States Minutes 18th July 2000

THE STATES assembled on Tuesday, 18th July 2000 at 9.30 a.m. under

the Presidency of the Bailiff ,

Sir Philip Bailhache .

His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor, General Sir Michael Wilkes, K.C.B., C.B.E., was present

All members were present with the exception of -

David Leon Crespel, Deputy of Trinity - out of the Island

Kenneth William Syvret, MBE, Deputy of St. Ouen - out of the Island

Prayers

Her Majesty The Queen Mother - Loyal Address

THE STATES, adopting a proposition of Senator Pierre François Horsfall, agreed that an Address in the following terms should be transmitted to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother on the occasion of Her Majesty's one hundredth birthday.

TO HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH THE QUEEN MOTHER The Loyal Address of the Assembly of the States of Jersey

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR MAJESTY

We, the States of Jersey, today assembled, beg leave, on behalf of the People of this Bailiwick and on our own behalf, to express to Your Majesty our heartfelt congratulations and warmest good wishes on the occasion of Your Majesty's forthcoming one hundredth birthday. We remember with great affection and gratitude your visit to Jersey with His Majesty King George VI on 7th June 1945 so soon after the Liberation of our Island from enemy occupation, and your subsequent welcome visits in 1963, 1975 and 1984. Your Majesty's tireless service and devotion to duty have been an inspiration to us all, and we can assure you of the deep affection in which you continue to be held by the States and People of Jersey.

18th July 2000

Bailiff and President of the States

Matters presented

The following matters were presented to the States -

St. Helier Waterfront leisure complex lease: amendments to legal documentation (P.129/2000): comments - P.129/2000 Com

Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Anti-Inflation strategy (P.125/2000): comments - P.125/2000 Com Presented by the Industries Committee

THE STATES ordered that the said reports be printed and published.

Jersey Post: Annual Report for 1999

Presented by the Committee for Postal Administration.

Matters noted - land transaction

THE STATES noted an Act of the Finance and Economics Committee dated 10th July 2000 recording that, in pursuance of Standing Orders relating to certain transactions in land, the Treasurer of the States, on the recommendation of the Health and Social Services Committee, had approved under delegated powers the renewal of the lease to Mr. Michael Paul Norman of the property Flat 1, Le Boulevard, La Grande Route des Sablons, Grouville , for a period of three years from 25th March 2000, at an annual rent of £8,500, subject to annual increases in line with the Jersey Retail Price Index, on the basis that each party would be responsible for its own legal fees arising from this transaction.

Matters noted - acceptance of tender

THE STATES noted an Act of the Finance and Economics Committee dated 10th July 2000, showing that, in pursuance of Rule 5 of the Public Finances (General) (Jersey) Rules 1967, as amended, the Health and Social Services Committee had accepted the lowest tender for the refurbishment of Clinique Pinel, St. Saviour, namely that received from Charles Le Quesne (1956) Limited in the sum of £969,890.00 on a fixed-price basis with a construction period of 40 weeks.

St. Helier Waterfront leisure complex: lease: amendments to legal documentation - P.129/2000.

THE STATES granted leave to Senator Stuart Syvret to withdraw the proposition regarding St. Helier Waterfront leisure complex lease: amendments to legal documentation (P.129/2000 lodged "au Greffe" on 4th July 2000) the Senator having presented a revised proposition at the present meeting.

Arrangement of public business for the present meeting

THE STATES acceded to the request of the President of the Education Committee that the following matter be considered as the sixth item of public business at the present meeting -

Teaching of Jèrriais: grant of funds from the general reserve - P.123/2000. Lodged: 4th July 2000.

Education Committee.

THE STATES acceded to the request of the President of the Telecommunications Board that the following matter be considered at the present meeting -

Invesco House, The Forum, Grenville Street, St. Helier: assignment of lease - P.126/2000. Lodged: 4th July 2000.

Telecommunications Board.

Waiting time for non-urgent surgery - question and answer (Tape No. 593)

The Deputy of St. John asked Senator Stuart Syvret, President of the Health and Social Services Committee, the following question -

"In recent correspondence circulated to States Members by the Department of Health and Social Services it is stated that 12 months is currently the waiting time for non-urgent surgery and that the Department was

hoping to reduce the waiting period to nine months. Would the President -

1. provide the Assembly with details ofthenumberof people awaitingnon-urgentsurgery?
2. advise whether the Committee considers nine months to bean acceptable waiting time or if it is proposing toreduce further the waiting time?
3. confirm that if, as advised, a patient who has private medicalinsurance is able to havenon-urgent surgery within a much shorter period, this is not to the detrimentof a patient without such insurance?"

The President of the Health and Social Services Committee replied as follows -

"In the first instance, might I explain that patients are medically assessed and placed upon surgical waiting lists in accordance with their clinical need. The degree of need is categorised as follows -

u rg e n t

so o n  

ro u t in e/non-urgent.

In general urgent' patients are seen within one month, those categorised as soon' are seen within three or four months, whilst the majority of non-urgent' patients are seen within nine months. Each of the Deputy 's questions will now be answered in turn.

(a )       1 9 3 patients are currently waiting for non-urgent surgery in excess of nine months. This

figure represents 12 per cent of the total number of patients on the list. However, 112 of these patients are waiting for relatively minor dental surgery. It is worth noting that two thirds of all patients are treated within three months of being put on the waiting list.

(b )       In November 1998 the previous Committee established a target waiting time of no more

than nine months for non-urgent surgery. We recognise that 12 per cent of patients are currently not being treated within this time. A number of factors have combined to frustrate our endeavours and these have included increased referrals to outpatient clinics, a 13 per cent increase in patients added to the waiting lists since targets were set and persistent pressures being placed upon inpatient surgical beds by over-spill emergency medical admissions who temporarily need to occupy them. Theatre activity during the first six months of this year shows an increase of nine per cent compared with the same period last year.  Staff within the hospital have worked hard to achieve these levels of activity.

M y C o m m ittee does not consider a nine month wait for non-urgent surgery to be

acceptable. However, we must first be resourced to achieve that target and maintain it, before seeking to reduce the maximum wait further.

( c)     P a tients who are privately medically insured can secure non-urgent surgical treatment

more quickly than public patients. One of the principal reasons for the differing waiting times is that only approximately 25 per cent of the population is privately insured, therefore this group is much smaller than the public patient waiting group. The Health and Social Services Department has only very recently been subjected to an in-depth service review and that review concluded the amount of surgical activity undertaken by the unit compared favourably with the United Kingdom national averages. Private patients are not receiving non-urgent treatment at the expense of more urgent public patients.

Academic years 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 1999 to date - question and answer (Tape No. 593) Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel of St. Saviour asked Senator Leonard Norman, President of the Education Committee, the following questions -

"1. W  o u ld the President inform members of the following -

 f o r e a c h of the academic years 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999, and 1999-to date in (a) the

non-fee-paying secondary schools and (b) the non-fee-paying primary schools -

(i ) th e n u m b e r of students who have been suspended from full time education? (i i) t h e t o ta l n umber of suspension days'?

(i ii ) t h e t o ta l n umber of suspensions?

2. t h e p rovision that exists for the education and supervision of studentsduringtheir period of suspension?
3. fo r e a ch of the academic years 1996-1997,1997-1998,1998-1999, and 1999-to date in (a) thenon- fee-paying secondary schools and (b) the non-fee paying primary schools, the numberofstudents with emotional/ social/behaviouralproblems whose behaviouris considered tocompromise the quality ofthelearning environment for teaching staff and other students?
4. th e n umberof student placesunder the AlternativeCurriculum provision that are - ( a ) c urrently filled? ( b ) a vailable?
5. f o r e ach of the four nonfee-payingsecondaryschools, the maximumnumberof students with emotional/ social/behaviouralproblems that the EducationCommitteeconsiders are capable of being accommodated within the normalschool environment?
6. w h e t her the EducationCommittee considers that theexisting support structure forstudents with emotional/social/behavioural problems isadequateandwhetherthere are any plansto improve it in the next academicyear, and, ifso,to outline briefly the additional measures to betaken?"

The President of the Education Committee replied as follows -

"1.(i) O n the basis of the information available to the Education Department, the number of pupils

suspended during the period from 1996 to date is as follows -

  P ri m  ar y S e c o n d a r y 1 9 9 6 -1997 3  5 9

1 9 9 7 -1998 2  6 7

1 9 9 8 -1999 4  8 3

1 9 9 9 -to 14th July 2000 6 1 3 1

2. th e totalnumberof suspension days during the sameperiodis as follows - P ri m ar y S e c o n d a r y

1 9 9 6 -1997 6 1 7 4 1 9 9 7 -1998 7 2 0 6 1 9 9 8 -1999 1 2 3 1 4 1 9 9 9 -to 14th July 2000 18 5 8 9

3. t h e totalnumberof suspensions during the same period isas follows - P ri m ar y S e c o n d a r y

1 9 9 6 -1997 3 1 0 2 1 9 9 7 -1998 2 1 1 4 1 9 9 8 -1999 5 1 3 8 1 9 9 9 -to 14th July 2000  8 2 3 2

2. T h e guidance published toHeadteachersintheEducation Service Handbook are isfollows -

T h e school or college has a responsibility to provide work for the pupil to undertake at home.

However, responsibility for completing the work and presenting it to school rests with the pupil and the parents. In appropriate cases the Schools' Psychological Service may arrange for home tuition.

I t is important that arrangements are made for pupils under suspension to sit any public

examinations for which they are entered.'

    (J a n u a r y 1 9 9 6 )  

D u ri ng any period of suspension supervision is the responsibility of the child's parents or

guardians.

3. D a ta is not readily available in the format requested and to obtain the information would require an extensive search of files held by all schools and thoseof the Schools'PsychologyService. However, a reportpreparedin June 1997 by the Headteachersofthefour11-16schools,in conjunction with the Principal Educational Psychologist and the Education Welfare Officer, identified 27 pupils with emotional, social and behavioural problems whose behaviour was considered to compromise the quality of the learning environment. A similar,as yet unvalidated, survey completed in June 2000 identified 68 pupils with severe difficulties.

T h e r e are currently 22 pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties who are the subject of

statements of special educational needs within the Island's 11-16 secondary schools. Of these 12 are pupils at Le Rocquier School; seven at Les Quennevais School; two at Grainville School and one at Haute Vallée.

4. ( a )   1 5 (b ) 1 6 .
5. T he Education Committee has not set a maximum number of pupils with emotional/social/behavioural problems who are capable of being accommodated within the normal school environment,nor could it set such a limit. Theneedsofeachpupil are considered and support is provided in order that the childmaybeeducatedin a mainstream school unless this would beincompatible with the child'sneedsor the needsofother children with whomhe/sheis educated.
6. T h e structure for pupils with emotional and behaviouralproblems.These include -

p ro v i d i n g a d ditional staffing to secondary schools enabling the appointment of behaviour

support teachers;

p ro v i d in g a d ditional support to pupils attending mainstream schools through statements of

special educational needs;

e x p a nd i n g th e Schools' Psychological Service to improve support for pupils and advice to

schools;

ap p o in t in g a n Educational Welfare Officer; d e v el o p i n g t he Alternative Curriculum;

e s ta b l is h i n g d'Hautrée House School which provides places for up to 25 pupils with

emotional and behavioural difficulties.

T h e Committee, subject to  funding, will also  increase the  number of  places at Les Chenes

Residential School from 18 to 24.

T h e Department,  working  with  schools,  is  developing  a  comprehensive  strategy  for  Special

Educational Needs, including pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties The strategy will be available for consultation with schools in September and, following that consultation, will be considered by the Education Committee. The strategy will identify both provision and resource requirements. Concurrently, the Department is working with one of the 11-16 schools to develop a model for enhanced behaviour support which, if successful, may be extended to other schools."

Health care in Jersey - questions and answers (Tape No. 593)

Senator Corrie Stein asked Senator Stuart Syvret, President of the Health and Social Services Committee, the following questions -

"1 . W ould the President advise members -

( a ) o f t he number of patients on the waiting list and the length of time they have been waiting to see

the following consultants or service?

(i ) o rt h o p a e dics

(i i) g y n a e c o logy (i ii ) u r o lo g y  

(i v ) o p h t h a lm ology (v ) p h y s i o th e rapy

an d w  o u ld he also give the number of patients on those same specialities who are waiting for

operations following their first visit and how long do they have to wait.

( b ) i f m ore beds are needed, how and when will they be introduced?

( c ) i f m ore consultants are needed in trauma and orthopaedics and gynaecology, what action is the

Committee taking?

2 .  I t is now official, according to the OECD, that France has the best health care in the world. As France

is our nearest neighbour and as our Strategic Policy, agreed by the States, is that Jersey people should have the same or better services as the United Kingdom and neighbouring countries, is the Committee seriously considering approaching France to see if we can buy certain health care from them to both our benefits?

3 .  A  s a result of a working party which I led in 1995, an undertaking was given to return the results of cervical screening tests within two weeks to 80 per cent of the patients and within four weeks to 100

per cent of the patients. Would the President advise members whether in the last three years these targets have

been achieved and if not, why not?"

The President of the Health and Social Services Committee replied as follows -

"1(a) ( i) T h e waiting list in respect of orthopaedics is as follows -

4 1 7 p a t ie n t s are waiting for an outpatient consultation and the waiting time varies between

one and two weeks for urgent referrals, whilst other patients can wait for up to 20 to 21 weeks for a non-urgent/routine appointment.

T h e r e a r e c u rrently 526 patients listed for surgery, 272 of them have been waiting for less

than two months, 149 for more than two months, but less than six months, 63 less than nine months, with 42 having waited over nine months.

(i i) T h e waiting list in respect of the gynaecology service confirms that there are currently 207

patients waiting for an outpatient consultation and the maximum waiting time is five-six weeks. There are currently 131 women listed for surgery, 108 having waited less than two months, 15 for more than two months but less than six months, six less than nine months, with two having waited over nine months.

(i ii ) 1 5 8 patients are currently waiting for an outpatient consultation with the urology service

and the waiting times vary between one and two weeks for urgent cases whilst other patients can wait up to 21 weeks for a non-urgent/routine appointment. There are currently 33 patients listed for surgery, 29 have been waiting less than two months, three for more than two months but less than nine months, with one patient waiting in excess of nine months.

(i v ) T h e waiting list in respect of the ophthalmology service is as follows -

  2 3 2 p a t ie n t s a r e waiting to be seen in outpatient clinics. Whilst urgent referrals will be

seen within one-two weeks, other patients will experience waiting times of up to nine weeks, however, if a patient wishes to be referred to a particular consultant the waiting time may be longer. There are 132 patients currently waiting for surgery, 50 of them for less than two months, 36 for more than two months but less than six months, and no patients waiting more than six months unless they wish to see a particular surgeon.

(v ) P h ysiotherapy

A ll r e fe r ra l s are screened by a senior member of staff on the day of receipt and

professional judgement is used to prioritise the patients' needs. Four categories of service are provided with patients from Accident and Emergency being seen immediately or within 36 hours. Patients newly out of plaster are seen on the same day. Those included within the orthopaedic fast-track scheme, of whom there are currently 24, are treated within three weeks. Routine patients, of whom there are 19 on the waiting list, will be seen within a 7-21 day period.

2. W h ilst itis clear that demand is rising and increased capacity will be required, it is not certain that the provisions ofmorehospitalbeds, within theAcutesetting, is the most effective investment available tomyCommittee.Ithasbeen estimated that each additional bed provided costs£45,000 per annum and that a twenty-beddedwardwould therefore require an additional £900,000on a recurring basis.

W  it h in its next five-year strategy, which will be put to the States before the end of this year, the Committee will identify a raft of measures which could be put in place to provide improved

services. These could include the contracting of convalescence beds and services from the private sector,

investment in community resources to promote the more effective discharge of patients and the treatment and management of others to prevent their hospital admission when appropriate. The Committee has made modest investment in these important areas during the past eighteen months but it is quite evident that much more could be achieved given sufficient resources. In addition, the Committee will consider the merits of contracting non-urgent surgery from other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom and France.

3. T h e recent service review concluded, amongstother things, that a more detailed analysis of future medical manpowerrequirementsshouldbeundertaken, as some services, including orthopaedics and gynaecology, were particularly hard pressed.This process began in Mayand is scheduled for completion bySeptember.It is intended that keyrecommendationswill be included within the next five-yearHealth & SocialServicesStrategywhichis currently beingprepared and shouldbe ready by the end of this year. Itshouldbe recognised that the creation of any additional consultant posts will have considerable resource consequences as, in every instance, investment in supporting infrastructure (nurses,paramedics, clerical andothersupport staff) will berequired. Members will be interested to note that an additional doctor and physiotherapist have been appointed to the orthopaedic teamand a further consultantwas selected byanappointmentpanel last Mondayfor Accident and Emergency Services.

2. S u ccessiveHealth and Social ServicesCommittees have presented strategic plans which have been approvedby this Assembly, the most recent related to the years 1997-2000.Ineachof these plans, resource requirements have been identified andapprovedin principle. Unfortunately only half the investmentrequiredhas been allocated and this has frustrated successive Committeesin their attempts to maintain standards comparable with neighbouring countries. This under- investment, over an eight-year period, has resulted in a current budgetwhichis£5 million below that envisagedand agreed in thesestrategies.

T h e OECD findings to which the Senator refers, are, I understand, contentious and have been

disputed by health care professionals. However, as I explained in response to the first question, my Committee is currently preparing its Strategic Plan for the period 2001-2005 and it is our intention to consider whether a closer relationship with France has merit. Notwithstanding the close proximity of France, Jersey has long established relationships with the UK National Health Service and the Reciprocal Health Agreement is of great importance in making comprehensive health care available for the people of Jersey, particularly the supra-specialist services which a small Island such as ours could not provide for itself. Any additional service which might be secured from France would require a separate funding source.

3. T h ere have been delays in reporting smear results on three occasions during the period in question, the maximum waiting time has been sevenweeks. Invariably, the delays have been due to staff sickness,which significantly affectssmalldepartments.Onoccasionswhendelayswere thought likely to be prolonged,smearshave either been sent to the UnitedKingdom,orlocum staff from theUnitedKingdom have been employed in Jersey to address the backlog.

T h e C ommittee has recently reviewed its policy in respect of cervical cytology and has endorsed a

new policy which requires that 100% of smears be reported on within four weeks for 90 per cent of the time. The Committee is mindful that accuracy of reporting is by far the most important issue and that realistic reporting times which are invariably achievable should form the basis of Committee policy. The committee has been medically advised that the new policy is both appropriate and achievable. Women will be advised by their doctor as to when results might be expected, when the cervical smear is taken. The above measures should help reduce any anxiety which women might experience as a result of delayed reporting in exceptional circumstances. Currently, the waiting period for results is three weeks which falls within the Committee's revised policy for reporting."

Number of employees required to construct and staff the Waterfront leisure complex and the Waterfront hotel - questions and answers (Tape No. 593)

Senator Stuart Syvret asked Deputy Maurice François Dubras of St. Lawrence, President of the Industries Committee, the following question -

"1. W  ould the President inform members of the projected number of employees required to construct

and to staff -

(a ) th e Waterfront Leisure Complex?

(b ) th e Waterfront Hotel?"

The President of the Industries Committee replied as follows -

"I do not know how many people will be needed to construct the Waterfront Leisure Complex or the Waterfront Hotel.

On staff numbers, I understand that the Finance and Economics Committee gave approval in principle under the Regulation of Undertakings and Development Law for up to 200 staff for the hotel and for approximately 200 for the undertakings involved in the leisure complex. This was stated in an answer to Senator Syvret on 27th April 1999."

Capital construction costs of the Waterfront leisure complex and hotel - question and answer (Tape No. 593)

Senator Stuart Syvret asked Senator Pierre François Horsfall, President of the Policy and Resources Committee, the following question -

"1. W  ould the President inform members of the projected number of employees required to construct

and to staff -

(a ) th e Waterfront Leisure Complex?

(b ) th e Waterfront Hotel?"

The President of the Policy and Resources Committee replied as following -

"The Waterfront Enterprise Board Limited is not party to discussions between the developers of the leisure complex and the hotel and their contractors and thus I cannot answer the question. A contribution of £10.9 million from the Tourism Investment Fund, plus an element for inflation, has been agreed by this Assembly towards the cost of the leisure complex."

Provision of footpaths - questions and answers (Tape No. 593)

Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains of St. Clement asked Senator Nigel Lewis Quérée, President of the Planning and Environment Committee, the following questions -

"1. H a ving regard to its recent decision not to require the creation of a footpath at Pontac would the

President explain -

(a ) w h ether the Committee has any powers to attach conditions to a development permission

to require construction of public footpaths and whether any policy exists with regard to providing footpaths where non currently exists?

(b ) w h at level of importance the Committee attaches to recommendations made to it by the

Public Services Committee regarding highway matters?

2. W i th reference to a proposed development at La Fontaine Hotel, Pontac, the Committee rejected Public Services' recommendation that a footpath be constructed in that area. There is currently no footpath between Pontac slip and Le Hocq, save for a stretch of gravel path, so pedestrians have to walk in the road. Would the President therefore explain why it was considered unnecessary to provide a footpath in this instance?"

The President of the Planning and Environment Committee replied as follows -

"1.(a)  The Committee is empowered under the Island Planning (Jersey) Law 1964, as amended, to apply

conditions to a development permission. It is not explicitly empowered to apply conditions in respect of footpaths.

T h e attachment of conditions to a permission is subject to rules' that are well-established in

administrative case law in Jersey and in England and Wales on whose planning Acts our own Law is based.

I n e ssence, such conditions must be reasonable, precise, enforceable, and must relate to the

development for which permission is granted. Thus they cannot, for instance, be applied to a development for some ulterior purpose - for example, improving conditions for users of the adjoining public roads.

T h e Committee has policies relating to road-widening contained in the Island Plan. The Town

Map, approved by the States in November 1987, and subject to public consultation, shows a number of road improvement lines to main-roads and by-roads. Whether these are to improve footpaths or vehicular carriageways is a matter for the respective highway authorities. The improvement lines forewarn property owners that part of their land is required for roadworks. If the Planning and Environment Committee receives applications for sites affected by those road improvement lines, then it will require development to be set back to the line. It is for the highway authority to negotiate with the landowner for the acquisition of the additional land which will, presumably, reflect the loss of development opportunity. If there are no applications, then it is incumbent on the highway authority to negotiate with the owners to implement the improvement.

T h e Deputy  will  be  aware  that  all  these  matters  were  fully  discussed  by  the  Planning  and

Environment and Public Services Committees at the joint meeting on 18th May 2000.

(b) T h e Committee is required by the Island Planning Law to consult the relevant highway authority, be it the Parish or Public Services Committee, when development proposals have the potential to endanger the safety of users of an adjoining road or would hinder any proposals for the improvement of the road previously notified to the Committee by the highway authority (Article 6).

T h e Committee attaches great importance to the comments and recommendations of the Public

Services Committee (and parishes) regarding highway matters. Where it is legally entitled to do so, it will place conditions on a permission, or require amendments to drawings, to embrace those recommendations.

2. I n M ay 1997, the owners of La Fontaine Hotel applied to widen the vehicular access to the coast road and increase the area of car parking for hotel residents. The comments of the Public Services Department on that application were it would aid the visibility if the roadside walls were reduced in height to 900mm (three feet) above road level for its entire length'. A further comment from Public Services added the proposed gate post to be restricted in height to 900mm above road

level'.

T h e r e was no suggestion of any other requirements to improve road safety that related to the

development being applied for.

In A p ril 1999 the owners of the hotel applied to change the use of the hotel to ordinary residential

accommodation through a combination of refurbishment, conversion and redevelopment. The Committee's deliberations on this application were lengthy, principally because of the Tourism Committee's concern about the loss of tourist accommodation in a prime sea-front location.

O n 1 4th May 1999, the Planning Department received a memorandum from the Public Services

Department offering the following observations -

1. In accordance with the Public Services Committee's policy of providing footpaths on States main roads, we would require that a footpath 1.5 metres wide be provided along La Grande Route de la Côte frontage.

2 . The visibility of the access onto La Grande Route de la Côte must be 2.00 metres x

50  metres.

3 . It would appear that the refuse vehicle would need to stand in the main road while

emptying the bins, this is not desirable.

4 . How will people access the communal gardens?

5 . Although the access off La Rue de la Prince is not the concern of this Department, we

would question whether vehicles manoeuvring in and out of the spaces will encroach onto La Rue de Jambart.'

T h e Committee conceded the principle of the change of use in September 1999, and thereafter

discussions ensued on the detailed design of the scheme, including matters referred to in the Public Services Department memorandum.

T h e o bservations 2 to 5 inclusive were addressed and resolved in these negotiations. The Deputy 's

question obviously refers to the first observation.

I t i s not the purpose of the Island Planning (Jersey) Law 1964, as amended. to secure the

gratuitous provision of highway improvements. Public Services Committee's requirement' is not something that can be secured by planning conditions, unless it is something that is necessitated by the development for which permission is being sought.

H a d La Grande Route de la Côte had a road improvement line that had been subject to public

consultation and adopted as part of the Island Plan or some other States policy decision or had there been a specific proposal of which the Planning and Environment Committee and the landowner had previously been notified, then it is possible that the Committee could have taken it into account. It would be wholly unreasonable to require property owners to give up part of their property in these circumstances as a condition of a planning permission.

I f t h e Public Services Committee, or a parish, seeks to improve its public highways, then it is

incumbent on it to publish its proposals in sufficient detail to inform the owners of the properties that will be affected. It must then negotiate directly with the owners to secure the requisite land to effect the improvement. It must expect to compensate the owners of the land for its proper value. In the case of La Fontaine Hotel, the requirement would have reduced the number of car parking spaces which, in turn would have reduced the yield of the site. It would be unreasonable to expect the owner not to be compensated for this loss. The Public Services Committee has compulsory purchase powers to secure the land if agreement cannot be reached.

In th e event, the Applications Sub-Committee did consider the issue of providing a footpath at its

meeting on 12th January 2000, but considered that the construction of a footpath on this property only could exacerbate pedestrian safety by forcing pedestrians to step out into the road, from behind a high wall, into the path of oncoming traffic. Surely, if the highway authority wishes to create a footpath from La Rue de Jambart to Le Hocq Lane, which I am sure the Planning and Environment Committee would support, it should commence negotiations with all the owners in order to achieve it."

The Millennium Town Park project - questions and answers (Tape No. 593)

Deputy Alan Simon Crowcroft of St. Helier asked Senator Pierre François Horsfall, President of the Policy and Resources Committee, the following questions -

"1. W  ould the President confirm that the Millennium Town Park project was one of the bids put

forward by the Planning and Environment Committee for prioritisation in the capital programme for 2000-2003 at the decision conference held in April 1999 and that the Planning and Environment Committee's delegate at the decision conference withdrew the item from the prioritisation process following advice from members of the Policy and Resources Committee, namely that, as the Island's preferred Millennium project, the Town Park would be subject to separate consideration for funding from the Millennium Fund once the feasibility studies on the project were complete?

2. W  o uld the President indicatewhatthe balance is intheMillennium Fund? Is it theCommittee's intention totopup the fund in order that thecostof the town park project, lesstheelementof capital funding agreed in principle by the PublicServicesCommittee in respect ofthecarparking element of the scheme,can be met from the fund?
3. W  o uld the Presidentaccount for the reason for the delayintheCommittee'sproducingtheReport on the Millennium TownPark: petition, P.190/97, and would he further statewhen this report will be available?
4. D  o es the Presidentagree that, in view of the considerable social, economic andenvironmental benefits that will accrue from the project, a task force shouldbesetuptoprogress the scheme, and that as the Island's preferred Millennium Project this work should be started without further delay?"

The President of the Policy and Resources Committee replied as follows -

"1. Y e s.

2. T h e current balance is £1,932,400. However the funds allocated to the Town Park are £1,225,000. Anytopping up of the fund is a matter for the Finance and EconomicCommittee. My Committee presently hasnoplans to invite the Finance and Economics Committee to consider this at the present time.
3. F o llowing the submission of the petition (P.190/97) to the States by Deputy Crowcroft in December1997, the advice of the Greffierof the States at that timewas for the Policy and Resources Committee to take the lead in commissioning the necessary reports andco-ordinate a responseto the petition.The Committee decided,upon advice, that it would not beappropriate for it toproduce a report until a detailed feasibility studyofthe project has been completed.No immediate action was taken on this but a feasibility study was eventually completed by the Planning andEnvironmentCommittee and published inMarch 2000.

In t h e light of this, the way is now open to the Policy and Resources Committee to consider the

1997 petition and it will be considering this shortly.

4. I a gree that it is potentially an excellent project. But it cannot proceed until the planned underground car park is completed and the question of funding for the car park has yet to be resolved."

St. Helier Waterfront leisure complex lease: amendments to legal documentation (revisions)

THE STATES, commenced consideration of a proposition of Senator Stuart Syvret regarding the St. Helier Waterfront leisure complex lease: amendments to legal documentation (revisions). After discussion, and on the proposition of Deputy Terence John Le Main of St. Helier , the proposition was lodged "au Greffe".

Senator Christopher Gerard Pellow Lakeman declared an interest and withdrew from the Chamber prior to the consideration of the matter.

St. Helier Waterfront leisure complex lease: second amendments to legal documentation

THE STATES, commenced consideration of a proposition of Senator Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire regarding the St. Helier Waterfront leisure complex lease: second amendments to legal documentation. After discussion, and on the proposition of Deputy Terence John Le Main of St. Helier, the proposition was lodged "au Greffe".

Senator Christopher Gerard Pellow Lakeman declared an interest and withdrew from the Chamber prior to the consideration of the matter.

St. Helier Waterfront leisure complex lease: length of lease

THE STATES, commenced consideration of a proposition of Senator Stuart Syvret regarding the St. Helier Waterfront leisure complex lease: length of lease. After discussion, and on the proposition of Deputy Terence John Le Main of St. Helier , the proposition was lodged "au Greffe".

Senator Christopher Gerard Pellow Lakeman declared an interest and withdrew from the Chamber prior to the consideration of the matter.

Teaching of Jèrriais: grant of funds from the general reserve - P.123/2000

THE STATES, commenced consideration of a proposition of the Education Committee concerning the Teaching of Jèrriais: grant of funds from the general reserve. After discussion Deputy Jeremy Laurence Dorey of St. Helier proposed that the States move to the consideration of the next item on the order paper, which proposition was rejected.

Members present voted as follows -

"Pour" (17) Senators

Horsfall, Stein, Quérée, Walker .

Deputies

H.  Baudains(C), St.  Mary, Duhamel(S), Routier(H), Layzell(B), Grouville , Le Main(H), Crowcroft (H) Vibert (B), St.  Peter, Dorey(H), Troy (B), Le Hérissier(S).

"Contre" (26)

Senators

Le Maistre, Bailhache , Norman, Kinnard, Le Sueur, Le Claire.

Connétable s

St. Mary , St. Helier, St. Martin, St. Ouen, Trinity , St. Clement, St. Lawrence. Deputies

S.  Baudains(H), Breckon(S), Huet(H), St. Martin, St. John, Dubras(L), G. Baudains(C), Voisin(L) Farnham (S), Ozouf (H), Fox(H), Bridge(H), Martin(H).

THE STATES resumed consideration of the proposition but after further discussion the President of the Education Committee withdrew the proposition, the Attorney General having advised the Assembly that it would be ultra- vires for the States to adopt it.

Deputy Celia Joyce Scott Warr en of St. Saviour declared an interest and withdrew from the Chamber prior to the consideration of the matter.

Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force: appointment - P.117/2000 (consideration in camera)

The Bailiff , in pursuance of Article 9(4) of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974, as amended, and in accordance with Standing Order No. 46(2), ordered the withdrawal of strangers and the closing of the doors of the Chamber in order that the appointment of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force be considered in camera. THE STATES, having deliberated thereon in camera, proceeded to vote in public assembly and, adopting a proposition of the Home Affairs Committee, and in accordance with Article 9 of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974, as amended, appointed Mr. Graham Power QPM, MA as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force with effect from 1st December 2000.

Members present voted as follows -

"Pour" (43)

Senators

Horsfall, Le Maistre, Stein, Quérée, Bailhache , Syvret, Norman, Walker , Kinnard, Le Sueur, Le Claire. Connétable s

St. Mary , Grouville , St. Helier, St. Martin , St. Ouen, Trinity , St. Clement, St. Brelade , St. Lawrence. Deputies

H.  Baudains(C), S.  Baudains(H), Duhamel(S), Routier(H), Layzell(B), Breckon(S), Grouville , St. Martin Le Main(H), Crowcroft (H), Vibert (B), St.  Peter, Dubras(L), G.  Baudains(C), Dorey(H), Troy (B), Voisin (L), Scott Warr en(S), Farnham (S), Le Hérissier(S), Fox(H), Bridge(H), Martin(H).

"Contre" (2)

Deputies

Huet(H), St. John.

States Veterinary Officer: appointment - P.116/2000 (appointment in camera)

The Bailiff , in pursuance of Article 1A(2) of the Diseases of Animals (Jersey) Law 1956, as amended, and in accordance with Standing Order No. 46(2) ordered the withdrawal of strangers and the closing of the doors of the Chamber in order that the appointment of the States Veterinary Officer be considered in camera.

THE STATES having deliberated thereon in camera, proceeded to vote in public assembly and, adopting a proposition of the Agriculture and Fisheries Committee, and in accordance with Article 1A(2) of the Diseases of Animals (Jersey) Law 1956, as amended, approved the appointment of Mr. Michael Nicholls BVSc, MVSc, MRCVS as the States Veterinary Officer.

Waterfront Enterprise Board Limited: appointment of Non-States directors - P.124/2000

THE STATES, commenced consideration of a proposition of the Policy and Resources Committee concerning the Waterfront Enterprise Board Limited: appointment of Non-States Directors, and of an amendment of Deputy Alan Simon Crowcroft of St. Helier that, in paragraph (a), for the words the following collectively' there should be substituted the words three of the following'; that after the list of names there should be inserted the name Mr. Bob Henkhuzens'; and that for the words from and to elect' to the end of the paragraph there should be substituted the following -

a n d following the election of three Non-States Directors to proceed to elect as Chairman of the Board one

of their number.'