States Minutes 22nd November 1994

STATES MINUTES 2 2 n d N ovember 1994   P ri c e : £ 2 . 2 5

T HE STATES assembled on Tuesday,  22nd November 1994 at 9.30 a.m. under t h e Presidency of the Bailiff ,

S i r P eter Crill, C.B.E.

_ _ _ _ _ _ ______

All Members were present with the exception of -

S enator Nigel Lewis Quérée - absent

I ris Medora Le Feuvre, Connétable of St. L awrence - ill

J ack Roche, Connétable of St. Saviour - ill M ichael Adam Wavell, Deputy of St.

S aviour - out of the Island

S hirley Margaret Baudains, Deputy of St. H elier - out of the Island

J ohn Nicolle Le Fondré - out of the Island.

_ _ _ _ _ _ ______

P r a y e rs

_ _ _ _ ________

Connétable s of St. Lawrence and St. Saviour

The Bailiff , on behalf of the States, conveyed to the Connétable of St. Lawrence and the Connétable of St. Saviour the best wishes of the Assembly for a speedy recovery.

Subordinate legislation tabled

The following enactments were laid before the States, namely -

 1 .  Motor Vehicles (Driving

L i c ences) (Amendment) (Jersey) Order 1 9 9 4. R & O 8748.

 2 .  Road Vehicles Lighting

( A m endment No. 17) (Jersey) Order 1994. R & O 8749.

 3 .  Motor Vehicles (Construction and

U  se ) (Amendment No. 33) (Jersey) Order 1 9 9 4. R & O 8750.

 4 .  Motor Cars (Driving Instruction)

( A m endment No. 5) (Jersey) Order 1994. R & O 8751.

 5 .  Motor Vehicle Registration

( G e neral Provisions) (Amendment) ( J er sey) Order 1994. R & O 8752.

 6 .  Health Insurance (Pharmaceutical

B e n efit) (General Provisions)

( A m endment No. 4) (Jersey) Order 1994. R & O 8753.

Matter presented

The following matter was presented to the States -

M anpower report for the period J anuary to June 1994. R.C.26/94. P resented by the Establishment C ommittee.

Matters noted - land transactions

THE STATES noted an Act of the Finance and Economics Committee dated 14th November 1994 showing that, in pursuance of Standing Orders relating to certain transactions in land, the Committee had approved -

 ( a) as recommended by the Housing

C o mmittee, the purchase from Advocate S t e ven Alexander Meiklejohn, acting on b e h alf of the unknown owners, of the

r o a dway adjoining Jane Sandeman Court, S t . Helier (the former Le Brun's Bakery

s it e in Brighton Road), shown hatched

i n r ed on plan No. 86-281-18, required

i n o rder to complete the construction

o f J ane Sandeman Court, for the sum of

£3 , 260, with the Committee being

r e sp onsible for the payment of legal

f e es ;

 ( b) as recommended by the Housing

C o m mittee, the purchase from Mr. Eric L e Saint of 865 square feet of land,

b e in g a footpath through Vicq Farm, La R u e de Maraval, Grouville , for the sum

o f £ 865, representing a rate of £1 a

s q u are foot, with the Committee being r e sp onsible for all reasonable legal

c o s ts;

 ( c) as recommended by the Public

S e r vices Committee, the purchase from M  r s. Elizabeth Anne Barrow, née

G  il beret, of approximately 298 square f e et of land at Petit Desert, St.

S a v iour's Hill, St. Saviour, required

t o c onstruct a footpath, for a

c o n sideration of £596, representing a

r a te of £2 a square foot, with the

C o m mittee being responsible for all

r e as onable legal fees and the cost of

a n y necessary accommodation works;

 ( d) as recommended by the Island

D  ev elopment Committee, the lease to Mr.    P hilip John Rondel of Field No. 471B,

C o r bière, St. Brelade (measuring

a p p roximately three vergées), for a

p e r iod of five years at an annual rent

o f £ 180 (representing a rate of £60 a

v e r gée), to include the right to

i rr ig ate the field from the nearby

p o n d. The Committee rescinded its Act

N  o . 2(l) of 27th May 1994;

 ( e) as recommended by the Island

D  ev elopment Committee, the lease to Mr. P h i lip John Rondel of Fields Nos. 93

a n d 94, Les Quennevais, St. Brelade

( L e squende' land) (measuring

a p p roximately seven vergées), for a

p e r iod of five years from 1st December

1 9 9 4, at an annual rent of £420

( re p resenting a rate of £60 a vergée),

s u b ject to review at the end of the

t h ir d year. (The Committee rescinded

i ts A ct No. 2(l) of 27th May 1994.

Matters lodged

The following subjects were lodged au Greffe'' -

1 . Hue Court, Dumaresq Street, St. H el ier: approval of drawings and a c c eptance of tender - P.148/94. P r e sented by the Housing

C o m mittee.

 2 .  Draft Post Office (Amendment)

( J er sey) Law 1993 (Appointed Day) Act

1 9 9  - P.149/94.

P r e sented by the Committee for P o s tal Administration.

 3 .  Draft Adoption (Amendment No. 3) ( J er sey) Law 199  - P.150/94.

P r e sented by the Education

C o m mittee.

4 . Marine zone - P.151/94. P r e sented by the Island

D  ev elopment Committee.

 5 .  Draft Public Service Vehicles

( F e es) (Amendment No. 5) (Jersey) R e g ulations 199  - P.152/94.

P r e sented by the Defence

C o m mittee.

 6 .  Les Landes heathland area, St.

O u en (P.51/94): amendment - P.153/94. P r e sented by Senator V.A.

T o m es.

 7 .  Draft Family Allowances (Jersey) R e g ulations 199  - P.154/94.

P r e sented by the Social Security

C o mmittee.

 8 .  Population: Special

C o m mittee - P.155/94.

P r e sented by Senator S. Syvret.

L odged on 15th November 1994

T he Budget 1995.

P resented by the Finance and E conomics Committee.

Arrangement of public business for the present meeting

Senator Vernon Amy Tomes withdrew his amendment to the Public Services Committee's proposition regarding Les Landes heathland area, St. Ouen (P.72/94 - lodged au Greffe'' on 24th May

1994) having lodged a revised amendment

(P.153/94) at the present meeting.

Arrangement of public business for the next meeting on 6th and 7th December 1994

THE STATES confirmed that the following subjects lodged au Greffe'' should be considered at the next meeting on 6th and 7th December 1994 -

T he Budget 1995.

L odged: 15th November 1994. F inance and Economics

C ommittee.

H ue Court, Dumaresq Street, St.

H elier: approval of drawings and acceptance

o f tender - P.148/94.

L odged: 22nd November 1994.

H ousing Committee.

D raft Post Office (Amendment)

( Jersey) Law 1993 (Appointed Day) Act 1 99  - P.149/94.

L odged: 22nd November 1994.

C ommittee for Postal

A dministration.

Projet withdrawn

THE STATES noted that in pursuance of Standing Order 17(6) the following subject, which was lodged au Greffe'' had been withdrawn -

P opulation: Special Committee - P .180/93.

L odged: 9th November 1993.

D eputy S. Syvret of St. Helier .

Longbeach development, Grouville - questions and answers (Tape No. 258)

Senator Richard Joseph Shenton asked the Connétable of St. John, President of the Island Development Committee, the following questions -

1.  W ill the President confirm that -

( a ) the two penthouse flats at

th e L o ngbeach development,

G r o u v ille, have not been occupied b y t h e site developer and his

fa m  il y ?

( b ) that this is contrary to

in f o rm  ation previously given to th e S ta tes?

 2 .  Will the President inform the

S t a tes whether the firm of estate

a g e nts advising the developers in their c l ai m for compensation from the States

h a s a beneficial interest in the

d e v elopment company or its holding c o m pany?

 3 .  Will the President confirm that there

w  as no reduction in the number of flats p r o vided in the development as the

r e su lt of the planning changes?

 4 .  Finally, will the President inform

t h e States who was responsible for

c o n ducting the compensation

n e g otiations on behalf of the States;

w  h ich Committees were consulted about t h e amount of compensation to be

a w a rded; and which Committee or

C o m mittees finally approved the

s e tt lement reached?''

The President of the Island Development Committee replied as follows -

  1.(a)  The occupation of the two

p en t h o use flats at Longbeach,

G r o u v ille, is not a matter which

is u n d e r the control of my

C o m m ittee. To be helpful, I have, h o w e v er, sought information from th e H o using Department and I am ad v i s e d as follows -

A t t h e time of the development, it w a s c l early the intention of the

d ev e l o per to sell all the flats to

p er s o n s qualifying within

R e g u la tions 1(1)(a)-(h). However, fo l lo w  ing an application from the

d ev e l o per, and in view of the fact th a t t h e site had a prior

co m  m  ercial use, the Housing

C o m m  ittee in accordance with its

n o rm  a l policy, accepted that the

to p tw  o penthouse flats, which

w e r e t he largest and most

ex p e n s ive of the development,

co u l d be occupied by persons who q u al i fy under Regulation 1(1)(a)- (k ) , th e remainder remaining (a)- (h ) . T h is decision was made in May 1 9 9 3 . In April 1994, the Housing

C o m m  ittee relinquished one of the (a ) -( k ) flats in return for one of

th e (a ) -(h) flats being granted an

(a ) -( j ) status. I am also advised

b y t h e Chief Executive Officer of th e H o using Committee that the d ev e l o per himself currently

o cc u p i es one of the penthouse

fl ats and that he understands that

a m  em  ber of the developer's family h as o c cupied the other penthouse fl a t, b u t that consent has been

g iv e n for the flat to be occupied

b y a 1 ( 1)(a) Jersey born resident.

( b ) I have no recollection of

p er s o n ally giving any information

to th e States on this matter. If

th e S e nator is referring to

st a te m  ents made by my predecessor,  t h e former Connétable of St. John,

th e in f ormation which has been

p ro v i d ed by the Housing Committee se e m  s to be in line with my

re c o l le ction of what he said.

 2 .  The claim for compensation was

s u b mitted by Fontenelles Holdings

L i m ited, who were represented at the

v a r ious meetings by Advocate G. Fiott

o f F iott and Huelin, Mr. R. Amy and Mr.

B . Y oud of Alex Picot and Company, Mr. A . Hill of Hill Associates, Mr. J.

W  r ight of Gaudin and Company, estate

a g e nts, Mr. A. Wilson of Telemark (now i n l iquidation) and Mr. G. Pallot and

M  r . J. Machin. I am unable to advise

t h e Senator of their particular

f in a ncial interests, if any, in the

d e v elopment. I am informed that this

i n fo rmation may be included in the

c o m pany file at the Financial Services

D  ep artment which gives particulars of

t h e registered shareholders on the

v a r ious dates.

 3 .  I confirm that there was no reduction

i n t he number of flats in the

d e v elopment, the modification meant

t h at two penthouse flats were

c o n structed in the roofspace, whereas

u n d er the original design they were

n o t . The developer argued that the

f la t s were reduced in value because of

i n tr uding dormers. The developer argued t h at the flats were smaller in size and

m  u ch less desirable. The developer also a r g ued that they were delayed in their

a v a ilability to the market and as a

r e su lt of the fall in the value of

p r o perty were devalued. None of these

a r g uments have been accepted by my

C o m mittee.

 4 .  The total amount claimed totalled just

o v e r £906,000. The Island Development

C o m mittee initially employed its

a d v isors, Drivers Jonas, who are

e x p erienced in construction industry

c laims, together with the Controller of

A  u dit, States' Treasury, and my Chief

O  ff icer, who sought the advice from a

C r o wn Advocate on particular matters. A

s u m of £364,000 was approved by the

S t a tes and was paid on the basis of

t h ei r recommendations, but without

p r e judice to the claim. This left a sum

o f o ver #= million in dispute. In

N  o vember 1993 the detailed

r e co mmendations of Drivers Jonas were

r e v iewed by a Queen's Counsel

i n st ructed by the Law Officers of the

C r o wn. The QC recommended to the

F i n ance and Economics and Island

D  ev elopment Committees in early 1994

t h at an additional £100,000 be paid in

f u ll and final settlement. This was

a p p roved by the Finance and Economics

C o m mittee on 17th December 1993 and the I s la nd Development Committee on 13th

J a n uary 1994. This amount was rejected

b y the developer. A further

r e co mmendation was made by the Law

O  ff icers to the Finance and

E c o nomics and Island Development

C o m mittees to settle the claim in order

t o a void a costly arbitration, which

w  as approved. My Committee agreed to

t h is recommendation on 30th June 1994.

T h e Solicitor General then advised the

S t a tes Treasurer in a letter on 22nd

J u ly 1994 that the developer would

s e tt le for £200,000. I am advised that

t h e States Treasury Controller of Audit

r e p orted receipt of this letter to the

F i n ance and Economics Committee on 28th J u ly 1994 who authorised the offer of

£2 0 0,000 in full and final settlement

o f a ll claims regarding Longbeach, and

r e q uested the Controller of Audit to

t a ke the necessary action. I have since

b e e n advised that this was on the basis

t h at this sum be paid immediately. I

h a v e now established that the

C o ntroller of Audit, States Treasury,

d r e w a cheque for £200,000 on 29th July

1 9 9 4 and this was paid over to the

s o li citor acting for the developer by

t h e Solicitor General the same day in

e x c hange for a signed discharge. The

a g r eement was ratified by the Island

D  ev elopment Committee at its meeting on 1 2 t h August 1994. My Committee was

a d v ised at this time that the Treasury

h a d already paid it. My Committee was su b sequently asked by the Treasury to

s u b mit to the Finance and Economics

C o m mittee a Supply Day request which is n o w lodged. I can advise the House that

a l th ough my Committee had agreed to a

s e tt lement to avoid the expense of

a r b itration proceedings, neither my

C o m mittee nor my Chief Officer was

i n fo rmed of or asked to authorise the

p a y ment prior to it being made.''

States loan housing - questions and answers (Tape No. 258)

Senator Richard Joseph Shenton asked the Connétable of St. John, President of the Island Development Committee, the following questions -

1.  W ill the President inform the

S ta t e s of the number of

ap p l i ca tions which his Committee h as re c eived during the past

1 2 m  o nths from private builders

w h o ar e willing to provide houses u n d er the States loan scheme for le s s t h an £100,000?

 2 .  Will the President inform the States

w  h y his Committee considers that public m  o ney should be spent on the

a c q uisition of expensive sites for

h o u sing development when there is a

w  il lingness on the part of responsible

b u i lders to build houses within the

p r ic e range desired by the Jersey

p u b lic?

 3 .  Will the President inform the States of t h e amount spent to-date on all the

p r o ceedings that have taken place for

a c q uiring the Lesquende land?

 4 .  Will the President advise the States

w  h at benefit has accrued to the general p u b lic, and in particular to local

p e r sons seeking to acquire a home of

t h ei r own, as a result of this

d i sc harge of taxpayer's money to p r iv ate individuals, without a single h o m e being built?''

The President of the Island Development Committee replied as follows -

1.  I t is not necessary for an

ap p l i ca nt submitting an

ap p l i ca tion under the Island

P la n n i ng Law for development co n s e n t to submit details of the p ri c e a t which the developer is p re p a r ed to sell housing units.

M  y Committee's rôle is to ensure that s u f ficient land is available to meet

t h e requirements of the population for h o u sing. The Senator will be aware of t h e six monthly review of current and f u tu re developments which have so far i n d icated that sufficient land for

h o u sing is available up to the year

2 0 0 0. I direct the Senator's attention

t o m y Committee's report R.C.22

p r e sented to the States on 6th

S e p tember 1994.

T h e Property Management Office of the I s la nd Development Committee has

a s s isted the Housing Committee in

n e g otiating with builders prepared to

p r o vide flats as part of development

a g r eements on States' owned land below t h e figure the Senator quotes. We have h a d no contact with builders and

d e v elopers over the past 12 months who h a v e been prepared to propose formally t h at they would construct and offer

h o u ses for sale for less than £100,000.

I a m advised by the Chief Executive

O  ff icer of the Housing Committee that h e h as also not received any such

f o rm al proposals. However, on an

i n fo rmal basis, my officers have

r e ce ived approaches from a number of b u i lders in the Island who have offered t o p urchase States owned sites for

d e v elopment of low cost housing.

 2 .  There is no guarantee that builders who

o f fe r informally to construct houses at

l o w cost on Category A zoned sites

e v e ntually offer them to the market on

t h at basis. There is no provision under

t h e Planning Law which would allow my C o m mittee to require developers to sell

p r o perty which is constructed at

p r iv ate expense at a price which is

b e lo w the market level. The Committee's p r e sent general policy is that housing

l a nd should be purchased for housing

d e v elopment where there is no

r e as onable prospect of a satisfactory

d e v elopment being undertaken in the

a b s ence of intervention by the States.

T h e re are also occasions when the

C o m mittee seeks to acquire property

w  h ich is used for a purpose which is

i n ap propriate in order to extinguish

t h at use. In these circumstances, re-

u s e for housing development may be

a p p ropriate. In the case of commercial

s it e s this will inevitably lead to

h i g her acquisition costs. My Committee i s a lso not prepared to countenance

p i ec emeal development and if it is the

i n te ntion of the Senator to encourage

t h e development of sites which are

c o n sidered either not suitable for

h o u sing or not zoned for housing simply

o n the grounds that they are available

t h en this is outside my Committee's

p o l icies.

3 . A payment of £2.51 million was made to t h e owners of the Lesquende site in

D  ec ember 1992 when the land passed into p u b lic ownership following the vesting

o r d er in the Royal Court. This sum

r e p resented 75 per cent of the amount

o f fe red to the land owner under the

c o m pulsory purchase procedure Law and i s a requirement of the Law. Since that

t im  e, the costs of the arbitration,

w  h ich is an inevitable part of the

c o m pulsory purchase procedure, has to

d a te been £399,000.

 4 .  These fees have been expended for the p u r pose of fighting a fiercely

c o n tested arbitration in order to

r e d uce as substantially as possible the

c l ai m which has been mounted by the

c l ai mant company. The claim is in

e x c ess of £14 million which exceeds the a m o unt offered by the States, by over

£1 1 million. The benefit to the

t a xp ayer will not be known until the

r e su lt of the arbitration is known. The

B o a rd of Arbitrators is at this very

m  o ment finalising its award. In the

c i rc umstances, I do not think that it

w  o uld be proper for me to enter into a

d i sc ussion of the probable result or

i n d eed to say anything which might be c o n strued as an attempt to influence

t h e Board. All that I can properly say

i s th at once compulsory purchase

p r o ceedings have been set in motion the C o m mittee has no option but to follow t h e procedure which has been laid down b y law. If in any compulsory purchase c a s e the acquiring Committee, having

t a ke n into account the amount claimed b y the claimants and the resources

w  h ich they are devoting to the

a r b itration, is of the opinion that it

s h o uld not cut corners in contesting

t h e claim, then it has no real option

b u t to incur expense in doing so.''

Mobility allowance for the disabled and the attendance allowance - questions and answers (Tape No. 258)

Senator Stuart Syvret asked Deputy Terence Augustine Le Sueur, President of the Social Security Committee, the following questions -

1.  W ill the President inform the

S ta t e s if it is his Committee's

in t e n ti on to give effect to the

S ta t e s' decisions of 11th November 1 9 9 2 a pproving the introduction of a m  o b ility allowance for the

d is a b le d?

 2 .  If the answer to Question 1 is, in any w  ay , negative, will the President

e x p lain why, after two years have

e l ap sed, his Committee has still not

s o u ght the approval of the States for t h e principle of revising the agreed

p rovisions of the scheme?

 3 .  If the answer to Question 1 is

a f fi rmative, will the President advise w  h en the mobility allowance will be a v a ilable?

 4 .  It has been suggested that the

i n tr oduction of the mobility allowance

a s a pproved by the States would cost £4 m il lion. Does the President agree with

t h at estimate and would he explain how t h e estimated figure was arrived at?

 5 .  Will the President explain the criteria u s e d in assessing eligibility for

a t te ndance allowance?''

The President of the Social Security Committee replied as follows -

1.  A detailed brief was referred to th e L a w Draftsman in December

1 9 9 2 , following the States

d ec i s io n on 11th November 1992, w h i ch supported amendments

p ro p o s ed by the then Deputy Stuart S y v re t . In the 1993 Strategic

P o li c y Review and Action Plan,

D  isabled Transport Allowance was in 3 9 th position in the Law

D r a ft in g Programme. In the 1994

P la n , i t had risen to 13th, but we

ar e n o w advised that, due to staff

sh o r t ag es in the Law Draftman's

O f fi c e , it is unlikely that

d ra f ti n g of this piece of

le g i sl a tion will begin this year.

In e ss e nce, therefore, the

C o m m  ittee is pursuing the wishes

o f th e States expressed on 11th

N o v e m ber 1992, but is frustrated

b y d e l ays in the Law Drafting

P ro g r a mme.

 2 .  As I intimated in my reply to a

q u e stion from Senator Syvret on 18th

J a n uary this year, there are concerns

a b o ut the funding of this allowance.

W  h en the States approved amendments to t h e scheme, members were not aware of

t h e financial implications nor had the

F i n ance and Economics Committee been a b le to consider the funding of such

c h a nges. During 1993, my Committee

s o u ght funds from States General

R e v enues through the Finance and

E c o nomics Committee. In view of the

p r o jected revenue figures, and the cash

l im  its policies, it became clear that

f u n ds may not be available for these

c h a nges. With the appointment of my new C o m mittee, a sub-committee set up to

l o o k at all aspects of the Disabled

T r a nsport Allowance has proposed a

s m a ller scheme which is currently being

c o n sidered by the Finance and Economics C o m mittee. The intention of my

C o m mittee, as it was in 1992, is to set

u p a scheme that the Island can afford a n d then to extend it as soon as funds p e r mit. I am advised that the Finance a n d Economics Committee will be

c o m menting on the report and

p r o position at their next meeting and i t sh ould be lodged shortly thereafter.

 3 .  Disabled Transport Allowance will be a v a ilable when the Law is passed by the S t a tes and when the necessary finance

i s a vailable. From the Budget paper

r e ce ntly published, Members will be

a w a re that some money has been

a l lo cated for this benefit in 1995, on

t h e basis that legislation will have

b e e n approved perhaps in the second

h a lf of next year. At this point, I

w  o uld also mention that my Committee h a s sought the advice of the Attorney

G  en eral as to whether it would be

q u i cker to introduce triennial

r e g ulations rather than a Law. His view i s th at no time will be saved as the

L a w drafting work is identical. A

l it tl e time might be saved through

a v o iding consent by the Privy Council, b u t this time would be necessary to

e n s ure that the administration and

c o m puter support is in place before the al l owance becomes payable. In short,

b o t h processes are likely to take about

t h e same time overall.

4 . The cost of the proposed scheme agreed b y the States has been estimated at £4

m  il lion. There is no method of

a c c urately assessing the take up of

b e n efits by those people over age 65

b e c ause there is simply no indication,

a n y where, of the incidence of

d i sa bility in Jersey. We have

p r e viously asked the Etat Civil

C o m mittee to consider questions in the

C e n sus on this subject, but have been

u n a ble to get their agreement to do so.

T h e estimate of £4 million was based on s u r veys of existing beneficiaries of

S o c ial Security under age 65, and the

f a ct that with 11,910 people over the

a g e of 60, including 3,122 over the age

o f 8 0 (1991 Census), it was possible

t h at 2,000 people over the age of 65,

m  ay have difficulties in getting out

a n d about. Without further information, I b e lieve this estimate to be

r e as onable. I doubt that it will be any l e ss and it could increase over the

y e a rs with the growth of numbers of e l de rly people in the population.

 5 .  The criteria used in determining the

e l ig ibility for Attendance Allowance

a r e of two distinct classes, namely lay c o n ditions and medical conditions. The l a y conditions principally relate to

r e si dence and income. To qualify a

p e r son must -

( a ) be ordinarily resident in the Is l an d ; and

( b ) be present in the Island; and

( c ) have been present in the Island fo r a p eriod of at least 26 weeks in th e past 12 months; and also m u s t -

(i ) h a v e been ordinarily resident in th e Is l and during the five

y ea r s i m m ediately preceding t h a t day; or

(i i) b e born in the Island or be t

h e s o n or daughter of parents at

le a s t o ne of whom was born in the Is l an d ;

( d ) have an income of less than

£3 1 ,5 3 9 a year.

S o m e of these residence and presence c o n ditions may be varied by temporary a b s ences and reciprocal agreements.

T h e medical conditions are considered b y the Attendance Allowance Board, c h a ired by Dr. Jennifer Newell,

f o ll owing reports submitted by

d e s ignated medical practitioners, and a n y representations made by the

c l ai mant's own doctors.

T h e main condition is that an

A  tt endance Allowance is payable to any p e r son who is severely disabled,

p h y sically or mentally, that he

r e q uires from another person -

( a ) frequent attention throughout the d ay i n connexion with his bodily

fu n c t io ns; or

( b ) supervision throughout the day in

o rd e r t o avoid substantial danger

to h im  self or others; or

( c ) prolonged or repeated attention

d u ri n g the night in connexion with h is b o d ily functions; or

( d ) supervision throughout the night in o rd e r to avoid substantial

d an g e r to himself or others.''

Jersey Telecoms and Jersey Postal - statement

Senator Pierre François Horsfall, President of the Finance and Economics Committee, made a statement in the following terms -

  Jersey Telecoms and Jersey Postal are

 b oth valuable assets of the States of

 J ersey and make a significant contribution

 t o its revenues. The Finance and Economics  C ommittee believes that, while the present  a rrangements have worked well, there is a

 n eed for these departments to be able to

 a ct more independently in what is a rapidly  c hanging international scene. It is thought

 t hat greater liberty and flexibility will

 b ring many benefits to the departments,

 t heir staff, their customers and the people

o f Jersey.

A s the arrangements are essentially

f inancial in nature, it is the Finance and

E conomics Committee's intention to consult w ith the relevant Committees and, through

t hem, their management and workforces, to e xplore the possibility of modifying the

r elationship between the Committees and the S tates in such a way that benefits will

a ccrue to all concerned.

T he intention is that the States will

r emain the sole owners retaining controls

o n profits returned to States' general

r evenues and on tariffs.''

Sexual Offences (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 1994 - P.61/94 revised and P.135/94

THE STATES commenced consideration of the  draft Sexual Offences (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 199

and adopted the Preamble.

Article 1 was adopted, the States having

rejected an amendment of Deputy Gary Matthews of St. Brelade that in Article 1 for the words

eighteen years'' there should be substituted

the words sixteen years''.

Members present voted for the amendment as follows -

Members present voted as follows - P o u r'' (11)

Senators

 R othwell, Syvret, Tomes.

Deputies

C outanche(L), Johns(H), Duhamel(S), M atthews(B), Dorey(H), Breckon(S), G rouville, St. Martin .

C o n tre'' (34) Senators

S henton, Jeune , Horsfall, Le Main, Le M aistre, Stein, Chinn, Bailhache .

Connétable s

S t. Clement, St. Mary, St. Brelade , St. P eter, Grouville , St. Helier , Trinity , St. M artin, St. Ouen, St. John.

Deputies

R umboll(H), Norman(C), St. Peter,

H . Baudains(C), Le Sueur(H), St. Ouen,

H uelin(B), St. Mary, Crespel(H), Pullin(S), T rinity, Carter(H),  Routier(H),

L ayzell(B), Huet(H), St. John.

Article 2 was adopted.

THE STATES, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, adopted a

Law entitled the Sexual Offences (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 1994.

Members present voted as follows -

P o u r'' (35) Senators

S henton, Jeune , Horsfall, Rothwell, Le M aistre, Stein, Chinn, Syvret, Tomes.

Connétable s

S t. Clement, St. Mary, St. Brelade , St. P eter, St. Helier , St. Martin, St. John.

Deputies

R umboll(H), H. Baudains(C), Le Sueur(H), S t. Ouen, Coutanche(L), Huelin(B), St.

M ary, Crespel(H), Pullin(S), Trinity ,

J ohns(H), Duhamel(S), Matthews(B),

R outier(H), Dorey(H), Layzell(B),

B reckon(S), St. Martin, St. John.

C o n tre'' (9) Senators

B ailhache.

Connétable s

 G rouville, Trinity , St. Ouen. Deputies

N orman(C), St. Peter, Carter(H), Grouville , H uet(H).

Senator Terence John Le Main abstained from voting.

Franchise (Amendment No. 5) (Jersey) Law 1994 - P.104/94 and P.134/94

THE STATES continued consideration of the draft Franchise (Amendment No. 5) (Jersey) Law 199 , having on 11th October 1994 adopted the Preamble, deleted Article 1, adopted Article 2, adopted Article 3 as amended, adopted Articles 4 and 5, adopted Article 6 as amended, and adopted Article 7. Article 8 was referred back to the Legislation Committee.

THE STATES adopted Article 8 (to be renumbered Article 7), having substituted the following amended Article -

A R T  IC  L E 8

( 1 ) This Law may be cited as the

 F ranchise (Amendment No. 5) (Jersey) Law  1 99  and shall come into force on such day  a s the States may by Act appoint and

 d ifferent days may be appointed for

 d ifferent purposes or different provisions

o f this Law.

( 2 ) Any person who was ordinarily

 r esident in the Island immediately before

 t he commencement of Article 2 of this Law  s hall, for a period of two years following

 t hat commencement, be deemed to have the  r equisite residence qualification under

 s ub-paragraph (b) of Article 3 of the

 p rincipal Law as substituted by Article 2

o f this Law.''.

THE STATES, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, adopted a Law entitled the Franchise (Amendment No. 5) (Jersey) Law 1994.

West of Albert Pier reclamation area, St. Helier - Phases II and III: purchase from the Crown of foreshore - P.120/94

THE STATES, adopting a proposition of the Island Development Committee -

 ( a) authorised the purchase from the Crown

o f a n area of foreshore, measuring 28.7

a c re s (64.5 vergées), situated west of

t h e Albert Pier, St. Helier , shown

h a tc hed on drawing No. 439/1, required f o r the construction of Phase II of the

l a nd reclamation area and the proposed

P h a se III marina, for a consideration

o f £ 100,000, with each party being

r e sp onsible for the payment of its own

l e ga l fees;

 ( b) authorised the Greffier of the States t o s ign the said drawing on behalf of t h e States;

 ( c) authorised the Attorney General and the G  re ffier of the States to pass on

b e h alf of the public any contracts

w  h ich it might be found to be necessary t o p ass in connexion with the said land

a n d all interests therein;

 ( d) authorised the payment or discharge of t h e expenses incurred in connexion with t h e purchase of the said land, and of

a l l interests therein, from the Island

D ev elopment Committee's capital vote of c r ed it - Acquisition of Land - Major

R e s erve' (Vote No. C.0904).

Camden, Westmount, St. Helier: purchase of land to the north - P.136/94

THE STATES, adopting a proposition of the Island Development Committee -

 ( a) approved the purchase from Mr. Jack

S t ra tford and Mrs. Marie Louise

S t ra tford, née Nelan, of an area of

l a nd measuring approximately 8,117

s q u are feet, forming part of the garden

o f t he property known as Camden,

W  e stmount, St. Helier , situated to the

e a s t of Overdale Hospital, St. Helier

( a s shown hatched on drawing No. 443/1) r e q uired for the development of the

h e a lth facilities at Overdale Hospital

a n d the William Knott Day Centre for a

c o n sideration of £100,000, with each

p a r ty being responsible for the payment

o f i ts own legal fees;

 ( b) authorised the Greffier of the States t o s ign the said drawing on behalf of t h e States;

 ( c) authorised the Attorney General and the G  re ffier of the States to pass, on

b e h alf of the public, any contract

w  h ich it might be found to be necessary t o p ass in connexion with the

a c q uisition of the said land and all

i n te rests therein;

 ( d) authorised the payment or discharge of t h e expenses incurred in connexion with t h e said acquisition from the Island

D ev elopment Committee's capital vote of c r ed it Acquisition of Land - Major