States Minutes 27th March 2001

THE STATES assembled on Tuesday, 27th March  2001 at 9.30 a.m. under the Presidency of the Bailiff ,

Sir Philip Bailhache .

His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor,

Air Chief Marshal Sir John Cheshire, K.B.E., C.B., was present

All members were present with the exception of -

S e nator Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire - ill

M alcolm Cedric Pollard, Connétable of St. Peter - ill S t anley John Le Cornu, Connétable of St. Clement - ill C e lia Joyce Scott Warr en, Deputy of St. Saviour - ill.

Prayers

Liberation Day - extraordinary meeting of the States

The Bailiff re-affirmed that an extraordinary meeting of the States would take place on 9th May 2001 on the occasion of the 56th anniversary of the Liberation, when Senator P.F. Horsfall, O.B.E. would give an address, and members would then proceed to Liberation Square to participate in a Service of Thanksgiving.

Subordinate legislation tabled

The following enactments were laid before the States, namely -

Diseases of Animals (Foot and Mouth - Restrictions No. 4) (Jersey) Order 2001. R & O 44/2001. Education (Registration of Non-provided Schools - Fee) (Jersey) Order 2001. R & O 45/2001. Diseases of Animals (Foot and Mouth - Restrictions No. 5) (Jersey) Order 2001. R & O 46/2001.

Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) (Amendment No.  4) (Jersey) Order 2001. R & O 47/2001.

Pet Travel Scheme (Pilot Arrangements) (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Order 2001. R & O 48/2001. Diseases of Animals (Foot and Mouth - Restrictions No. 6) (Jersey) Order 2001. R & O 49/2001. Diseases of Animals (Foot and Mouth - Restrictions No. 7) (Jersey) Order 2001. R & O 50/2001. Diseases of Animals (Foot and Mouth - Restrictions No. 8) (Jersey) Order 2001. R & O 51/2001. Diseases of Animals (Foot and Mouth - Restrictions No. 9) (Jersey) Order 2001. R & O 52/2001. Airport Dues (Tariff) (Jersey) Order 2001. R & O 53/2001.

Gambling Control Committee - appointment of President

THE STATES appointed Deputy Lyndon John Farnham of St.  Saviour as President of the Gambling Control Committee.

Matter presented

The following matter was presented to the States -

Jersey Mineral Strategy 2000 - 2020 - P.51/2001. Presented by the Planning and Environment Committee.

THE STATES, adopting a proposition of Senator P.F. Horsfall, O.B.E., referred the Jersey Mineral Strategy 2000-2020 to the Public Services Committee for a report.

Senator Nigel Lewis Quérée, having declared an interest in the matter, withdrew from the Chamber prior to the voting on this matter.

Members present voted as follows -

"Pour" (28) Senators

Horsfall, Le Maistre, Stein, Syvret, Walker , Le Sueur. Connétable s

St. Helier , St. Ouen, St. Brelade.

Deputies

H.  Baudains(C), St.  Mary, Trinity , Duhamel(S), Routier(H), Grouville , Huet(H), St. Martin, St. John Crowcroft (H), Vibert (B), St.  Peter, St.  Ouen, G.  Baudains(C), Dorey(H), Troy (B), Le Hérissier(S), Ozou (H), Martin(H).

"Contre" (20)

Senators

Bailhache , Norman, Kinnard, Lakeman.

Connétable s

Grouville , St. Martin , Trinity , St. Saviour , St. Lawrence, St. Mary , St. John. Deputies

S.  Baudains(H), Layzell(B), Breckon(S), Le Main(H), Dubras(L), Voisin(L), Farnham (S), Fox(H), Bridge (H).

Matters lodged

The following matters were lodged "au Greffe" -

Financial assistance for the cost of ophthalmic and dental care for persons aged over 65: proposed

scheme - P.49/2001.

Presented by the Employment and Social Security Committee.

Draft Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 200- P.50/2001. Presented by the Planning and Environment Committee.

The following matters were lodged on 20th March 2001 -

Aircraft noise zones: revision - P.45/2001.

Presented by the Planning and Environment Committee.

Tenants and Lodgers: return of deposits - P.46/2001. Presented by Senator C. Stein.

Draft Milk (Sale to Special Classes) (Jersey) Regulations 200- P.47/2001. Presented by the Employment and Social Security Committee.

Draft Airport Dues (Amendment No.  4) (Jersey) Law 200- P.48/2001. Presented by the Harbours and Airport Committee.

Arrangement of public business for the next meeting on 3rd April 2001 - deferral

THE STATES decided that there was insufficient public business requested for 3rd April 2001, and accordingly decided not to meet on that day, and agreed that the following matters should be considered at the next meeting on 24th April 2001 -

Draft Companies (Amendment No. 6) (Jersey) Law 200- P.29/2001. Lodged: 20th February 2001.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Financial Services Commission (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.39/2001). Lodged: 13th March 2001 - P.39/2001.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Financial Services Commission (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.39/2001): amendment - P.39/2001 Amd.

Lodged: 13th March 2001.

Deputy J.L. Dorey of St. Helier .

Aircraft noise zones: revision - P.45/2001. Lodged: 20th March 2001.

Planning and Environment Committee.

Draft Milk (Sale to Special Classes) (Jersey) Regulations 200- P.47/2001. Lodged: 20th March 2001.

Employment and Social Security Committee.

Draft Airport Dues (Amendment No.  4) (Jersey) Law 200- P.48/2001. Lodged: 20th March 2001.

Harbours and Airport Committee.

Financial assistance for the cost of ophthalmic and dental care for persons aged over 65: proposed scheme - P.49/2001.

Lodged: 27th March 2001.

Employment and Social Security Committee. Jersey Mineral Strategy 2000 - 2020 - P.51/2001. Lodged: 27th March 2001.

Planning and Environment Committee.

THE STATES acceded to the request of Deputy A.J. Layzell of St. Brelade , Vice-President of the Planning and Environment Committee, that the proposition regarding Jersey Mineral Strategy 2000 - 2020 (P.51/2001 lodged "au Greffe" on 27th March 2001) be considered as the first item of matters lodged "au Greffe" listed under Public Business on 24th April 2001. The President of the Public Services Committee undertook to make available the report of that Committee prior to that date.

Services and allowances for the over 60's - questions and answers (Tape No. 640)

Senator Corrie Stein asked Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur President of the Employment and Social Security Committee, the following questions -

" 1. W ould the President explain to members why the £680,000, specifically budgeted to provide services to the over 65's, has not yet been committed bearing in mind that £530,000 came from the promised television licences and £150,000 has already been allocated to the Committee's Budget in 2001?

2 .  W  ould the President advise members -

1. how this capital sum will be allocated to each of the various services, like chiropody,dental care and optical care?

( b ) a t w h at level the income ceiling will be placed?

(c) whether he can assure members that the total amount of £680,000 will be used this year in the way it was intended?

3 . D oes the Committee have any concerns that a dangerous precedent could be set by allocating

£680,000 towards eye, chiropody and dental care for the elderly to a non-governmental, non- professional body which may not be perceived to be independent?

4 .  C o uld the President confirm that the States' Auditors would be content with such an arrangement?

5 . I n the United Kingdom senior citizens receive a £200 winter allowance for heating, free health care,

and those over 75 years of age qualify for a free television licence. Would the President advise members whether the Committee is prepared to introduce these or similar benefits for the Island's senior citizens so that they will not be disadvantaged in comparison with their United Kingdom peer group?"

The President of the Employment and Social Security Committee replied as follows -

" 1 . U p until last November when the States decided not to pay for TV licences for the over 65's, the Health and Social Services and Employment and Social Security Committees had developed some ideas for use of a sum of £150,000 that had been promised for healthcare. These ideas were shared with the Senior Citizens' Association. Following the Budget debate last December when the sum of £680,000 was finally approved for health care purposes, discussions took place with representatives of the Senior Citizens' Association when different suggestions were made for targeting this money. Both Committees worked quickly together after Christmas to consider the alternatives and then discuss issues with the Association and the Comité des Connétable s. Whilst all these discussions were going on, work on the method of administration was being undertaken. In essence, all this has been achieved and agreement reached between all the parties, a report and proposition and Service Level Agreement drafted in just over two months. It has to be recognised that this money is not large

in relation to the pensioner population so decisions have been difficult, trying to target the right groups in the best

way but not spread the money too thinly nor to end up with a complicated scheme to administer.

T h e re p o r t is about to be lodged through the Finance and Economics Committee, with their comments

to follow so that a debate can take place on 24th April, 2001.

2 .( a )  The proposal, which of course will be subject to States approval, is that the money will initially be

targeted to a group of people over the age of 65 years, resident in Jersey for five years -

giving financial assistance of up to £15 for an eye test and £45 for spectacles every two years, and

u p t o £ 2 2 fo r a dental check and £150 for dental treatment each year.

2. The proposals are that the scheme will be available to those -

 w  it h income above the Health Insurance Exemption level (the Welfare System will cover those

up to and including HIE level)

but below the tax threshold.

In very broad terms, this means single pensioners with incomes of approximately between £7,000 and £12,000 a year and between £12,000 - £19,250 for a couple.

It is also proposed that pensioners with assets (other than their own home) and capital above £30,000 for a married couple and £15,000 for a single pensioner will not be eligible for a subsidy.

(c )  I t is impossible to predict the rate of take-up of any benefit. The proposals are based on an estimated

take-up of around 3,200 pensioners from a potential 5,500 who are likely to be in this category.

I t is a ls o d ifficult to predict whether everyone who claims will use up their full entitlement. The rate at

which dentists and opticians can absorb extra work is also outside our control. Furthermore, the scheme is essentially one that spans a two year period. However, members can be assured that the money will be ring fenced and only used for this purpose.

3 .      B o th I and the President of the Health and Social Services Committee have had a number of meetings

with representatives of Age Concern and have prepared a Service Level Agreement to ensure that the scheme is run professionally in accordance with good practice. Three of the main conditions of any agreement would be that -

it i s a d m  in i st e red efficiently and effectively in line with the parameters agreed by the States;

th e a d m i n is t er ing organisation is perceived to be objective and performs its role in a professional,

timely and confidential manner;

th e r e i s a h i g h take up of subsidies amongst the target group.

 I w o u l d add that it will be for the States to decide on this matter and, if the outsourcing of the

administration to Age Concern were to be approved, it would only be on a pilot basis, initially for one year. The other options are described in the report which the States' members now have but basically the scheme could be outsourced off Island or possibly administered by the Department but the latter would have staffing implications.

4 .    T  he Service Level Agreement is based on a format which has already been through the States' Auditors and we have sent a copy of the current draft to them for comment. I am happy to provide

any States' Member with a copy of the current draft which has been seen by both my Committee and

the Health and Social Services Committee .

5 .  A  s recently as November of last year the States agreed not to provide free, or subsidise the cost of,

television licences for senior citizens. At the same time the States agreed to make funds available to assist with the health care needs of senior citizens, and an aggregate sum of £680,000 was made available in the 2001 budget for this purpose. Proposals for the use and dissemination of these funds have been lodged by my Committee, for debate once they have been considered by the Finance and Economics Committee.

A  s r e g a r ds a winter fuel allowance, this is already available to our most vulnerable pensioners in

receipt of Welfare Grants. Parishes provide help towards the extra cost of heating during periods of very cold weather. I am advised that the Parishes use a formula based on winter temperatures and wind speeds. Using last winter's temperatures and wind speeds as an example, the fuel allowance paid would have totalled £124 for 1999/2000 and £137 for 2000/2001. At the present time my Committee has no plans to bring forward proposals for a winter fuel allowance for other groups of pensioners.

T  h e i n tr o duction of such an allowance, or any such additional benefit, should be viewed against a

background of a much lower rate of Old Age Pension in the United Kingdom, a rate which is only adjusted in line with the retail price index, whereas that in Jersey is now uprated in line with the percentage increase in average earnings. The effect is that in Jersey the standard rate of pension for a married couple is currently £198.38 per week or £10,316 a year, compared with £115.90 per week or £6,027 a year in the United Kingdom. I would stress that this UK rate applies from this April. Our pensioners will get a further increase this October. In addition, Jersey pensioners receive Christmas bonuses of £65.00 a year whereas the UK one has been pegged at £10.00 for many years now.

T h e c u rr e nt policy of the Employment and Social Security Committee, which is derived from the last

review of the Social Security System, is to maintain the real value of pensions rather than allow them to be devalued and then top them up with additional allowances. This only serves to increase administration costs and reduce the amount of money available for redistribution.

W  i th re g a rd to Health Care, the current health insurance scheme covers, on average, 60 per cent of the

cost of visits to the doctor and any prescriptions. The HIE scheme ensures that these services and prescriptions are free for our most needy citizens. The Parish Welfare system covers dental, optical and chiropody costs for those up to HIE level and we are proposing to give some support for dental and optical costs to pensioners above HIE level but below the tax threshold with the £680,000 already voted by the States. Of course, the hospital services are largely free.

T h e S e n a tor, and members, should also appreciate that other sectors of our community may also be

disadvantaged. My Committee, and indeed the States, owe a duty of care to all those groups, as well as to senior citizens. From my Committee's perspective, it is in the area of health care that we believe priority should be given for any additional funding in future. The £680,000 already voted for this year will provide some support for dental and optical costs for around 3,200 pensioners but we believe that additional funding will be needed to expand such a scheme across other lower income groups and improve access to health care generally.

E q u a l l y i mportant will be the issue of sustainability of the whole health and residential care system

over the demographic bulge of pensioners. We have been working with the Health and Social Services Committees in recent years to improve services and address sustainability issues.

 D  is c u s s io ns are currently underway with the Finance and Economics Committee on the terms of

reference for a review of the funding of health care in the Island. In the meantime we are continuing to work with others on a Low Income Support system which will attempt to ensure that pensioners, as well as others, receive a minimum income which relates to their needs.

O  v e ra l l, there are many differences between Jersey and the UK which makes comparison difficult.

For example, tax thresholds here are much higher than those in the UK.

In o u r v iew, as evidenced by these figures, Jersey's senior citizens are not disadvantaged in

comparison with their UK peer group in respect of pensions and allowances. Taking into account any Christmas bonus, winter fuel and TV licence support, a couple, over 75, can get a maximum of £10,381 a year in Jersey compared with £6,341 in the UK, around 61 per cent more. For completeness, a single pensioner over 75 could get £6,278 as opposed to £4,084 in the UK from April, some 65 per cent more."

Purchase of health care services from France and hospital waiting lists - questions and answers (Tape No. 640)

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

"1 .  I n answer to my question on 18th July 2000, the President advised that an approach would be made to

France to investigate the purchase of some of that country's health care services. In view of the fact that the OECD announced last year that France has the best health care in the world, would the President -

( a ) ad v i se members of the progress the Committee has made in making enquiries of the French

health service about buying some of its health care services?

( b ) i f e n quiries have been made, when did he or his officers first make contact?

( c ) a d v is e members of the regions in France or elsewhere with which contact has been made?

2 .  O  n 18th July 2000, I asked the following questions of the President of the Health and Social Services

Committee -

" W  o u ld t he President advise members -

( a ) o f t h e 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 r th o p aedics; (i i) g y n a e cology; (i ii ) u r o lo g y;

(i v ) o p h t h almology; (v ) p h y s io therapy;

a n d w o u l d h e 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."

Would the President -

(a ) g i v e u pdated figures, calculated in the same way as for the answers to my questions on

18th July, and with the July figures shown in brackets so that direct comparison can be made?

(b ) a d v is e what action has been taken since July to bring these figures down?

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

" 1 . For ease of reference, I quote my previous answer to Senator Stein's question of 18th July 2000 in regard to French health care facilities.

T h e O E C D 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. Not withstanding 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 will require a separate funding source'.

(a ) I n i ti a l investigations into the French health care facilities, which are reasonably accessible to

Jersey, began in November 2000. An exploratory report considers the types of facilities, the services they provide, their location and transport links;

(b ) n o c o n tact has been made with French health care providers, as we are not yet in a position

to contract services from them should we wish to do so. The earliest that that could possibly happen would be April 2003 and before that much thought must be given to the logistics of moving any of our established supra-specialist support from the UK;

(c ) t h e i n t elligence that has been gathered relates to the Paris, Normandy and Brittany regions of

France. That is, those areas with whom we have, or might secure, reasonable transport links.

2 . (a) I n m  y re p l y to the question, each of the figures is given for March 2001, followed as

requested by a comparison with the corresponding figure for July 2000.

(i ) T h e  waiting times in respect of orthopaedic surgery are as follows -

  T h e r e a r e   c u rr e n tl y  524 patients listed for surgery (compared to 526 in July 2000); 299

patients have been waiting less than three months (compared to 272), 156 for more than three months but less than six months (compared to 149), 36 less than nine months (compared to 63) and 33 have waited over nine months (compared to 42).

  T h e r e a r e 5 0 3 p e o p le awaiting an outpatient consultation (compared to 417 in July 2000)

and the waiting times vary between one and two weeks for urgent referrals, whilst other patients for non-urgent consultation can wait up to 22-24 weeks (compared to 20-21 weeks)

(i i)          T  h   e waiting times in respect of gynaecological surgery are as follows -

            T h e r e a r e currently 125 patients listed for surgery (compared to 131 in July 2000); 102

patients have been waiting less than three months (compared to 108), 18 for more than three months but less than six months (compared to 15), five more than six months but less than nine months (compared to six) and no patients waiting over nine months (compared to two).

T h e r e a re 2 4 6 p e o ple awaiting an outpatient consultation (compared to 207) and the

waiting times varies between one - two weeks for urgent referrals, whilst other patients for non-urgent consultation can wait up to 11-14 weeks (compared to five - six).

(i ii )        T  h   e waiting times in respect of urological surgery are as follows -

T h e r e   a re   c u r re n t ly 50 patients listed for surgery (compared to 33 in July 2000); 48

patients have been waiting less than three months (compared to 29), two for more than three months but less than six months (compared to three) and there are no patients are currently waiting over six months (compared to one).

  T h e re a re 1 8 1 p e o p l e awaiting an outpatient consultation (compared to 158) and the waiting

times varies between one - two weeks for urgent referrals, whilst other patients for non- urgent consultation can wait up to 24 weeks (compared to 21 weeks).

(i v ) T h  e  waiting times in respect of ophthalmic surgery are as follows -

T h e r e a r e  c u r r e n tl y 191 patients listed for surgery (compared to 132 in July 2000); 111

patients have been waiting less than three months (compared to 50), 74 for more than three months but less than six months (compared to 36), six patients waiting more than six months but less than nine months (compared to 40) and there are no patients currently waiting over nine months (compared to six).

T h e r e a re 3 7 3 p e o ple awaiting an outpatient consultation (compared to 232) and the

waiting times varies between one - two weeks for urgent referrals, whilst other patients for non-urgent consultation can wait up to 27 weeks (compared to nine - 19 weeks).

(v ) T h e waiting times in respect of physiotherapy are as follows -

F o u r   c a t eg  o  r i e s   o  f service are provided. Accident and Emergency patients are seen

immediately or within 36 hours or referral. Patients newly out of plaster are seen on the same day. The orthopaedic fast track service currently has 16 patients (compared to 24 in July 2000) who will be treated within three - four weeks (which compares with three - four weeks also in July 2000). There are currently 15 non-urgent physiotherapy patients (compared to 19) who will be seen within a one - two week period (compared to one - three weeks in July 2000);

(b ) a number of initiatives have been pursued, since July 2000, to improve waiting times wherever

possible. In addition to the specific measures, which I will outline later, I can confirm that action has been taken to make more effective use of beds within the service. This has involved improved co-ordination of admission and discharge arrangements, as well as contracting some convalescent beds, over the winter period, from the private sector.

In c o n s e q u e nce, we have succeeded in significantly reducing the number of medical patients who

would otherwise have spilled-over into surgical beds and have come through the period of winter pressures without cancelling elective surgical procedures because of a lack of beds.

A m e d i c a l m anpower strategy has been completed and I can confirm that, in order to continue to

achieve acceptable waiting times, all the specialities which have been identified by the Senator will require additional manpower. My Committee is due to consider this Medical Manpower strategy at an all-day meeting in May and there is no doubt that significant additional resources will need to be sought. I hope that my Committee will be able to rely on this Assembly to support these developments when it considers the Health and Social Services strategy for 2001-2005.

T h e p o s i ti o n , in relation to the individual specialties identified is as follows - O r t h o p a e d i cs

A  c o m  p a ri s on of the current figures with the figures in July 2000 represents an approximate improvement of 35 per cent in the number of people waiting over six months for non-urgent

surgery.

T h e w a it i n g time for non-urgent out-patient appointments has increased by 20 per cent however,

this is because the number of outpatient consultations has been increasing throughout the year, and January 2001 showed a 15 per cent rise in the number of out-patient attendances compared with the same period last year.

G y n a e c o l o g y

A c o m  p a ri s on of the current figures with the figures in July 2000 represents a five per cent

reduction in the number of patients waiting for non-urgent surgery and an overall improvement in waiting list times.

T h e 1 9 p e r cent increase in the number of out-patients waiting is due to an overall increase in

number of out-patient referrals.

U r o l o g y

A   c o m p a r is o n of the current numbers with the figures in July 2000 indicates a 51 per cent increase

to 50 patients currently on the waiting list for non-urgent surgery, but only two of these are waiting over three  months.

T h e r e i s a ls o a 15 per cent rise in the number of people awaiting out-patient consultations and an

increase in the length of time they wait for an appointment. In order to reduce these waiting times, we are currently re-allocating general surgery referrals between both consultants in this Department. The Out-Patients Department is also in the early stages of developing a new impotence service which will alleviate some pressure from this service.

O p h t h a l m o  l ogy

A   c o m p a r i so n of the current figures with those of July 2000 shows a 45 per cent increase in the

number of patients waiting for surgery, but the number of people waiting six months or over has been improved by 87 per cent to only six patients.

T h e re is a ls o a 61 per cent increase in the number of people awaiting out-patient appointments and

an increase in the length of time they have to wait. In response to this significant rise in workload, my Committee has recently approved the appointment of a locum ophthalmic doctor, pending the creation of a substantive post, to support the Ophthalmic Service particularly in the outpatient setting.

P h y s io t h e r a py

W h il s t  th e r e  is no significant difference in this service, the waiting times for the fast-track service

will fluctuate depending upon the level of referrals. A back exercise group is being piloted to improve the efficiency and throughput of this significant group of patients.

In c o n clusion, I wish to commend the medical, nursing and other clinical staff for continuing to work

harder to achieve even higher levels of activity. Over the last year, total out-patients attendances have increased by six per cent, and seven per cent more in-patients were admitted to the General Hospital. But the number of patients referred for treatment continues to rise and although we have been able to contain, and in many areas reduce waiting times for now, the only solution in the long-term is further significant investment in the health service."

Census - question and answer (Tape No. 640)

The Deputy of St. John asked Deputy Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf of St. Helier, President of the Etat Civil Committee, the following question -

" (a ) Would the President confirm that all households had received a census form by Sunday 11th March in view of the fact that the Committee emphasized that the form had to be completed that day?

(b ) if the answer to (a) is in the negative, would the President explain why?

( c) given that many forms were returned prior to census day, would the President advise whether the Committee is satisfied that the information supplied in the forms will be an accurate record?

( d ) would the President explain to members how the enumerators were recruited and confirm the

remuneration offered and the number of hours' work required, including attendance at pre-census briefings?"

The President of the Etat Civil Committee replied as follows -

" (a ) The enumerators' task of delivery of forms was completed on Wednesday 14th March. This was three days after Census day. Subsequently, the Census office has received a small number of calls from householders who required census forms. These were due to either the form delivered having been mislaid or damaged or the householder not having received a form, or a sufficient number of forms, in the first place.

I rr e s p e c tive of the date of delivery of forms, it is important to bear in mind that the Census Form  has to

be completed in respect of, not on, March 11th. The detailed guidance notes as well as the various media releases make this point very clear. Notwithstanding this, the Committee is conscious that not everyone is able to complete their form that day, for many valid reasons. One of those could be not having a form to complete. The due date for return of forms was 19th March;

(b ) the delays arose for a number of reasons. For example, due to an outbreak of 'flu in the Island we

encountered an unexpectedly high level of sickness in our enumerators. As members will also be aware we had to redeploy enumerators who live or work on premises with livestock. We also had to make time-consuming arrangements to avoid any enumerator going onto livestock premises. These factors, together with an already stretched Census team did contribute to delays in the distribution of forms. At all times we kept the Island community informed of progress through numerous media releases and statements.

M  o s t s ig nificantly, our team of enumerators have located a substantially larger number of households

than could have been expected from the estimated increase in population. This shows that our enumerators have seized our groundbreaking seek out and find' approach. This in turn is likely to mean that we have identified a higher proportion of households than ever before and the degree of under-enumeration is lower. I want to take this opportunity of publicly thanking our enumerators for doing such a thorough and diligent job, in sometimes difficult circumstances;

(c ) the question mentions that many' forms were returned before Census Day. The Census Office has

reported that just over 10 per cent of forms were returned before March 11th. We are quite happy that forms completed a day or two before will not affect the inevitable small degree of inaccuracy in the final result. It is obvious that the forms submitted one or two days before were completed as at Census night. The only risk is that someone included as being present on Census day died unexpectedly in the intervening couple of days or a baby was born prematurely. I have checked with the Superintendent Registrar and he estimates that there were some five deaths and nine births in St. Helier over the three days up to Census night. To put it plainly, so few of these will have been missed because forms were returned early that any distortion of the statistics will be insignificant. Another minor statistical factor of which we are aware but is not worth pursuing is the few deaths occurring after Census Day relating to persons alive on Census Day, whose returns are never received. These matters will be taken into consideration when the final estimate of the extent of under-enumeration is prepared;

(d ) I am surprised that the Deputy is taking this Assembly's time with a question which I have already

answered to him personally. Census Enumerators are not paid a rate per hour but a fee for carrying out the task (plus expenses). The enumeration of additional households and other performance over and above the basic requirement will be recognised by payment of bonuses. In our opinion, the basic fee is commensurate with the task and there is no conflict with States' policy on fair pay. In fact many of the enumerators were willing to take on the task due to the flexibility of the times over which they could perform the task.

T h e r e cr uitment process, as for practically all States' positions, was through advertising in the media,

written  application,  interview  and  assessment.  BBC  Radio  Jersey  played  a  valuable  role  in  our recruitment drive. Parish Connétable s were consulted before appointments were confirmed. If any member wishes to have details of the remuneration of enumerators I will be happy to provide the information in confidence."

Condition of roads and footpaths - question and answer (Tape No. 640)

The Deputy of St. John asked Deputy Alan Simon Crowcroft of St. Helier , President of the Public Services Committee the following question -

" G  iven that the Committee has responsibility for the maintenance of 160 miles of road and associated foot paths and that many of the roads are at the end of their useful life as they need re-surfacing, or in some cases reconstruction, would the President -

(a ) g ive members details of the proposed works programme for the next five years to bring our roads

back into a condition that is acceptable to the tax-payer?

(b ) i n dicate how many miles of roads are proposed to be re-surfaced annually?

(c ) a d vise members whether the Committee intends to lodge au Greffe' a report and proposition on the

principle of an accelerated road refurbishment programme in order that the Assembly may debate this matter?"

The President of the Public Services Committee replied as follows -

" ( a) The following table outlines the expected area of carriageway that is planned for resurfacing, within the Committee's approved cash limits and the area that would be re-surfaced if an additional request already submitted to the Finance and Economics Committee was to be granted.

R e s u rf acing the areas of carriageway outlined above will -

R e s u r facing the areas of carriageway outlined above will not return the roads to what many would

consider an acceptable condition within a period of five years. It would be necessary to resurface 120,000 square metres of carriageway each year for a period of eight years and then maintain 80,000 square metres a year thereafter, to achieve an average 20 years between resurfacings;

( b ) the figure in brackets in the above table indicates the equivalent length of roads, in miles, that would be

resurfaced (assuming roads of an average 6 metres width);

( c ) the Committee has been discussing means of increasing investment in the road infrastructure with the

relevant Committees. It is not merely a matter of resurfacing roads but in a number of cases, totally reconstructing roads and the structures such as walls and embankments that support them. It is the Committee's intention to carry out a comprehensive survey  of the main roads to determine more accurately their condition. The results of the survey will allow the Committee to select the appropriate treatment for each area of road and target expenditure to ensure effective use of the funds.  While these discussions continue and progress positively, as is the case at present, I see no reason to lodge a report and proposition on this matter."

The Cavern and the tanker service - questions and answers (Tape No. 640)

The Deputy of St. John asked Deputy Alan Simon Crowcroft of St. Helier , President of the Public Services Committee, the following questions -

" 1 . In the President's reply to my questions on 13th March 2001 as to who was responsible for cleaning unsightly mess following spills from the cavern outfall, the President claimed that the Harbour Office had specialist marine equipment. Would he give members details -

( a ) o f the equipment;

( b ) o n how long it has been in the Island;

( c ) o f those trained as operators;

a n d a d v i se whether the staff at the Harbour Office are aware that this equipment is available? 2 . Given the high rainfall over the recent winters would the President advise -

( a ) w hether the Committee intends lodging a report and proposition on a free tanker service for the

many households unable to be connected to a mains sewer network, bearing in mind that these households may all be tax payers and should not expect to pay twice for a service when the majority of households have their sewage removed at no extra cost?

( b ) If the answer to (a) is in the negative, would he give a reason why not?" The President of the Public Services Committee replied as follows -

" 1 . As part of the Harbours Environmental Audit plan, a water sampling programme is in place and sampling was carried out in the Elizabeth Marina just 24 hours after the last cavern overflow. The results indicated that the water quality was within EC Bathing Water limits. The effluent discharging from the outfall may equally enter the Elizabeth Marina or La Collette yacht basin depending on tidal conditions prevailing at the time. As the discharge was for a prolonged period until the cavern started to pump out, it is likely that the effluent also entered the Elizabeth Marina.

T h e H a rbours Department Marina staff undertake regular patrols of the marinas and remove any floating debris that may have accumulated in the corners as a result of tidal movement and use marina