAME OF THE MINISTER:..........................12
6. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING HIGH VALUE AND LOW VALUE BUSINESS:..15
7. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING ECONOMIC GROWTH:............................15
8. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY: ...................................................17
9. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING THE RECRUITMENT OF CENTENIERS:....17

5. Oral Questions...........................................................................18

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding economic growth: .18 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................18

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................18
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................19
3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:.......................................................19
4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................19
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................19

2. Deputy M. Tadier of the Chief Minister regarding the development of the Esplanade Quarter:................................................................................20 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................20

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................20
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................21
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................21
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................21

3. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding parking spaces assigned to Andium residents:..........................................22 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):.........................22

1. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................23
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................23
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................24
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................24
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................24
6. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin:...........................................24
7. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................25

4. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of the Chief Minister regarding redistribution through the tax and transfer system: ........................................................................25 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................25

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................25
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................26
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................26
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................27
5. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................28

5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding information requested from the States of Jersey Development Company by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel:.....................................................28 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):.........................28

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................29
2. Deputy S.M. Brée:......................................................................29
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................29
4. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................30
5. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : ....................................................30

6. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................31

6. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding the impact of the finance sector on economic growth:......................................................................31 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):................................32

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................32
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................32
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................33
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................34
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................34

7. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the development of the Esplanade Quarter:.................................................36 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):.........................36

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................36
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................36
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................37
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................37
5. Deputy S.M. Brée:......................................................................38

6. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Home Affairs ..............38

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................38 Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter (The Minister for Home Affairs):............................39
2. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen:........................................................39
3. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ...................................................39
4. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................40

6.4.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................40

5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................40

6.5.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................40

6. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................41
7. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................41
8. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour:.................................................41
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................41
10. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................41

6.10.1 Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................42

7. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister............................42

1. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................42 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................42

1. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................42
   2. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................43
   3. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................43
   4. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :................................................................43

7.4.1 Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :................................................................44

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44

7.5.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44

6. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................44
7. Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade:.....................................................45
8. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................45
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................46

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................46

8. The Minister for Treasury and Resources - statement regarding the States of Jersey Development Company..................................................................46

8.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):...................46

9. The Minister for Treasury and Resources - statement concerning Jersey Telecom...47

9.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):...................47

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................48
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................48
3. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................48

4. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................49
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................49
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................49
7. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................49
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................50
9. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................50

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................50

10. States of Jersey Development Company: re-appointment of Non-Executive Director (P.45/2015)...............................................................................50

10.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):...................51

1. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................51
2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................51

11. Draft Connétable s (Amendment - Declaration of Convictions) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.48/2015)...............................................................................52

1. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman of the Comité des Connétable s): ............53
2. The Connétable St. Clement:...........................................................53

12. Draft Income Support Amendment (Jersey) Law 201- (P.50/2015)....................54

1. Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement (The Minister for Social Security):....................54

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................57
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John : ....................................................58
3. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :.............................................................58
4. Senator Z.A. Cameron:..............................................................59
5. Deputy S.J. Pinel:....................................................................59

2. Deputy S.J. Pinel:......................................................................61

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................61
2. Deputy S.J. Pinel:....................................................................62

13. Draft Income Support (Amendment of Law No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.51/2015)...............................................................................65

1. Deputy S.J. Pinel (The Minister for Social Security):...................................65

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................66
2. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :.............................................................66
3. Senator Z.A. Cameron:..............................................................66
4. Deputy S.J. Pinel:....................................................................66

2. Deputy S.J. Pinel:......................................................................68
3. Deputy S.J. Pinel:......................................................................68

13.3.1 Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................69

14. Draft Income Support (Amendment No. 13) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.52/2015)..70

1. Deputy S.J. Pinel (The Minister for Social Security):...................................70

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................72
2. Deputy S.J. Pinel:....................................................................72

2. Deputy S.J. Pinel:......................................................................73

15. Draft Adoption (Amendment No. 7) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.53/2015)...................76

1. Senator A.K.F. Green (The Minister for Health and Social Services):..................76
2. Senator A.K.F. Green ..................................................................78

3. Senator A.K.F. Green: ..................................................................79

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................79
2. Senator A.K.F. Green:...............................................................79

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................79

16. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):....79

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................80

[9:31]

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

1. Mr. H. Sharp, Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General - retirement

The Deputy Bailiff :

There is one matter to refer to under item A. As Members may be aware, this is the last occasion on which the Solicitor General will advise the Assembly before his retirement from office and move into private practice. Mr. Sharp became Solicitor General in 2010 and has both from that time, and indeed from when he first joined the Law Officers' Department some years before, worked as a highly-able and diligent servant of the Island. In court he has appeared in some of the most high-profile criminal cases and has shown himself to be able to represent the public interest to the highest standard. He has represented the Island abroad in the best traditions of the Law Officers, addressing, on occasion, both conferences organised by the World Bank and by other notable organisations. His advice within the Assembly has always been robust and characterised by an enviable clarity that I am sure was appreciated by Members in setting out his view of the law. Delivering legal advice in politically-charged circumstances is not always easy but the key characteristics are that it must be given bravely, because it will be unpopular to some, and even- handedly so the recipients know there is no political slant in it and that is something that the Solicitor General routinely has been able to achieve. Both the Bailiff and I have had the opportunity of working with the Solicitor General and we are both very grateful to him for his service in the Law Officers' Department; in particular I am particularly grateful for the support he gave me while I held the office of Attorney General. I have enjoyed working with him. I would like on behalf of Members, and also on behalf of the Bailiff and myself personally, to thank him very much for his service and to wish him very well indeed for the future. [Approbation]

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS

2. Nomination of members of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel The Deputy Bailiff :

We now come to the appointment of Ministers, Committees and Panels under F and there is a nomination by the chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel for the appointment of members to join his panel. Connétable , in accordance with Standing Order 125(1), how many members do you wish to have?

Connétable J.E. Le Maistre of Grouville :

Deputy Brée.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I beg your pardon.

Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement (Chairman, Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel): It is myself who is now the chairman of the panel.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I am terribly sorry, my note is rather behind the time.

2.1 Deputy S.M. Brée:

I would like to nominate 3 Members for the panel. They are the previous panel. My reason for nominating them is that we work extremely well as a team together. This can be seen by the Scrutiny work that we undertook for the Ports of Jersey incorporation. So I would like to nominate the Connétable of Grouville , the Connétable of St. Ouen and the Deputy of St. Mary. Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are those nominations seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Well if there are no other nominations then I declare the Connétable s of Grouville and St. Ouen and the Deputy of St. Mary to be members of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel.

3. Nomination of Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement as a member of the Privileges and Procedures Committee (as a representative of the Chairmen's Committee)

The Deputy Bailiff :

There is a nomination now in accordance with Standing Order 122(9) for Deputy Brée of St. Clement to join the Privileges and Procedures Committee as a representative of the Chairmen's Committee. Chairman.

3.1 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

The Chairmen's Committee have recommended to me that I should nominate Deputy Brée of St. Clement as a member of the Privileges and Procedures Committee and I am delighted to do so. If elected, Deputy Brée would take the place of the Constable of Grouville who is no longer a member of the Chairmen's Committee and therefore not eligible. I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the Constable for the contribution he has made during his period of office on the Privileges and Procedures Committee and the support he has given myself and the committee. I have pleasure in proposing Deputy Brée as a member of the committee.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? No? Then I declare that Deputy Brée of St. Clement is appointed as a member of the Privileges and Procedures Committee as a representative of the Chairmen's Committee. [Approbation]

QUESTIONS

The Deputy Bailiff :

There are no matters under G, nor matters under H, and that brings us to questions; first written questions.

4. Written Questions

1. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING TAXI REGULATION:

Question

Could the Minister outline what progress, if any, has been made since the Taxi Regulation Review last year and detail what further work needs to be done?

Answer

Since the beginning of the year both the Assistant Minister and I have put a great deal of effort into researching into taxis, speaking with the main industry representatives and going out day and late- night to meet drivers and their customers.

I can confirm that my views on taxi regulatory policy and how it should be developed are now well formed. There has been a lot of uncertainty during the review for drivers and continued interest from the travelling public. So, I am looking forward to making public how I intend to improve and modernise the service.

However, I also recognise that many livelihoods rely on the taxi service, as well as the social, economic and leisure benefits that come from maintaining a stable cost effective and efficient service. Therefore, before I make any public announcement I have asked my officers to undertake some final research and technical development.

The areas being developed at a high-level are:

• Service Enhancements including matters such as: Driver Fitness, Driver Training, Industry Branding, Access for People with Disability, Driver Discipline and Complaint Procedures.
• Tariff Transparency including matters such as: Tariff Structures, Tariff Setting, Customer Information, Meter Requirements and Company Regulatory Requirements.
• Regulatory Reform including issues such as: Classes of Taxi-cab, Operating Restrictions and Quantitive Regulation.

As part of their due diligence work I have also asked officers to ensure that the necessary legislative articles are in place to allow my intended changes to be implemented and identify if and where new regulatory powers may be required, this work has started and is ongoing.

Furthermore, a significant amount of work will be required at a detailed technical level to actually implement the changes. This work has started and is being progressed within the necessarily and increasingly limited resources available.

I anticipate that the high-level work will be completed late July and I will be ready to announce my intentions at that point.

2. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING VISIT JERSEY:

Question

Now that the process of transforming the Tourism Department into Visit Jersey has been completed, will the Minister inform members how many public sector staff have:

1. transferred to Visit Jersey from the Tourism Department;
2. been redeployed elsewhere in the public sector; and
3. been made redundant, either voluntary or compulsory.

For the first 2 groups above, will the Minister state what changes, if any, there have been to the salaries and terms and conditions of employment of those involved?

Will the Minister further detail how the terms and conditions (sickness, holidays, pension, hours, and so on) for employees of Visit Jersey differ from those applicable to public sector employees?

Will the Minister also give the total savings that are expected to be achieved from this reorganisation, including a breakdown of staffing and other costs, and outline what changes to the range and levels of service are planned?

Answer

1. No one transferred from Jersey Tourism to Visit Jersey. All Jersey Tourism staff were given an exclusive period to apply for jobs at Visit Jersey.Intotal 7 employees of Jersey Tourism accepted roles at Visit Jersey and resigned from the Statesof Jersey.
2. 2 employees have been permanently redeployed across the States of Jersey, 1 employee is on maternity leave priorto commencing a trial period elsewhere in the States of Jersey, and 3 employees have accepted fixed term contracts in the States of Jersey (they remain on active redeployment for the duration of their contracts).
3. 6 employees were made redundant at the end of May 2015.

Visit Jersey is an independent limited company, funded by the States of Jersey. The relationship between the Minister for Economic Development and Visit Jersey is governed by a Partnership Agreement under which the department provides an annual grant subject to the agreement of an annual business plan. The terms and conditions of its staff is a matter for Visit Jersey.

As Visit Jersey took over the promotion of tourism to and within Jersey under policy set by the Minister for Economic Development mid-year the business plan is being finalised once the budget has been finally established. The business plan, which will be published, will contain full details of staffing and any changes to the range and levels of service.

3. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING JOB OPPORTUNITIES IN THE MINING AND EXTRACTION SECTOR:

Question

Further to the Minister's answers in response to oral question 6910 on 29th March 2012, will he inform members how many job opportunities have been converted into real jobs by the 87 businesses which have been established in sectors including mining and extraction, and provide details of the income tax paid by the employees of those companies, and also the company tax paid during the period 2008 to 2013?

Answer

The Deputy is referring to the 87 inward investment businesses that were granted licences between 2008 and 2010. By way of an update I am delighted to inform the Assembly that to date 264 licences have been granted to inward investment businesses since 2008. These 264 licenses granted to businesses had the potential to create over 2000 jobs at the point of approval.

The assessment of actual jobs created by these businesses can only be done on a 6 monthly basis, in line with Manpower returns, so the most recent information we can access is for those businesses that were trading as at December 2014. For those businesses that were established during that year, this is likely to be too early to evaluate the number of jobs created, additionally, these businesses are working to a 3-year staffing consent and will therefore recruit as business demand dictates within that period. A fuller picture of jobs created by businesses established in 2014 will be available from the June 2015 manpower figures.

As at the end of 2014, 150 inward investment businesses were trading and employing staff. The total number of jobs filled within these businesses is 1319, of which 82% were filled by locally qualified people.

As stated in numerous previous answers to the Deputy , my department is not privy to tax paid by individual businesses or persons. This is confidential information between the business and / or their employees and the Income Tax Office. Inward investment activity, and the associated job creation, generates new tax revenue for Jersey. We will continue to support inward investment and will continue our relentless focus on the creation of jobs and employment.

I reiterate that there is an open invitation for the Deputy to visit the Department so we can explain and discuss with him the nature of our work and the benefits of inward investment to Jersey. Given his clear interest in this area I am disappointed he is yet to take up this offer.

4. DEPUTY T.A. MCDONALD OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH COMPLAINTS:

Question

Further to the Minister's response to question 8772, tabled on 28th April 2015, could the Minister, being the corporate sole, advise whether he considers that the Department's current procedures for dealing with complaints, as outlined within his response, could give rise to any concerns regarding a conflict of interest, given that the complaints could be made against themselves or against officers acting under their direction and delegated responsibility while representing the corporate sole?

Answer

In my answer to question 8772 given in April 2015 I set out my department's procedure for dealing with informal and formal comments and complaints. It confirmed that if a complainant is not satisfied with the response they receive from the Department in relation to a complaint they could progress this with the States of Jersey Complaints Board. Any person may apply to the Greffier to have a matter reviewed by the Complaint Board if they are aggrieved by an act or decision made relating to any matter of administration by any Minister or Department of the States. Those who sit on the Complaints Board are appointed by the States but are not States members and they are all completely independent and give their services on a voluntary basis. In some instances the complainant may have the option to refer the complaint to another independent body (e.g.: Information Commissioner).

I believe this is the process followed across the States of Jersey and full details of the States of Jersey complaints procedure are available on the States of Jersey website.

Given the independence of the States of Jersey Complaints Board and the other bodies that may be involved in a complaint I believe the process followed is fair and correct and should not lead to any conflict of interest.

I am happy to meet with the Deputy to discuss any concerns he may have regarding this process.

Alternatively, he may prefer to discuss this matter with the Greffier of the States who administers the States of Jersey Complaints Board process, which has been established under the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982.

Below is the answer given to question 8772.

1240/5(8772) WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

BY DEPUTY T.A. MCDONALD OF ST. SAVIOUR

ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 28th APRIL 2015

Question

The Royal Court Judgement in the case of Manning v Minister for Planning and Environment', ([2015]JRC013 dated 15th January 2015) states: "It is absolutely critical that those charged with the administration of this legislation act in a transparently fair and even handed way. Very regrettably this has not been the case here.".

Is it the department's procedure, in the first instance, for the Chief Executive Officer and possibly other departmental directors, to examine and respond to complaints regarding the department or staff acting under the officer's responsibility, and, if so, would the Minister advise whether officers or directors will continue to investigate allegations of misconduct, alleged intentional underhandedness, or alleged negligence, which could be made against themselves or officers acting under their direction and responsibility, whilst representing the Minister?

Answer

My department receives informal and formal comments and complaints in relation to its operations and these are carefully considered and assist in service improvements. In relation to Court judgements, these are reviewed by the department and can also help towards changes to policies, processes and procedures.

Complaints, comments or compliments can be made to the department by phone, submitted via the gov.je website or submitted in writing. We try and resolve matters, including informal complaints with the customer straight away. If the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome of their complaint, they are advised to make a formal complaint to the department.

Formal complaints made in writing are fully investigated by a relevant Manager or Director and a response is provided. If the complainant is not satisfied with the result of any investigation they can request that their complaint is reviewed by the Chief Executive Officer of the department. The Chief Executive Officer will investigate the complaint and provide a response. If the complainant is not satisfied with the response they receive from the Chief Executive Officer they will be informed of the procedure they can follow to progress their complaint with the States of Jersey Complaints Board. In some instances the complainant may be able to refer the complaint to another independent body (e.g.: Information Commissioner). Full details of the Department Customer Feedback Policy and complaints procedures are available on the States of Jersey website.

Any matter relating to the conduct of an employee of the States Employment Board, following a formal complaint and investigation, would be dealt with by the department Chief Officer or his nominee in accordance with States of Jersey disciplinary procedure.

5. DEPUTY T.A. MCDONALD OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING ACTIONS TAKEN BY OFFICERS ACTING IN THE NAME OF THE MINISTER:

Question

With reference to the Minister's answer to written question 8774, tabled on Tuesday 28th April 2015, can he advise whether he has been made aware of any concerns by officers within the Department regarding –

1. the possibility that officers in the Department may have acted outside of the powers contained within the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law 2005 and the Police and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003; and,
2. actions taken by officers acting in the Minister's name being been contrary to several procedures detailed in the "Supplementary Planning Guidance" Practice Note 4 of 3rd December 2010, published by the Minister following the publication of recommendations and findings by the Reg's Skips Committee of Inquiry?

Answer

Question 8774 asked by the Deputy and tabled on Tuesday 28th April was divided into six parts and most of the question related to Magistrate and Royal Court prosecutions initiated by my department. For the benefit of States members I include below the full answer I gave to question 8774 in April.

Part 1 of this new question appears to be very similar to part 6 of question 8774 and part 2 relates to the guidance issued in 2010 in relation to enforcement procedures under the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002. I believe both questions from the Deputy imply wrongdoings in the compliance or enforcement function of my department and I am surprised and disappointed that despite my request in April the Deputy has failed to provide me with any evidence of irregularities within my department or met with me to discuss any concerns he has.

While I am aware of allegations of abnormalities against my department by some members of the public and I have been in contact with some of these people, neither my Chief Officer nor I have seen any evidence to support the serious claims being made.

In answering question 8870 asked by Deputy Mc Donald at this States sitting I have clarified the States of Jersey complaints procedure which includes the escalation of complaints to the independent States of Jersey Complaints Board, who can review any matter relating to the administration by any Minister or Department of the States. I would urge the Deputy and those he is trying to support to provide any evidence they have of any irregularities to me, my department Chief Officer or to the Greffier of the States in order that this can be investigated and appropriate action taken.

I extend my invitation again to the Deputy to meet and discuss any concerns he has.

Copy below of Question 8774 referred to in Question 8871 above:

1240/5(8774) WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

BY DEPUTY T.A. MCDONALD OF ST. SAVIOUR

ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 28th APRIL 2015

Question

Will the Minister –

1. Provide a list of all cases the department has recommended for prosecution from January 2008 to April 2015, and in which court (Magistrate's Court or Royal Court), they were presented;
2. Detail the alleged breach of which statuary provision/enactment in each case;
3. Provide the result of each case (withdrawn, dismissed, or resulting in conviction);
4. State whether, given the resources and cost of pursuing and resolving each case, the department believes that each case was sufficiently justified and in the public interest;
5. State whether the department has any reason to believe that there are cases that it has been recommended to pursue by investigation, which are questionable with regards to the lawful procedures and probity in connection with why and how they were pursued and actions taken;
6. Notify the Assembly if the department has any reason to believe that there are cases where investigative officers may have exceeded their duties and taken a non-departmental approach with regards to exercising non-existent rights under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law 2005, the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005, Criminal Justice (Evidence and Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1998 and the Police and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003?

Answer

The answer has been supplied in parts as set out in the question, as follows:

1. Provide a list of all cases the department has recommended for prosecution from January 2008 to April 2015, and in which court (Magistrate's Court or Royal Court), they were presented;
2. Detail the alleged breach of which statuary provision/enactment in each case;
3. Provide the result of each case (withdrawn, dismissed, or resulting in conviction);

My department is responsible for progressing enforcement actions in relation to several different laws. To provide the detailed information requested by the Deputy in parts 1, 2 and 3 of his question requires several hours of detailed work and I will provide this information to Members as soon as possible.

4. State  whether,  given the resources  and cost  of pursuing and resolving each case, the department believes that each case was sufficiently justified and in the public interest;

Depending on the law which has allegedly been breached and the particular circumstances of the case my department will consider what action (if any) to take in relation to an alleged breach of the law and will endeavour to avoid taking formal action unless necessary. My department will refer some cases to the States of Jersey Law Officers' Department or to the appropriate Parish Centenier before a case is brought to the Magistrate's or Royal Courts. The public interest test in deciding whether to bring a prosecution to the Courts is made by the Attorney General's Office or appropriate Parish Centenier. Officers from my department may submit a report to the Attorney General's Officer or Parish Centenier outlining an alleged breach of the Law, but it rests with the Attorney General's Office or Centenier to decide if to proceed with a prosecution.

5. State whether the department has any reason to believe that there are cases that it has been recommended to pursue by investigation, which are questionable with regards to the lawful procedures and probity in connection with why and how they were pursued and actions taken;

My department only progresses enforcement matters it believes merit action and cases are only brought to the Courts following States of Jersey Law Officers' Department or Parish Centenier review and support.

6. Notify the Assembly if the department has any reason to believe that there are cases where investigative officers may have exceeded their duties and taken a non-departmental approach with regards to exercising non-existent rights under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law 2005, the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005, Criminal Justice (Evidence and Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1998 and the Police and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003?

Any matter relating to the conduct of a States Employment Board (SEB) employee is dealt with by the department Chief Officer or his nominee in accordance with agreed SEB policies and procedures.

If the Deputy is aware of any irregularities within my department I would ask that these are brought to my attention, or the attention of the Department Chief Officer, in order that these are investigated. I would welcome the opportunity to meet with the Deputy to discuss any concerns he has.

6. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING HIGH VALUE AND LOW VALUE BUSINESS: Question

Further to the Minister's speech to the Jersey Chamber of Commerce on 11th June 2015, can he explain what he meant when he said that Economic Development had "swept away the old mantra of high value and low value business"? Can the Minister advise whether this a new policy decision and, if so, when will it be brought to the States for endorsement?

Answer

One of the four objectives in the Economic Growth and Diversification Strategy (EGDS), approved by the States, is to increase productivity across the whole economy.

Whilst it is clear from published statistics that the GVA per capita varies from sector to sector the strategy and policy of the Council of Ministers, the Economic Development Minister and EDD is founded on the belief that all sectors have a significant contribution to make to increased productivity-led growth. As a consequence, consistent with the EGDS, the policy is to work with all sectors to increase productivity.

EDD's work, in partnership with other departments, in sectors such as tourism and agriculture that have a relatively low per capita GVA is aimed at increasing productivity. For instance:

Productivity in the tourism sector can be increased, in part, by increasing visitor numbers. In 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 it is encouraging to see that visitor number have indeed increased. Sustaining this trend is, in no small part, why Visit Jersey has been created with an aggressive target to increase visitor numbers and further increase productivity.

In addition to continued work on farm productivity, increasing exports from Jersey's rural sector has the potential to significantly increase profitability and productivity in the dairy sector.

The statement made in the speech to the Chamber of Commerce on 11th June 2015 is wholly consistent with the broad based approach to productivity-led growth which is an established and well developed policy position.

7. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING ECONOMIC GROWTH:

Question

What statistical evidence does the Minister have to justify the statement made during his speech to the Jersey Chamber of Commerce on 11th June 2015 that Jersey's economy is returning to growth?

In this regard, could the Minister provide a yearly breakdown of growth in Jersey's Gross Value Added over the past decade?

Answer

Statistics that define economic growth in Jersey are published by the independent Statistics Unit in the third quarter of every year for the preceding calendar year. The latest available GVA figures for 2013 (published in September 2014) and previous years can be accessed here:

http://www.gov.je/government/jerseyworld/statisticsunit/businesseconomy/pages/gvaandgni.aspx

This information and more comprehensive economic data is also published in the "Jersey in Figures" booklet published by the Statistics Unit on an annual basis. The latest Jersey in Figures booklet can be found here:

http://www.gov.je/government/jerseyworld/statisticsunit/factsfigures/pages/jerseyfiguresbooklet.as px

The statement made in the speech to the Jersey Chamber of Commerce on 11th June was based, in no small part, on the opinion of the independent Fiscal Policy Panel (FPP). In their pre-MTFP Report published the FPP concluded that:

"The Jersey economy has shown some signs of a moderate improvement in 2014, with a likely return to growth for the first time in six years. Survey data suggest more positive sentiment in both the finance and non-finance sectors"

This is consistent with the latest Business Tendency Survey produced by the Statistics Unit that showed

http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Busines s%20Tendency%20Survey%20March%202015%2020150410%20SU.pdf

The highlights of the survey are:

The headline all-sector Business Activity Indicator was 26 percentage points (pp), implying that the proportion of businesses in Jersey reporting an increase in business activity compared with three months previously was 26 pp greater than the proportion reporting a decrease;

The all-sector Business Activity Indicator increased significantly in the latest quarter, recording its highest level since this survey was introduced in September 2009;

Over all sectors: five of the ten indicators increased significantly, three recording their highest levels to date, whilst one declined in the latest quarter and four were relatively unchanged;

For the Finance sector:

Four indicators improved compared with the previous quarter, five were essentially unchanged and one declined;

The Business Activity, Profitability, Employment and Future Business Activity indicators improved in the latest quarter, whilst the Input Costs indicator declined;

For the non-finance sectors overall:

Seven indicators were improved compared with the previous quarter, two were essentially unchanged whilst the Input Costs indicator declined

Combined with the latest Actively Seeking Work statistics published by the Statistics Unit it seems clear that the likelihood is that, as stated by the FPP, Jersey's economy has returned to growth.

8. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY:

Question

Further to the comments of the Minister for Economic Development in support of performance related pay during his address to the Chamber of Commerce on 11th June 2015, could the Chief Minister outline how he would see the principle of performance related pay' applying to public sector workers such as fire fighters, nurses and teachers?

Answer

As made clear in his speech to the Chamber of Commerce on June 11th 2015, the comment made by the Minister for Economic Development in support of performance related pay was made in a personal capacity.

As part of the Public Sector Reform programme the Workforce Modernisation project is being developed in partnership with the Trade Unions. It is aiming to deliver a more productive and sustainable public service, with well-designed roles managed through an improved performance culture that provides organisational flexibility and supports continual service redesign.

Modern public sector organisations no longer rely on time served' as a prompt for pay progression. It is likely that pay progression within the States of Jersey will be linked to a combination of experience, knowledge or qualifications.

Similar frameworks are already in place for areas of the public sector that have been modernised. For example pay progression in the Fire Service and the Law Officers Department depends on staff meeting competencies from job descriptions, professional body requirements or National occupational standards.

Should the States Employment Board develop proposals for performance related pay, we will consult with staff and unions, as we have done throughout the workforce modernisation programme.

9. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING THE RECRUITMENT OF CENTENIERS: Question

Following the decision of the Royal Court to fine the Parish of St. Saviour for being unable to recruit the required number of Centeniers, does the Comité intend to bring forward proposals to change the law to alter the requirement for a particular number to be appointed?

Could the Chairman also advise what actions, if any, the Comité has taken to address recruitment difficulties within those Parishes which have struggled to fulfil the requirements, as has been the case in recent years?

Answer

The Comité, in conjunction with each Connétable , keeps under review the authorised strength of the Honorary Police in each Parish which is set out in law. It is ultimately a decision for each Connétable as to the number of Honorary Police officers required to fulfil the community policing role in his parish.

Whilst there has, on this occasion, been a difficulty in finding a Centenier for the Parish of St Saviour this is a relatively isolated situation and the last occasion that a fine was imposed on a parish for failing to fill the office of Centenier was in 2005.

5. Oral Questions

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding economic growth:

When promoting economic growth, what attention, if any, has the Chief Minister given in proposals for the Medium-Term Financial Plan and Budget 2016 to the evidence from International Monetary Fund discussion note SDN/15/13 and elsewhere that increasing the income share of the top 20 per cent decreases G.D.P. (gross domestic product) growth while increasing the income share of the bottom 20 per cent promotes higher G.D.P. growth?

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

I will just apologise in advance that my opening answer is slightly longer than normal. It is important to recognise that such discussion notes represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent I.M.F. (International Monetary Fund) views or I.M.F. policy and we should understand what the authors say about why widening income disparities would matter for growth. They say higher inequality lowers growth by depriving the ability of lower-income households to stay healthy and accumulate physical and human capital and that it can lead to under-investment in education as poor children end up in lower-quality schools and are less able to go on to college. This would appear to validate the focus in the Strategic Plan and the next M.T.F.P. (Medium-Term Financial Plan) on investing in health and education. The paper also explains that growth policies can be more inclusive if they focus on encouraging innovation, removing barriers that stifle competition and technology diffusion and move goods produced upwards in the value chain.

[9:45]

These are areas we have already identified as priorities in our Strategic Plan.

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

While it is the case that this is only a discussion paper and represents the views of the contributors, nonetheless the Chief Executive Officer of the I.M.F. has joined in with this sentiment and has stated over the weekend that poor and middle-class households have come to realise that hard work and determination may not be enough to keep them afloat, contradicting the adage that a rising tide floats all boats. What measures specifically in the M.T.F.P. and Budget plans for 2016 does the Chief Minister have to promote growth?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

I do not think it is going to be useful if we have a debate across this Assembly about particular sentences in a particular document or a sentence given by a senior official. If we take the approach in the round, it is why I gave a slightly longer answer because there are underlying issues that policy-makers and we, as a government, are cognisant of and that is because people stop being able to afford and access appropriate health care and sufficient investment is not put into education. They are things that this Government is determined to address, unlike other governments around the world.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Would the Chief Minister mind awfully answering the question? What measures do you have in the M.T.F.P. to promote growth?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

We continue to promote growth; we continue to support financial services. The Members opposite do not seem to agree with that approach but when we see the average earnings of people in that industry, they are dealing with exactly the issues that the questioner is asking about and, yet, on the other hand, he does not seem to support it. We have had a new Financial Services Strategy, we are maintaining the investment in the financial services section of the Chief Minister's Department. We are delivering on the policy suggestions of the jurisdictional review; we are supporting technology and Digital Jersey and Jersey Finance. We are continuing to support the work of the External Relations Department. Many, many policies we are continuing to support and are being successful because in the labour force, rather than jobs falling in that sector, we have seen growth of 400 over the period of the last year.

3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier :

In reference to the Chief Minister's first answer, while it is the case that the I.M.F. paper will validate his Government's position on increasing funding and investment in health and education, would he agree that it invalidates his Government's position on introducing a waste disposal charge and a health charge?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Not at all, no.

4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Of course we have already realised that the way to invest in education and health goes through regressive charges rather than progressive taxation which is only to be expected from this type of Council of Ministers. But does the Chief Minister also accept the conclusions of the discussion paper which state that the redistributive role of fiscal policy could be reinforced by greater reliance on wealth and property taxes and more progressive income taxation and, if so, will he incorporate such measures in the 2016 Budget?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

The questioner sometimes makes a statement in his question which then is perceived as fact. He knows very well that decisions have not yet been made on how we are going to have the conversation with the public and how we are going to all decide to pay more for our appropriate health care into the future. So he is asking a question which is not based on fact yet because this Assembly will ultimately decide. When it comes to property taxes, I seem to remember that the Members opposite, when the previous Minister produced an excellent discussion document on the possibility of property tax changes and re-evaluations and extracting appropriate sums from that arena, I am not sure that the Members opposite supported that. It was an excellent document and I know that the current Minister is going to continue to work on it and bring some proposals forward in that regard. We continue to have some of the highest thresholds before people start to pay income tax so I do not accept the comments of the questioner in that regard either.

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Returning to the core of the question and the paper which states that increasing the income share of the bottom 20 per cent promotes higher G.D.P. growth, why then, if that is the case, does the Chief Minister propose to cut support to the poorest in our society by cutting benefits as proposed by his Social Security Department?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

If we look at some of the work that came out of the work that was undertaken to look at the possibility of the introduction of a living wage, we will perhaps draw some conclusions from the benefit levels coupled with work that needs to review and support the work that the Minister will be doing in that regard. The Deputy keeps wanting to talk about growth and inequality in the abstract. That is not how we should deal with it. We should look at why is inequality concerning this discussion document and it is exactly the reasons that I said in my opening answer: because it will lead to under-investment in education and under-investment in healthcare, neither of which are what we are proposing as this Government. In actual fact, the reverse.

2. Deputy M. Tadier of the Chief Minister regarding the development of the Esplanade Quarter:

Is the Chief Minister satisfied that the statement made by the Minister for Treasury and Resources on 4th February 2014, when he told the Assembly that he was "absolutely clear with S.o.J.D.C. (States of Jersey Development Company) that their buildings are to be progressed on a fully-let basis in order to reduce the risk" was accurate?

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

In 2010 when this Assembly approved a proposition to establish S.o.J.D.C. there was a clear requirement for a sufficient level of legally-binding pre-lets to fund the cost of construction. In 2014 the former Minister's answer to a supplementary question was given at a time when negotiations were underway for a tenant to take 100 per cent of a specific building. It appears that the answer was alluding to those negotiations. However, to focus on one answer is to ignore the many other debates where it was made clear that the requirement was for sufficient pre-lets. For instance, on 10th September 2013: "The office developments will be demand-led with construction only proceeding with pre-lets in place. This is in accordance with P.73/2010 and the memorandum of understanding." On 13th May 2014: "There is a level of pre-lets that are required before any of the buildings can go ahead." Sufficient but not necessarily 100 per cent. Again, on 9th December 2014, we heard: "A sufficient level of legally-binding pre-lets to fund the cost of construction in the first phase of this scheme."

1. Deputy M. Tadier :

It will appear that the Chief Minister adopts a policy of mushroom growing when dealing with the Assembly. So from his answer, can the Chief Minister just reconfirm that it was the case that Senator Ozouf at the time was absolutely clear that the building should be progressed on a fully-let basis? But not only that but S.o.J.D.C. had fully understood that and, thirdly, that this States Assembly has, from that point until a couple of weeks ago, also been working on the assumption that that development would be progressed on a fully-let basis, because nothing came back to the Assembly at any point from the shareholder representative, either the previous or the current one, to tell the Assembly otherwise?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

No, I do not. It is quite clear from even those 3 extracts that I read in my opening statement that that was not the case. We can continue to take a sentence out of many, many supplementary answers in a situation that we are continuing to change. As I said, at that point it was expected that a particular building would have been pre-let to 100 per cent but it has always been my understanding, and it is clear in the memorandum of understanding, that there would be sufficient pre-lets to fund the cost of construction.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Would the Minister expect that such an important and significant understanding would appear in any minutes or notes taken from the meeting referred to on 4th February 2014 or not? Is he surprised that they are not in existence?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

I have not seen the minutes but if we take into fact the context that S.o.J.D.C. were, as I understand it, at that point in, extending negotiations with a tenant to take on 100 per cent of a particular building. I am not necessarily surprised that there would not be a line as the Deputy might be intending but that does not mean that that conversation was not around that particular issue because I have no doubt that it was.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Is the Minister confident that the understanding, which was significant, was made between the relevant Minister and the board of S.o.J.D.C?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

We have to take the answer that the Minister gave in the context of everything that he said in that supplementary answer and not just take one line out of context, which I fear that we are in danger of doing. Because if we look at the many supplementary answers and the many answers that the Minister had to give on this issue, it becomes clear, I think, that the 100 per cent pre-let was in relation to the particular tenant for a particular building and therefore we need to look at the M.O.U. (memorandum of understanding) and other comments that were said both before and after that particular date.

4. Deputy M. Tadier :

Well I am glad that it has taken even a few weeks for the Council of Ministers to get their story straight on this one because the Minister for Treasury and Resources, only last week and the week before, was telling us that he assumed that the former Minister for Treasury and Resources was mistaken. But we have the Chief Minister today telling us after a few weeks that the former Minister for Treasury and Resources was not mistaken, he was absolutely correct, and that things have changed since that. Does the Chief Minister genuinely expect us to believe his answer when the former Minister for Treasury and Resources stated that the buildings are to be progressed on a fully-let basis with no mention of this particular contract with this particular tenant? There was no context provided in that answer given on 4th February. Is it not the case that the Minister for Treasury and Resources was correct and that S.o.J.D.C. just chose to move the goal posts and for the current Minister for Treasury and Resources not to come back to the Assembly and do his job to tell us, and that this Council of Ministers is not to be trusted and that the S.o.J.D.C. is completely out of control?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, there are a number of questions there, Deputy . Which ones would you like the Chief Minister to answer?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I think a "yes" would be sufficient for all of those answers.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well which question would you like the Chief Minister to answer, Deputy ? Very succinctly, please.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I would like to ask the Chief Minister whether he agrees in the round that the political oversight for S.o.J.D.C. has been negligent on their behalf.

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Absolutely not. The memorandum of understanding makes it absolutely clear. Sometimes when Ministers are put on the spot about something that somebody else has said, they do not have the details in front of them, they do not have the entire transcript in front of them, they might not be able to give the full answer that they are able to give upon appropriate research in considering all of the answers and all of the facts before them. I think it is about time that this Assembly acknowledged that for at least 5 times it has voted and asked S.o.J.D.C. to develop the waterfront site. We know that some Members do not accept that and that is their absolute democratic right to do so. But to try and suggest that the Assembly has decided anything other than development on the waterfront site I think is disingenuous and I do not think that we should do it. A pre-let is in place, it is sufficient to fund the cost of construction. We should allow that building to be developed and then we will wait for the Scrutiny report. Thank you.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Not relevant and that means that we can mislead the Assembly if we choose to. The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , if you please. This is question time and you have had your final supplementary question. Could I remind, Members, please, that questions are supposed to be succinct? That is provided for in Standing Orders and they should be one question at a time. They should not be multiple questions.

3. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding parking spaces assigned to Andium residents:

What efforts, if any, are being made by Andium Homes to ensure that parking spaces assigned to Andium residents are not being occupied by unauthorised vehicles; does Andium have the same legal authority to tow such vehicles away as was the case, I believe, with the former Housing Department, and, if not, what action, if any, will the Minister take?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

Andium Homes advised me that they continue to closely monitor their car parks, the majority of which require a permit. In many cases either a key or electronic swipe card is necessary in order to access parking.

[10:00]

They monitor parking actively in close collaboration with tenants and their representative groups and have a contract for patrolling car parks, particularly those in town. Vehicles parked without authority are issued with warning notices and owners pursued to remove their vehicles. On 1st July 2014 when ownership of the State social housing stock transferred to Andium Homes, their powers under the Road Traffic (Removal of Vehicles) (Jersey) Order 1963 as amended ceased in respect of all land specified in the transfer regulations. That put Andium Homes in the same position as any other private land owner, including all other affordable housing providers.

1. Deputy R. Labey :

It seems odd to be having this conversation with the Minister for Treasury and Resources when we have a perfectly good Minister for Housing sitting over there but there we are. I do not get the system. [Interruption] I do not think it is being closely monitored enough because we are talking about places in town and I have had people complain to me that working shifts, they come back at all hours of the night after working and regularly their spaces are taken up. Obviously this is not places with a barrier because the cars are parking there.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Could we have a question, please, Deputy ? This is question time. Deputy R. Labey :

Yes. Let me think of one immediately on my feet. [Laughter] Would the Minister ask Andium to monitor this even closer?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I thoroughly agree with the Deputy about the very fine Minister for Housing and I do, in many respects, wish she were answering this question. Perhaps I can help in one area. An example in St. Helier or in town, La Collette, there are in fact 77 spaces but there are not any for visitors. That is 0.67 spaces per unit. But as the site is developed, which is the intention, that is going to create 193 spaces and importantly 29 for visitors, which moves it up to 1.1 space per unit. That clearly, as a result of development, is going to improve the position. But to answer specifically the question of the Deputy , of course we will continue to ask Andium to closely monitor, even more closely monitor, the parking situation with regard to housing.

Deputy R. Labey :

Just for clarity, I was not referring to La Collette. The Deputy Bailiff :

You have a final supplementary as usual, Deputy . Deputy R. Labey :

I am so sorry.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Is it still the practice of Andium Homes, as the Housing Department previously, to let spaces out to members of the public rather than residents, in certain cases reducing the supply of parking spaces for those residents?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Indeed. A small number of paid parking permits are indeed let to individuals and that is the case. But as far as parking and the availability of adequate parking for residents, that is a matter that is being monitored very closely by Andium Homes. What I should point out perhaps, the issue about the statutory powers of Andium Homes to be able to deal with parking infringements is, in my opinion, the crux of this matter. I can tell Members that the Home Affairs Department is looking at this issue because of course it does not just apply now to Andium Homes but all those private landlords and housing associations that have similar problems. Home Affairs Department are looking at ways in which powers can be put in place to ensure that infringements of parking can be

properly monitored. I think that is an appropriate step forward. I can also add that the State Strategic Housing Unit is also raising these matters with the other social housing associations to assess exactly the scope and level of the problem that exists and that will be fed into the work that the Home Affairs Department is doing to find a solution.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :

A supplementary? Would the Minister collate and circulate figures for those private lets, including staff members of Andium who may have parking spaces as well?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, I am very happy to do that and I am happy to circulate that detail for Members as well. I should point out there are something in the region of 4,600 homes and a significant number of different sites that are monitored but nevertheless I am sure the data can be collated relatively quickly and circulated to Members.

4. Deputy M. Tadier :

I am presuming that the Minister and Andium are using Car Parking and More or CPARK, a patrol company which has a contract for monitoring private car parks. But even if it is not that particular company, can the Minister for Treasury and Resources explain that there is no legal basis for such companies to pursue any notices that they put on an individual's car? On that basis, given the fact that there will never be any possibility until the law is changed of a successful claim in the Petty Debts Court, why are Andium wasting money on a contractor who is little more, under the current setup, than bogus?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I do not agree with the final point the Deputy made although he is correct that there are no statutory powers, as I pointed out, for Andium. They do in fact have a company that monitors the car parks. It is important that there is a presence seen around the various sites and indeed that acts as a deterrent. I have no doubt the fact that there is a company in place monitoring what is going on and, I might add, issuing notices, helps from a deterrent perspective. It is not ideal and I know, as I have already pointed out to Members, that the Home Affairs Department is looking at this matter and indeed that would, in my view, require a change to legislation and I would hope that can be progressed quickly.

5. Deputy M. Tadier :

A supplementary? Is it really good practice for a quasi-government body to be employing a company which has no legal basis for the tickets which they issue? It does not seem to make sense to me. Certainly, when anyone comes and asks me, hopefully the Minister for Treasury and Resources, in his constituent capacity, would advise constituents definitely not to pay these fines because they cannot be pursued in the Petty Debts Court. That is the point at which we are at; why is Andium Homes engaged in a process that is costly to themselves and to their tenants which cannot be enforced by law?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Well it may not be enforceable by law but, as I have pointed out, it is a matter of deterrence. Where you have monitoring of the various sites by this particular firm it does deter individuals from abusing the parking arrangements that are in place specifically for tenants. I think that is the only sensible position that Andium can take at this moment and I think it is absolutely right that they so do.

6. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin :

Listening to the first answer from the Minister, does the Minister foresee problems with parking on land owned by the Ports of Jersey following the incorporation?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

No, that matter is being addressed as a separate issue and that will be dealt with as part of the Regulations when they come before the States in due course.

7. Deputy R. Labey :

My apologies for jumping the gun earlier. Just to clarify that I am not talking about La Collette here where parking is the least of the residents' problems at the moment. Clearly the deterrent is not working and I have heard nothing from the Minister today, unless he can correct this now, that the situation I am talking about with residents not being able to park their cars in the middle of the night because other people are there, is going to get no better, is it?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is there a question, Deputy ? Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I think the Deputy was asking whether it is going to get any better. I would first of all perhaps put into context the level of the problem. The level of the problem is approximately 17 notices per week being issued. That is across a total of 200 sites and, as I have said, this involves 4,600 homes so there is a significant number and 10,000 spaces in total. So this is a very low level issue that we have to address but nevertheless it does need to be addressed. Finally, on the point of La Collette, I used that as an example whereby redevelopment is going to improve the parking situation and Andium are continuously looking at ways in which they can improve it, not just through changing the legislation to be able to enforce a situation where certain people are infringing the rights of tenants and that does need to be stopped.

4. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of the Chief Minister regarding redistribution through the tax and transfer system:

Does the Chief Minister accept the statement on page 30 of the International Monetary Fund discussion paper SDN/15/13 that "redistribution through the tax and transfer system is found to be positively related to growth for most countries" and, if so, what, if any, redistributive measures does he have under consideration for the 2016 Budget, and if he does not accept the statement, would he outline why?

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

As I said in my previous answer, such discussion notes represent the views of the authors. I would not disagree with such a statement in general terms but we should not, I think, leap to conclusions as to what it may mean for Jersey. The authors of the report also point out that there is no "one size fits all" approach and that the drivers of inequality and their impact differ across countries for different income groups. As such, the nature of appropriate policies would necessarily vary across countries and would also need to take into account country-specific policy and institutional settings and capacity implementation constraints. The Deputy uses one quote from this paper to imply we need to do something in Budget 2016, however, the paper also explains, as I said in my previous answer, that better access to education and healthcare can help to address the inequalities. These are 2 issues that we are focusing on in the next M.T.F.P.

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

Would the Chief Minister care to explain just exactly how he thinks taking money out of lower and middle-income earners' pockets through a health charge and through a waste disposal tax is going to be conducive to growth and would he instead consider looking at income tax as the most progressive way to raise the funds which the Government needs to put forward its investment in health and education?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Once again, the questioner has assumed that there is any proposal to take money out of lower- income households and that is a .. the Deputy seems to find that amusing. Well one of them, anyway.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes. Perhaps the Chief Minister could be allowed to give his answer. Senator I.J. Gorst :

As the Deputy knows from the answer I gave to a question some moments ago, we have not yet decided on that but it would appear to me that in any new charge or discussion of a charge there should be appropriate provision for lower-income households to mitigate the effects of such a charge.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I will return to the question, particularly which comes in this policy discussion under the final section "Final Remarks", which states that: "The redistributive role of fiscal policy could be reinforced by greater reliance on wealth and property taxes and more progressive income taxation." If he does accept that the removal of inequality increases economic growth, as referred to earlier, what measures to redistribute will he put in the 2016 Budget?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Once again, the questioner is taking one sentence out of 3 pages worth of Final Remarks. The first point that they make is "no one size fits all" despite what the questioner seems to wish to indicate. The second is squaring equality and efficiency concerns. The third is fiscal policy can be an important tool for reducing inequality. We have got - educational policies are key - we have got fostering financial inclusion safely, well-designed labour market policies and it goes on for another

2. So we have totakethese issues in the round and I believe that in the Strategic Plan and in the M.T.F.P. that is exactly what we are doing and not simply taking one policy because it might suit our political persuasion.
   3. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Is it not the case that the Chief Minister and his Ministers are ignoring all the options there, removing and reducing employment protection, for example, and removing and reducing benefits to those in the bottom 20 per cent, thereby increasing inequality in our society, all of which works against economic growth, which is his prime aim? Is it not the case that he is refusing to acknowledge the entire finding produced by the I.M.F.?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Absolutely not. Yet again we have a partial use of information in the question put before us. I believe fundamentally that it is better for people to be in work than out of work for not only financial reasons but for emotional, for psychological reasons, for being part of the community, and the change that this Council of Ministers made, ably led by the Minister for Social Security, about unfair dismissal criteria, the sole aim of that policy change was to get people into work and to remove the barriers from employers who were in a position where they were not employing people because they felt that the requirements of that particular part of the law were too onerous. It is a balance. We absolutely accept that. But we believe that in that instance that was the right balance and it was the right policy because it is going to encourage employers to work and get more people into work, which is a fundamental requirement to deal with inequality that the Deputy seems to forget.

4. Deputy M. Tadier :

I am glad we found some common ground because we have a common policy of believing that people should be in work and people are better off in work.

[10:15]

But we have an additional caveat which says that people should have dignity in work and that they should not be paid poverty wages, but they should be able to survive on the money they get from a full week's work without having to resort to government handouts. That is our position. But I am talking about this document. It is not the case that one quotes selectively because right throughout the document the whole ethos is that inequality affects growth drivers, inequality dampens investment and hence growth by fuelling economic financial and political instability. Inequality can lead to policies that hurt growth. Inequality hampers poverty reduction. So this is very much where we are coming from ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , could I have a question please.

Deputy M. Tadier :

.. as a party. Does the Minister not agree ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , this is not a party statement. This requires a question. This is question time. Deputy M. Tadier :

Thank you, Sir, but we have had counter-statements from the Chief Minister trying to impute what our policies are. At the end of the day this is a political forum, but I am coming to my question. I take that direction humbly, is that: does the Minister not agree that the nub of the issue is to do with inequality and does he also share our vision that we want a society which has less inequality and therefore if we can do that, that is much better for society as a whole?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

I am pleased to say we are going to be able to finish .. well, no, because we have got a follow-up question from Deputy Mézec . But with regard to that last question, I think there were 2 areas where we agree. First is that it is best and the fundamental issue is getting people into work and the right to a job and, secondly, that we do acknowledge that inequality is a corrosive thing in a community and we need to consider and balance policies to try and deal with that as much as we possibly can. But of course the challenge is that while Members of the Government say that they want to support sectors of our economy that pay larger wages, and want to work with those sectors of our economy where they struggle to pay such wages, because of the margins involved, it sometimes seems that the members of the party that the questioners represent do not accept that fact and think that we can just simply impose upon those employers, therefore removing jobs from our economy by forcing them to pay larger salaries and therefore putting people out of work. Surely better to work with those sectors of our economy, support them with  in-work benefits while working with them to increase their margins, increase their productivity, so that over time they are going to be able to increase their wages.

5. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

You can tell how much confidence the Chief Minister has in what he says when he simply has to attribute statements and policies to a party that do not believe those things. Does the Chief Minister agree with what the I.M.F. C.E.O. (Chief Executive Officer) Christine Largarde says, which is that poor and middle class households have come to realise that hard work and determination may not be enough to keep them afloat? If he does agree that always being in work is better than not being in work, which is what my party also believes, would he accept that the Government position should be that it needs to do more to help those people who are in work but are being paid poverty wages and are having their income support cut, giving them a worse standard of living, which is ultimately bad for economic growth, which is the entire ethos of this entire document, not just a few sections at the end, like he suggested before?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

I am a little confused about what the party policy is. Some moments ago members of their party seem to be suggesting that in-work benefits were not appropriate. Now they seem to be suggesting that refining those benefits to encourage work and make sure there are not incentives to keep people out of work is not appropriate either. The policy of this government is to support those individuals appropriately so that being in work always pays rather than being out of work and work with those sectors of our economy that struggle with difficult margins to improve their productivity so that ultimately over time we can see the minimum wage increase, which is also part of the policy of this Government, working with the Employment Forum to address some of those issues. Not imposing above believing that we know better, which ultimately would lead to fewer people in work in those sectors, which cannot be good either for those sectors, cannot be good for those individuals, and ultimately is not good for Jersey into the future.

5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding information requested from the States of JerseyDevelopment Company by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel:

Would the Minister, as shareholder representative, advise whether he considers it to be acceptable that the States of Jersey Development Company has still not supplied all requested information to the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel in order for it to complete its review and, if so, what action does he propose to take to resolve the situation?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

The States of Jersey Development Company has been established by the States of Jersey to operate as an arm's length commercial entity. The States set out operating protocols within the proposition on the establishment of S.o.J.D.C., P.73/2010, that provided oversight and approval by the Minister for Treasury and Resources with political direction being given by the Regeneration Steering Group. Some of the information that has been requested by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel is commercially sensitive and is subject to confidentiality clauses in the signed legal contracts which involve third parties. By disclosing the requested information to Corporate Services the directors of S.o.J.D.C. would personally be in breach of their contractual commitments. The States of Jersey Development Company has endeavoured to provide Corporate Services and its advisers with sufficient information to enable the panel to carry out its review without putting the directors of the company in breach of their legal duties, which is a difficult balance. In similar cases in the past, advisers to Scrutiny Panels have been prepared to sign non-disclosure agreements. In this case EY, the adviser appointed by the panel, were also prepared to sign such an agreement and would therefore have received all the requested commercially sensitive information. However, the panel did not feel it appropriate that the adviser sign such an N.D.A. (non-disclosure agreement) and instructed them not to do so. Notwithstanding that, all parties have worked hard to find a solution, progress is now being made and I am aware that discussions have taken place over the last week alone between S.o.J.D.C. and EY as an information flow  has followed, which is being assessed by EY and will hopefully provide them with all the information that they require.

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Can the Minister confirm that Treasury have themselves not had sight of the pre-let agreement with the tenant, the final lending agreement, or the contract with the contractor, which are the key documents being referred to and which are the ones that we are requesting.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I can. Although there was an original agreement, I believe, in outline form received back in October before the last elections with regard to a previous agreement but apart from that the Deputy is correct.

2. Deputy S.M. Brée:

Can the Minister confirm that as neither he nor his department had sight of the legally binding contracts with the tenant, the lender or the contractor prior to signature by S.o.J.D.C., no form of due diligence or independent verification was undertaken by the Minister as shareholder representative to ensure that the pre-let conditions, as imposed upon S.o.J.D.C., contained within P.73/2010 and the memorandum of understanding, had been met, and that he merely relied upon an interpretation from S.o.J.D.C. that this was in fact the case?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

That is correct and it is as Members would, I suspect, expect. It is certainly a position that I find acceptable, after all we set up organisations and companies to be at arm's length, we resource them appropriately, we ensure that they have an effective board, the board has oversight and is therefore accountable. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, that provides a suitable arrangement to ensure that the obligations of the company are undertaken and carried out.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Does the Minister accept that the fact that we are still going on about this particular topic is because when it was learnt that the Scrutiny Panel concerned wished to hold an inquiry into this topic the Minister or his predecessor decided to plough ahead with the whole project anyway and hence we have got these timing and information problems at this stage now. Should he have not been talking to the Scrutiny Panel way back in December to work out a proper way forward, with proper timescales to avoid what we have got now?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

In fact the Deputy raises a very good point, and indeed when it was brought to my attention by the newly appointed panel, and indeed the chairman, that there was an intention to carry out a review, despite the previous Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel deciding over a year ago not to do so, and I spoke to the panel chairman and said that what was of critical importance was that the review was undertaken in a timely fashion. I made that point specifically because commitment had been given by S.o.J.D.C., tenants had signed heads of terms, and indeed were progressing towards legally binding agreements. I was given an assurance that the matter would progress quickly. What I can say is that the panel, as I understand it, appointed an expert in late November, early December, and I believe that particular expert reported in January. We have not seen that particular review and it was only since then that a further expert has been appointed by the panel and in part has resulted, I suspect, in the delays. Not the only reason. The other reasons are flow of information, which we have already discussed in this question earlier this morning.

4. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour :

Does the Minister not understand that because of both the stated importance of the project and the concerns identified during our review thus far we are asking for the data to do the due diligence that Treasury should have done and which they have confirmed in hearings to us that they have not?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

No, the matters are unlinked. Treasury have undertaken their role and responsibility in an appropriate way in my view. The panel are undertaking their own review. They are looking at the