States Minutes 9th October 2001

THE STATES assembled on Tuesday, 9th October 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 Corrie Stein - out of the Island

F r ancis Herbert Amy, Connétable of Grouville - out of the Island K e nneth Priaulx Vibert , Connétable of St. Ouen - out of the Island T e rrence John Le Main, Deputy of St. Helier - ill

Prayers

Subordinate legislation tabled

The following enactments were laid before the States, namely -

R o y al Court (Amendment No.  16) Rules 2001. R  &  O  138/2001.

Inq  uests and Post-Mortem Examinations (Amendment No.  3) (Jersey) Rules 2001. R & O 139/2001. D is e ases of Animals (Foot and Mouth - Restrictions No.  1D) (Jersey) Order 2001. R & O 140/2001.

Public Services Committee - resignation of member

THE STATES noted the resignation of Deputy Judith Ann Martin of St. Helier from the Public Services Committee.

Matters presented

The following matters were presented to the States -

Draft Public Elections (Jersey) Law 200- (P.132/2001): comments - P.132/2001 Com.(2). P r esented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Ma npower report for the period 1st April 2001 to 30th June 2001 - R.C.34/2001.

Presented by the Industries Committee.

Introduction of work permits (P.107/2000): comments - P.107/2000 Com.

Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

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

Matters noted - land transactions

THE STATES noted an Act of the Finance and Economics Committee dated 17th September 2001 recording the following decision of the Treasurer of the States under delegated powers, in pursuance of Standing Orders relating to certain transactions in land -

a s recommended by the Health and Social Services Committee, the lease to Mrs. Gillian Chapman, née

Plume, Assistant Personnel Officer, of the property known as Flat 3, Le Boulevard, La Grande Route des Sablons, Grouville , for a period of three years deemed to have commenced on 1st September 2001, at an annual rent of £9,500, subject to annual rent increases in line with the Jersey Retail Price Index, on the basis that the tenant would be responsible for the full rent and all services, occupier rates and utilities to the property, with each party being responsible for its own legal costs arising from this transaction.

Matters noted - acceptance of tender

THE STATES noted an Act of the Finance and Economics Committee dated 1st October 2001, showing that, in pursuance of Rule 5 of the Public Finances (General) (Jersey) Rules 1967, as amended, the Committee had noted that -

( a ) th e Public Services Committee had accepted the lowest tender received in respect of the surface water

sewer at Grands Vaux School, namely that submitted by P. Trant (Jersey) Limited, in the sum of £248,917.40;

( b ) th e Education Committee had accepted the lowest fixed price tender for the school element of the

development of Hautlieu School, St. Saviour, namely that submitted by Charles Le Quesne (1956) Limited, in the reduced sum of £13,887,505.25 for a contract period of 112 weeks.

Matters lodged

The following matters were lodged "au Greffe" -

D  ra ft Parish Rate (Administration) (Jersey) Law 200- P.143/2001.

Presented by the Legislation Committee.

D  ra ft Piercing and Tattooing (Jersey) Law 200- P.144/2001.

Presented by the Health and Social Services Committee.

Draft Health Care (Registration) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 200- P.145/2001.

Presented by the Health and Social Services Committee.

Machinery of Government Implementation Plan: Special Committee - P.146/2001.

Presented by Senator J.A. Le Maistre.

Constitution and membership of the States: referendum - P.147/2001.

P r esented by Senator P.V.F. Le Claire.

C  o mmittee of Inquiry: procedures for recruitment of Honorary Police Officers - appointment of members -

P.148/2001.

P r esented by Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour.

The following matters were lodged on 2nd October 2001 -

Draft Fishing Vessels (Safety Training) (Jersey) Regulations 200- P.140/2001. P r esented by the Harbours and Airport Committee.

Draft Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000 (Appointed Day) Act 200- P.141/2001. P r esented by the Home Affairs Committee.

Draft Firearms (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 2000 (Appointed Day) Act 200- P.142/2000. P r esented by the Home Affairs Committee.

Cancellation of meeting

THE STATES decided not to meet on 16th October 2001, and accordingly agreed that their next meeting would be held on 23rd October 2001.

Arrangement of public business for the meeting on 23rd October 2001

THE STATES confirmed that the following matters lodged "au Greffe" would be considered at the next meeting on 23rd October 2001 -

S t abilisation of Property Price s and the Provision of Affordable Residential Accommodation - P.68/2001.

L o dged: 24th April 2001 and referred to the Policy and Resources Committee to co-ordinate responses from

all relevant Committees.

D  e puty A. Breckon of St. Saviour .

S t abilisation of Property Price s and the Provision of Affordable Residential Accommodation (P.68/2001):

comments - P.68/2001 Com.

P r esented: 4th September 2001.

F i nance and Economics Committee.

J e rsey Child Care Trust: five year strategy (2002-2006) and the provision of funding - P.121/2001. L o dged: 31st July 2001.

E d ucation Committee.

D  r aft Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000 (Appointed Day) Act 200- P.141/2001. L o dged: 2nd October 2001.

H  o  me Affairs Committee.

D  r aft Firearms (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 2000 (Appointed Day) Act 200- P.142/2001. L o dged: 2nd October 2001.

H  o  me Affairs Committee.

D  r aft Health Care (Registration) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 200- P.145/2001. L o dged: 9th October 2001.

H  e alth and Social Services Committee.

Pension enhancement for civil servants - questions and answers (Tape No. 684)

The Deputy of St. John asked Deputy Jeremy Laurence Dorey of St. Helier, President of the Human Resources Committee, the following questions -

" 1 . W ill the President inform members in the last three years how many Committees have applied for pension enhancement for employees to take early retirement and give details of the Committees concerned and number of employees involved and total monies paid out?

2 . C  an the President explain what principles his Committee applies in deciding whether to sanction any

enhancement of pension for staff retiring from the public service?"

The President of the Human Resources Committee replied as follows -

1 . I can advise members that six employees of the States of Jersey, each having worked in a different

service area, received an enhancement to their pension in the last three years. In some cases, the individuals retired after the age of 60 (optional retirement age), whereas in others they were allowed to retire early. The total cost associated with both of these elements, namely early retirement and the enhancement of pension, was £487,930.91. (£148,292 of this cost was associated with paying the individuals' pensions early and the remaining £339,638.91 was associated with enhancing their pension entitlements.)

I f e e l t h at it is inappropriate to provide the specific details of Committees requesting the enhancements

as it would be possible to identify the individuals concerned if such information was publicised. The duty of care to present and former employees, I believe, must override any public interest involved in being able to identify those individuals.

2 . T h ere are few cases of pension enhancement for staff retiring from the public service, and the present

Committee has not so far needed to consider any such applications.

W  h e r e s uch applications have been considered in the past, it would appear that no consistent criteria

have been used. Rather, each application has been considered on its own merits.

A   n u m b er of factors would appear to have influenced the Committee's decision in each case. These

have included -

w h e t h e r it is necessary to attract a particular person, with rare but vital skills, by offering future

enhanced pension entitlement at the time that they are recruited;

c as e s o f lo n g and particularly distinguished service;

c a se s w h e r e a n employee is required to vacate his post, through no fault of his own, for senior

management succession purposes.

 I a m g r ateful to the Deputy for his question, which raises an important issue. Since assuming the

Presidency of the Human Resources Committee, I have already formed the view that the Committee needs to reconsider the circumstances in which pension enhancements may be deemed appropriate. In particular, there seems to be a significant danger, under the arrangements hitherto, that individuals with the benefit of strong political support could receive a major financial advantage which would not be available to other individuals with equally long and distinguished careers.

T h e A u dit and Risk Management Division is presently reviewing the Voluntary Redundancy and

Voluntary Early Retirement Schemes. I have requested them, and it has been agreed, to include in their review the specific  question of pension enhancement arrangements, and the  adequacy of current criteria."

Fields 131 and 131A, St. Clement - question and answer (Tape No. 684)

The Deputy of St. John asked Senator Nigel Lewis Quérée, President of the Planning and Environment Committee, the following question -

" O n 2nd August 2001 the Committee approved a payment in the sum of £30,000 in respect of Fairview Farm Limited, the tenant of fields 131 and 131A, La Rue du Pontliétaut, St. Clement, for the loss of crops. Will the President explain -

( a ) w hy compensation is to be paid on completion of sale of land when it is not known when this land will

be purchased as no agreement has been reached with the landowners?

( b )

if the tenant is no longer the same tenant at the time of passing contract, will the £30,000 still be paid to Fairview

Farm Limited. given that a compensation package has been agreed?

(c) whether the Committee is satisfied that it is appropriate to deal with a tenant prior to negotiating the purchase of land from the farmer, thereby denying the owner income from the tenant for the land until the land is purchased and will the department pay compensation to the owner in the event that a land transaction does not happen?"

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

" (a ) On 20th June 2000, the States approved the purchase of Fields 131 and 131A, La Rue du Pontliétaut, St.  Clement (P.88/2000) and agreed that, in the event of it not being possible to reach agreement on a fair and proper price, the Planning and Environment Committee should be empowered to acquire this land by compulsory purchase on behalf of the public in accordance with the provisions of the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1961, as amended.

A  s i t h a s to date not been possible to reach agreement with the owners for the purchase of the land,

and the Education Committee wishes to proceed with the construction of the school playing fields as a matter of urgency (confirmed at their meeting on 17th January 2001), the Planning and Environment Committee instructed the Greffier of the States to proceed in issuing the appropriate notices for compulsory purchase of the land and any interest therein in accordance with the procedures set out in the Law.

N  o ti c e o f the intention to purchase the land by compulsory purchase was issued on the owners of the

land and the tenant, Fairview Farms Limited, on 31st May 2001. This first notice requires those with an interest in the land to advise within 28 days the compensation which they require in the event of vesting in the public ownership. The tenant, Fairview Farms Limited, responded within the prescribed period advising that it would be prepared to accept £30,000 for its interest in the land. This figure represents due and fair compensation for losses incurred including the costs of lifting a daffodil crop one year earlier than anticipated, replanting in another location, loss of flower income and the labour and administration costs. The acceptance of this figure by the Planning and Environment Committee has been agreed in consultation with the Agriculture and Fisheries and Education Departments and in accordance with procedural advice from the Law Officers' Department. This compensation is only payable once the land is vested in the public.

( b ) The Planning and Environment Committee is not aware of the specific terms of the tenancy

agreement which has been agreed between the landowners and Fairview Farms Limited, or the arrangements which have been made for the payment of rent. As far as it is known, Fairview Farms Limited remains the tenant of the landowners until the date of vesting or until such time that the two parties reach agreement for the termination of the lease arrangement. The tenant company made the decision to lift the bulb crop in July to co-operate with the anticipated date of the public acquiring the land and also to fulfil its own requirements in meeting the lifting/planting/ growing cycle for the daffodil crop.

T h e £ 3 0 ,0 00 agreed as compensation for the tenants' interest is completely separate from the amount

which will eventually be paid to the landowners for the two fields, whether it be by amicable agreement or as determined by an Arbitration Panel set up under the procedures for the compulsory purchase of land.

( c) With the advice of the Law Officers' Department, the Planning and Environment Committee has

followed the procedures set out for the compulsory purchase of land in the Compulsory Purchase of Land

(Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1961, as amended.

T  h e l a n d owners and their legal advisers were aware of the discussions that have taken place with

Fairview Farms Limited, prior to the issue of the compulsory purchase notices, regarding its interest in the land. These were initiated with a view to securing the land in accordance with the Education Committee's original timescale of the end of July 2001.

I t is n o t in tended for the landowner to be inequitably denied income that would be due from the tenant

until the vesting date. The Committee is not aware of any arrangements for the termination of the tenancy prior to the vesting date which is a matter to be agreed between the landowners and Fairview Farms Limited, as is any arrangement which might be made for the payment of rent by the tenant.

T h e C o m mittee has instructed the Greffier of the States to proceed with the final stage of the

compulsory purchase procedures, which requires the serving of a notice of the intention to request the Royal Court to vest the land in the public on a certain date in the very near future. Any compensation payable in acquiring the land in the absence of mutual agreement with the landowners, will be determined by the Arbitration Panel. It is not envisaged that, having already been agreed by the States, the land transaction will not proceed."

Mont Orgueil Castle - questions and answers (Tape No. 684)

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

" O n 31st August, 2000 the Planning and Building Services Department received an application from the Jersey Heritage Trust for, among other things, the erection of two site huts at Mont Orgueil Castle. Approval was granted on 13th September 2000.

1 . C an the President confirm -

( a ) th a t t he first hut was erected and the site cleared for the second one before 11th July 2000 - some

two months before approval was granted, and six weeks before the application was received?

( b ) t h a t the Storage Area, the site for the second hut, is an area that is believed to be unstable and

could present a danger to people working there?

2 . I n view of previous assurances given to Members that no retrospective planning applications had

been made for the current work, would the President undertake to monitor work at Mont Orgueil Castle more closely in the future?

3 . W ould the President explain why the Committee has not decided to designate the Castle as a Site of

Special Interest, and will he give an undertaking that the omission will be rectified as soon as possible?"

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

" 1 ( a ) I can confirm that the first temporary site hut was erected and the site cleared for the second one before 11th July 2000. However, temporary site works in relation to building projects are usually treated as Exempt Development which do not require planning permission. Jersey Heritage Trust would have had no reason to assume otherwise at that time. Alert to the sensitivity and importance of the Mont Orgueil project, the Committee decided to request an application for these temporary works in order to formalise this matter, to provide the opportunity for public comment and enable the Committee to specify by condition the date by which the site huts and the hoist and bridge structure are to be removed (31st March 2004). An

application was made by the Trust on 14th July but due to requests by the department for additional information

regarding the works, it was not formally validated until 31st August. Conditional permission was granted on 13th September 2000.

( b ) I f th e Deputy is referring to the site where the second hut is currently located (to the south side of

the Castle below Prynne's Tower) I have been advised that the Jersey Heritage Trust commissioned a geotechnical survey of this area after the heavy rains of last winter which concluded that there were signs of the onset of instability. If the Deputy is referring to the proposed new location of the second hut, I am aware of some concerns raised by a member of the public about the stability of this area and these concerns will be investigated before a decision is made on this matter.

2 . A ll works at the castle continue to be carefully monitored; at present this is limited to archaeological

investigation and the repair of the Medieval Great Hall roof.

3 . T he Committee is currently in the process of designating 48 of the most important archaeological

sites in Jersey as Sites of Special Interest (SSI). These include Mont Orgueil Castle and the adjacent Castle Green. A protocol has been agreed between the Committee and the Jersey Heritage Trust by which both parties have undertaken to treat the Castle as if it were already a designated SSI.

Aid to farm holdings - questions and answers (Tape No. 684)

The Deputy of St. Peter asked Senator Jean Amy Le Maistre, President of the Agriculture and Fisheries Committee, the following questions -

" W ould the President -

( a )  i nform the Assembly of the number of separately-owned farm holdings receiving direct or indirect aid

from the States in 2001? Are any not receiving any aid?

( b )  i ndicate the number of these holdings by size - ( i) 5 0 vergées and below;

( ii ) 5 1 - 200 vergées;

( ii i) 2 01 vergées and above?

a n d in dicate which type of farming they are engaged in: e.g. outdoor crops, dairying,

glasshouses/protected crops or joint (in the latter case indicating the combination) -

( c )  s how for each of the categories (i), (ii) and (iii) above the average total direct and indirect aid received

in 2000 and to be received in 2001?

( d )  i nform the Assembly what number of vergées is owned by the above holdings and/or any of the owners

of the above holdings?"

The President of the Agriculture and Fisheries Committee replied as follows -

" ( a) The information for 2001 will be available only when all claims have been submitted and payments made. For this reason, information is provided for 2000 and, where possible, to date for 2001. In 2000 there were 385 holdings. Insofar as aid is concerned, indirect aid is available to all holdings but may be taken up in many different forms e.g. soil sampling, advice and information, the use of laboratory resources, disease/pest diagnosis, use of the abattoir etc. I am not aware of any unit which does not receive indirect aid of some form.

( b )  F rom the 2000 agricultural census, there were 265 holdings of 50 vergées and below, 63 holdings of 51

to 200 vergées and 57 holdings of over 200 vergées.

O  f t h e 2 65 holdings of one to 50 vergées, 200 were arable only, four were arable and dairy, 15 were

arable and protected crops, 15 were dairy only and 31 were protected crops only. Protected crops include crops grown under glass and plastic.

O  f th e 6 3 holdings of 51 to 200 vergées, 33 were arable only, six were arable and dairy, 11 were arable

and protected crops, and 12 were dairy only.

O  f th e 5 7 holdings of over 200 vergées, 18 were arable only, 13 were arable and dairy, 14 were arable

and protected crops and 12 were dairy only. There were no holdings with protected crops only.

( c )  F or the year 2001 the figures are not yet complete so I can only give the year to date. Insofar as indirect

aid is concerned, this cannot be set against individuals or groups of individuals because a range of services is available for every holding to use and there is no means of measuring the cost of indirect services received. In 2000 the total cost of indirect aid was £4,489,000 and for the year 2001 the budget is £4,750,860.

D  ir e c t a id includes Enterprise Support, Interest Subsidies, Lime, Anti-blight Subsidy and Potato Cyst

Nematode Subsidy. The figures presented given do not include aid to the dairy industry paid in the form of a Seasonality Subsidy. This subsidy is paid out through Jersey Milk and in both 2000 and 2001 amounted to £904,000. Jersey Milk does not have readily available the cumulative amount paid to each milk producer. This information could be obtained given adequate notice. As a guide, the seasonality payments amount to approximately £200 per cow on average, but the gross amount actually received by a holding depends on the size of the herd, the level of yield per cow and the seasonality of production.

D  ir e c t a id

2000 (£ per  1 t o 50  5 1 to 200v M o re than 200v     h o ld i n g )   v e r g ée s

    Ar a b le    1 0 9 3 , 850     2 2 ,795

    Ar a b le / d ai r y   8 4   9 2 1   4 , 2 30

    Ar a b le / P ro t ected  5,732   1 9 ,581   2 3 ,042

    Da ir y (e x c l uding

      se  a so n a l it y)     1 0   9 5   7 7     P ro t e c te d   1 4 , 0 28 -       -  

2000 (£ per    1 to 50v  5 1 to 200v M o re than 200v     ar e a c a t e g o ry)

    Ar a b le    2 1 , 8 0 0 1 27,050    4 1 0 ,3 1 0       Ar a b le / d ai r y    3 3 6     5 526      1 8 4 ,9 9 0       Ar a b le / P ro t ected   8 5,980    21,5391   3 2 2 , 5 8 8     Da ir y (e x c l uding

      se  a so n a l it y)        1 50     1 ,140   9 2 4     P ro t e c te d   4 3 4 ,868     -      -  

      T o ta l s    5 4 3 ,134    349,107   1 8 , 8 1 2       Av e r ag e per

       h o ld i ng  2 , 049     5 , 541     1 6 ,1 1 9

Ye a r t o d a te 2001 (£ p e r h o ld i ng)

Ar a b le     1 7     1 , 929     1 6 ,6 2 0 Ar a b le / d ai r y     8      6 5 5     1 2 ,1 7 2 Ar a b le / P ro t ected   2 , 958     1 0,145     1 5 ,9 6 4 Da ir y (e x c l uding

se a so n a l it y) 1 4 1 1 2 4 6 P ro t e c te d 1 1 ,443 - -

( d ) I have interpreted the question to mean how many vergées are included in the holdings that are owned

by the occupier?' For clarity I have also included below the total area of land included in the holdings.

H  o ld i n g s owned by the occupier

1 t o 5 0 5 1 to 200     M o r e t han

v e rg é e s v e rgées     2 0 0 v e r gées

N  o . o f A re a N o . o f    A re a  N o. of   A r ea

h o l d in g s o w n e d h o ld ings owned h oldings owned

A r a b le 1 8 4 1 ,242.75 28 7 7 5 .5 1 5 806.5

      A r a b le / d a ir y         3 5 4 . 2 5     5   2 0 4         1 1 6 3 8 .5

      A r a b le /  

p r o te c t e d 1 2 2 6 2 1 1 3 7 8 1 1 1 ,468.25

      D a i ry   9   2 0 2 .25         1 0 4 3 8 . 7 5            9  6 9 3

      P ro t e c te d  24   2 5 0 .25                -             -     - -

T o t a l a re a of the holdings

1 t o 5 0 5 1 t o 200    M  o r e than

v e rg é e s v e rgées     2 0 0 v e rgées

N  o . o f A re a N o . o f    A r ea   N o. of   A  re a H  o ld i n g s     H o ld i n gs      H o l d in g s

A r a b le 2 00 2 ,401 3 3 2 , 889 1 8 8 ,220.75

      A r a b le /  

        d a i ry    4 1 5 5.75         6 8 0 5 .5       1 3 6 ,042

      A r a b le    

p r o te c t e d 1 5 4 5 7.5 1 1 1 ,2 82 1 4 6 , 0 15

      D a i ry   1 5   4 3 5.25         1 2 1 ,4 9 7 . 75         1 2 3 , 5 53

      P ro t e c te d    3 3 7 5.25         - -        - -  

F o r p r o t ected crops, it is not possible to present information other than for the 1 to 50 vergées category

without revealing sensitive and commercial information about individual holdings.

Payments to OXERA consultants - question and answer (Tape No. 684)

Senator Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire asked Senator Pierre François Horsfall, President of the Policy and Resources Committee, the following question -

" I n the light of the President's response to my question of 18th September 2001 in which he referred to a total of £418,700 being paid to economic advisers OXERA, can he state -

( a ) w hether he is aware of a memorandum written by his Department's Economic Advisor and dated 9th

August 2001 which indicates that OXERA will be paid a total of £700,000 or thereabouts in 2001 for work done for the Policy and Resources, the Finance and Economics and the Industries Committees?

( b ) w hether he can confirm the above anticipated costs for 2001?" The President of the Policy and Resources Committee replied as follows -

F i rstly I wish to confirm that the figures given in my reply to the question of 18th September 2001 are

correct.

T h e figures in the memo dated 9th August referred to in this new question included parcels of potential work

emanating from other committees. In the event, these projects are not proceeding at this time in the manner contemplated in August so the memo was overtaken by events and never formally discussed.

I t should be noted that it is possible that during the remaining three months of the year more work could be

requested by other committees, to be paid for out of their own budgets."

5 year rule - questions and answers (Tape No. 684)

Senator Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire asked Deputy Maurice François Dubras of St. Lawrence, President of the Industries Committee, the following questions -

" 1 . T he States agreed to introduce policies to curtail the workforce by approving amendments to the Regulations of Undertakings and Development (Jersey) Law 1978 on 3rd February 1993 in respect of the five year rule and by restricting the number of staff a business can employ so as to stop further expansion of the Island's workforce. Would the President confirm, from the years 1993 up to and including 2001 the details of -

(a ) th e numbers of posts granted to the Island businesses for employees with over five years'

residence and secondly the figures for those with less than five years' residence from 1993 up to and including 2001?

( b ) h o w many new businesses have been approved in the last three years and how many employees

with over five years' residence and with less than five years' residence have been agreed for these businesses?

( c ) c a n the President advise if his Committee keeps any details of share transfer businesses sold to

outside companies interests, if so can he give the details. If the answer is in the negative, why does his Committee not have this kind of information?

 2 .  C  an the President confirm that he and the Committee are seeking to persuade the Home Affairs

Committee to allow 1,000 workers, and in some cases their dependants and family, from outside the European Union to service the increasingly manpower-hungry service industries?"

The President of the Industries Committee replied as follows -

1 . ( a ) & (b)

M y C o m mittee welcomes the opportunity to answer questions on the Regulation of Undertakings and

Development (Jersey) Law 1973, as amended (RUDL'). Before answering the specific questions, it is important to clarify the purpose of the 1993 amendments. The purpose was not to curtail the workforce, but to loosen controls in a period of relatively high local unemployment. Before 1993, consent was required for all increases in staff. The amendments agreed by the States on 3rd February 1993 meant that from that time consent was required to engage additional staff only for those persons who had not been resident in the Island for five years. No applications were required where increases in staff numbers were met by persons who had been resident here for at least five years. Moreover, the 1993 amendments also enabled a vacancy to be filled by anyone if the position had previously been occupied and had been vacant for less than 12 months.

D  u ri n g the Strategic Policy Review debate in November 1997, the States requested the Finance and

Economics Committee to take the necessary steps to tighten up the Law, including the reintroduction of the requirement that all increases in staff numbers would be subject to licence. As a result, the 1993 exemptions relating to those persons ordinarily resident for five years and those persons qualified' under the Housing Regulations were both removed effective 1st June 1998.

F u rt h e r more, and most importantly, at the same time a loophole' was closed as the exemption

regarding the filling of a vacancy was amended to apply only to those persons ordinarily resident for five years and those persons qualified' under the Housing Regulations. (The period for which a vacancy could be retained was also reduced from 12 to six months).

T  u rn i n g to the specific questions, I propose to take (a) and (b) together. From 1993 until June 1998

RUDL applications were not required by the Finance and Economics Committee in respect of persons who had been resident in the Island for more than five years. Hence no specific information is available for that period.

F o r th e period since June 1998 I have attached as Appendices 1 and 2 data up to June 2001 on new

licences granted, additional staff granted to existing undertakings and the number of staff permitted under three year licences which have been agreed. The tables also provide a breakdown of locally qualified and non-locally qualified staff. Data in this form is designed to capture all the main trends.

I h a v e a lso attached as Appendix 3 the definition of locally qualified' agreed by the States in June

1999.

I s h o u l d add, however, that current policy, set out in 1998 by the Finance and Economics Committee,

states that while applications must be made for local staff in respect of existing undertakings, they should be granted. This is in line with States objectives to ensure full employment of the resident population, the full development of their skill potential and the need to maintain a range of job opportunities for local residents. So in this respect the tightening' agreed in 1998 has rightly focused on the non-locally qualified together with new, as opposed to existing, undertakings. The key point to stress is that the apparently large rise in staff numbers in the mid-1990s came in the period after the States' decision on the 1993 amendments.

( c )  T he information requested is not available because it has never been a requirement of RUDL for such

information to be provided by licensees. I understand that beneficial ownership information is a requirement of company registration but that is a matter for the Financial Services Commission, not the Industries Committee.

H  o w e v e r, under the policy established in June 1998 a standard condition of all RUDL licences, is that

any change in the beneficial ownership of an undertaking that is licensed requires prior consent of the Committee. Where an overseas undertaking sets up in the Island through acquisition of an existing undertaking, any subsequent application for staff is considered as if the application was in respect of a new undertaking by a non-resident company.

2 . N o. My Committee is not seeking to persuade the Home Affairs Committee as suggested. We

understand, however, that in the first six months of this year some 1000 work permits were issued by the Home Affairs Committee for non-European Economic Area (EEA) workers, mainly for the agriculture and tourism industries, and perhaps this is what the Senator is referring to. Certain construction firms have lately sought to get agreement from the Home Affairs Committee to bring in a number of non-EEA workers to meet their labour shortages, in similar manner to agriculture and tourism. The Industries Committee has encouraged the Home Affairs Committee to seriously consider these requests, because labour shortages in the construction industry are just as problematic and potentially damaging to our economy as those in agriculture and tourism."

REGULATION OF UNDERTAKINGS AND DEVELOPMENT Licence applications for new undertakings June 1998 - June 2001

Licence applications for additional staff by existing undertakings June 1998 - June 2001

APPENDIX 2

REGULATION OF UNDERTAKINGS AND DEVELOPMENT Three-year joint staffing licences as at 30th June 2001

FINANCE AND ECONOMICS COMMITTEE

1998 1999

Category LQ NLQ Total LQ NLQ Total

Retail 2,123 651 2,774 3,579 1,031 4,610 Building/construction 294 150 444 1,544 456 2,000 Hotels/guest houses 422 807 1,229 995 1,194 2,189 Restaurants/catering 543 313 856 1,308 931 2,239 Banking/finance/legal 3,009 570 3,579 6,607 1,261 7,868 Other offices/IT business 1,615 398 2,013 2,831 560 3,391 Import/export 230 52 282 358 63 421 Garages/manufacturing 344 55 399 560 114 674 Agencies 77 29 106 153 55 208 Transport/haulage 169 50 219 613 106 719 Marine 0 0 0 30 3 33 Other 797 177 974 1,353 542 1,895 Service 550 114 664 2,809 359 3,168