States Minutes 18th March 2003

THE STATES assembled on Tuesday,

18th March 2003 at 9.30 a.m. under

the Presidency of Michael Nelson de la Haye Esquire, Greffier of the States.

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 –

F r ancis Herbert Amy, Connétable of Grouville – ill

J o hn Baudains Germain, Connétable of St.  Martin – ill

J o hn Le Sueur Gallichan, Connétable of Trinity – out of the Island J e remy Laurence Dorey, Deputy of St. Helier – out of the Island

Prayers

Subordinate legislation tabled

The following enactments were laid before the States, namely –

Nursing Homes and Mental Nursing Homes (General Provisions) (Amendment R&O 16/2003. No. 9) (Jersey) Order 2003.

Terrorism (Enforcement of British Islands Orders) (Jersey) Rules 2003. R&O 17/2003. Residential Homes (General Provisions) (Amendment No. 9) (Jersey) Order 2003. R&O 18/2003.

Committee for Postal Administration – resignation of members

THE STATES noted the resignation of Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur, Deputy Jacqueline Jeannette Huet of St.  Helier and Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier of St.  Saviour from the Committee for Postal Administration.

Committee for Postal Administration – constitution and appointment of members

THE STATES, in accordance with Article 28(2)(b) of the States of Jersey Law 1966, as amended, and on a proposition of Deputy Patrick John Dennis Ryan of St. Helier, President of the Committee for Postal Administration, determined that the Committee for Postal Administration should, henceforth, consist of the President and four other elected members of the States.

THE STATES appointed the following as members –

T h e Connétable of St.  Lawrence T h e Deputy of St.  Ouen.

The President accordingly declared that  the above had been  elected members of the Committee for Postal Administration.

Matters presented

The following matters were presented to the States –

The Jersey Electricity Company Limited: annual report and accounts 2002. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Taxation of rental subsidies for essentially employed public employees. R.C.12/2003. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

States of Jersey Law 1966, as amended: delegation of functions – harbours. R.C.13/2003. Presented by the Harbours and Airport Committee.

Office of Fair Trading: establishment (P.97/2002) – comments. P.97/2002. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.(2)

Field  126,  La  Grande  Route  de  la  Côte,  St.  Clement:  construction  of  homes P.17/2003. (P.17/2003) – comments. Com. Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

Field  126,  La  Grande  Route  de  la  Côte,  St.  Clement:  construction  of  homes P.17/2003. (P.17/2003) – comments. Com.(2) Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Mont  Orgueil  development  strategy:  appointment  of  independent  expert P.19/2003. (P.19/2003) – comments. Com. Presented by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

THE STATES ordered that the said reports be printed and distributed. Matters noted – land transaction

THE STATES noted an Act of the Finance and Economics Committee dated 26th February 2003, (revised), showing  that,  in pursuance  of  Standing  Orders  relating  to  certain  transactions  in  land,  the  Committee  had approved –

a s recommended by the Housing Committee, the sale of a strip of land running through the underground

area  immediately under  the Jubilee  Promenade  (adjacent to  the  Albert Pier  Housing  car park,  at  the Waterfront, St.  Helier), in order that it might be incorporated into the comprehensive sale of the Waterfront Housing Development, so as to enable the sale of the apartments to be completed whilst retaining the Jubilee Promenade in public ownership, for a nominal consideration of £10, on the basis that the Committee would be responsible for all reasonable legal costs arising from this transaction.

This notification revised the details of the transaction reported to the States on 4th March 2003.

Matters lodged

The following matters were lodged "au Greffe" –

Draft Health Care (Registration) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 2002 (Appointed Day) P.25/2003. Act 200-.

Presented by the Health and Social Services Committee.

States Members' remuneration: establishment of an independent review body. P.26/2003. Presented by Senator E.P. Vibert , and referred to the Privileges and Procedures

Committee.

Training and Employment Partnership: disbandment. P.27/2003. Presented  by  the  Economic  Development  Committee,  and  referred  to  the

Employment and Social Security Committee.

Draft Public Finances (Appointment of Investment Managers) (Jersey) Regulations P.28/2003. 200-.

Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Social rented housing: policy on setting rents. P.29/2003. Presented by Deputy G.P. Southern of St.  Helier, and referred to the Employment

and Social Security and the Housing Committees.

Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie: Executive Committee membership. P.30/2003. Presented by Senator J.A. Le Maistre.

Waterfront Enterprise Board Limited: appointment of Directors. P.31/2003. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Arrangement of public business for the present meeting

THE STATES agreed to defer consideration of the draft Parish Rate (Administration) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 200-, (P.16/2003 lodged "au Greffe" on 18th February 2003), from the present meeting to their next meeting on 1st April 2003.

Arrangement of public business for the next meeting on 1st April 2003

THE STATES confirmed that the following matters lodged "au Greffe" would be considered at the next meeting on 1st April 2003 –

Draft Parish Rate (Administration) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.16/2003. Lodged: 18th February 2003.

Connétable of St. Martin.

Draft Parish Rate (Administration) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.16/2003): P.16/2003. comments. Com. Presented: 25th February 2003.

Legislation Committee.

Mont Orgueil development strategy: appointment of independent expert. P.19/2003. Presented: 18th February 2003.

Presented by Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St.  Saviour.

Mont  Orgueil  development  strategy:  appointment  of  independent  expert P.19/2003. (P.19/2003) – comments. Com. Presented: 18th March 2003.

Presented by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

Mont Orgueil development strategy: appointment of independent expert P.19/2003. (P.19/2003) – amendment. Amd. Lodged: 4th March 2003.

Presented by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St.  Clement.

Health and Safety Appeal Tribunal: appointment of member. P.22/2003 Lodged: 4th March 2003. (re-issue). Employment and Social Security Committee.

Draft Health Care (Registration) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 2002 (Appointed Day) P.25/2003. Act 200-.

Lodged: 18th March 2003.

Health and Social Services Committee.

Draft Public Finances (Appointment of Investment Managers) (Jersey) Regulations P.28/2003. 200-.

Lodged: 18th March 2003.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie: Executive Committee membership. P.30/2003. Lodged: 18th March 2003.

Presented by J.A. Le Maistre.

Waterfront Enterprise Board Limited: appointment of Directors. P.31/2003. Lodged: 18th March 2003.

Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Tax Information Exchange Agreement with the United States of America – Paragraph (b) – P.172/2002

THE STATES noted that, in accordance with Standing Order 22(3), the President of the Policy and Resources Committee had instructed the Greffier of the States to withdraw the proposition regarding Tax Information Exchange Agreement with the United States of America – Paragraph  (b), (P.172/2002 lodged"au Greffe" on 24th September 2002).

"(j)" category employees and education grants – question and answer (Tape No.  813)

Senator Edward Philip Vibert asked Senator Michael Edward Vibert , President of the Education, Sport and Culture Committee, the following question –

" W  ould the President inform members whether or not the Committee has investigated all the "(j)" category employees who failed to include their rent subsidies in their tax returns for the purpose of determining whether any of their children have received education grants for higher education, which is means tested and based on declared earnings, and, if not, would the President assure members that such an investigation will be carried out and that details of how much has been overpaid in grants to these persons, if applicable, will be given to members?"

The President of the Education, Sport and Culture Committee replied as follows –

" O  fficers in the Department for Education, Sport and Culture have been working with the Income Tax Department to identify all "(j)" category employees who received rental subsidies over the last five years. Whether or not these were declared on employees tax returns is a matter between the employee and the Comptroller of Income Tax.

F  or the 2003/2004 academic year, there are two "(j)" category employees who have applied for student

awards for higher education. Of these, one employee did not declare a gross family income and therefore pays the

maximum parental contribution. The second is not in receipt of a rent subsidy and receives an amount towards tuition fees but not the maintenance grant. Information relating to previous years is currently being collated."

Aid to the dairy industry – question and answer (Tape No. 813)

The Deputy of St. John asked Deputy Francis Gerald Voisin of St. Lawrence, President of the Economi Development Committee, the following question –

" I n response to a question on 10th December 2002, asked of the then President of the Agriculture and Fisheries Committee, the Assembly was informed that some £850,000 of aid had been given to the dairy industry for two restructuring schemes. This aid was over and above other direct and indirect aid received by the industry annually. In the most recent report of the Jersey Milk Marketing Board for the last six months, it is reported that losses of almost £1.43 million pounds have been recorded. Within that report, one reason given for the poor results is that the underlying losses, before exceptional items and payments in respect of producers leaving the scheme, was £703,000.

W ould the President confirm that the £703,000 loss is in addition to the £850,000 received as part of the exit

strategy for farmers?"

The President of the Economic Development Committee replied as follows –

" Y es, I can confirm that the £703,000 is in addition to the £850,000 received as part of the exit strategy for farmers, but it should be noted that the £703,000 is funded from the Dairy's reserves and not public funds."

New strategy to control inflation – question and answer (Tape No. 813)

Senator Edward Philip Vibert asked Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur, President of the Finance and Economics Committee, the following question –

" W ill the President inform members whether the Committee intends to develop a new strategy in order to control inflation, which, last year, was described by his predecessor as Jersey's most serious financial problem', and, if so, would he advise whether the Committee intends to bring this strategy to the Assembly for consideration, and when?"

The President of the Finance and Economics Committee replied as follows –

" T he current Finance and Economics Committee remains of the view that inflation is too high in Jersey.

T  he tools put in place by the States Anti-Inflation Strategy, P.125/2000, remain crucial to the control of

inflation in the Island. This is especially important as, unlike most other jurisdictions, the control of interest rates, the most effective anti-inflation measure, is unavailable to Jersey.

I t was always recognised that the solution would not be easy and that, as the Strategy states, there are no

"quick fixes".

I n the long-term fight against inflation, the initiatives set in place by the Strategy remain essential, none more

so than the control of States' expenditure. The deficits caused by States' expenditure growing too rapidly, (as it did in the past), have undoubtedly contributed to the level of inflation in the Island.

B  alancing the budget, especially through the control of public expenditure, continues to be the Finance and

Economics Committee's primary objective. This is true both from the viewpoint of curbing inflation but is also necessary in order to avoid excessive tax increases and hence reduce the Island's competitiveness.

R  elative success has been achieved by reducing increases in expenditure to less extravagant levels, in that

Presidents and their Committees have, over the last two years, assisted the Finance and Economics Committee in exercising previously unforeseen degrees of control over the rises in States expenditure, yet if we are to avoid inflationary deficits then even greater control and restraint is necessary.

O  ne of the other policy measures included in the approved anti-inflation strategy was the introduction of a

Competition Law for Jersey. Robust and effective competition policies have been shown elsewhere to be extremely effective in the fight against inflation. The Finance and Economics Committee looks forward to supporting the Economic Development Committee when it brings this important law to the States very shortly.

W  hilst the Committee is satisfied that it should continue with the measures set in place by the existing

Strategy, it was hoped that more progress in bringing down the headline inflation figure would have been achieved by now.

M  ore needs to be done. As long as our inflation rate remains above that of the U.K. our competitive position

will surely be eroded with painful and significant consequences.

A   group has been set-up between the Finance and Economics, Policy and Resources and the Economic

Development Committees to co-ordinate economic policy matters. This group will consist of the Presidents of the three Committees and chaired by the Vice-President of the Finance and Economics Committee.

O  ne of this group's major tasks will be to seek to improve understanding about the causes of inflation.

Working with advisors, this group will discuss what additional measures could be introduced to strengthen and supplement our existing policies in a manner which is consistent with our Fiscal Strategy and make recommendations to the Finance and Economics Committee.

T h e fight against inflation is not just one for the Finance and Economics Committee, nor just the States, but

one which must be addressed in the Island as a whole. The best way this Assembly can show its leadership and commitment is to curb its enthusiasm for spending. At the end of the day that remains, in my view, one of the major causes of inflation in the Island."

Standardising States publications – question and answer (Tape No. 813)

Senator Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire asked Senator Frank Harris on Walker , President of the Policy and Resources Committee, the following question –

" W ill the President advise members what actions, if any, the Policy and Resources Committee is taking to ensure that all people are able to use government documents with ease, and that best value for money is obtained in the production of reports, States documents, letterheads and business cards by standardising their publication?"

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

" A lthough I am quite happy to provide answers in relation to actions taken or intended by the Policy and Resources Committee, I am sure members will recognise that the subject matter of this question clearly extends right across the States.

I n terms of actions taken by the Policy Resources Committee, I confirm that:

 ( a ) all documents it produces, or are produced by the Policy and Resources Department, (except, of

course, those which are translated into another language), are written in understandable and plain English and are published in accordance with normal States' procedures for obtaining value for money; and,

 ( b ) wherever appropriate, such documents are published on the States of Jersey or Government Reforms

internet websites and the Policy and Resources intranet website and are made available for reference at the Central Library.

I f urther confirm that:

( a ) my Committee is soon to bring forward proposals for a States' corporate "Translation Policy"

which, if approved, will require all Committees and departments to have all relevant documents translated to a recognised and consistent standard;

 ( b ) the Committee will be updating the States of Jersey and Policy and Resources websites to enhance

their capabilities and inter-activeness;

 ( c ) in developing proposals as to how the new ministerial executive government will function, the

Committee will also be seeking, with the States Greffe, to establish new standards for document production and management which should act as a catalyst for improvements across the States; and,

 ( d ) by utilising the workflow and electronic document management and the business process change

tools and systems within our existing ICT strategy, the Policy and Resources Committee intends to support all States' Committees and departments in developing more effective and efficient ways of communication.

I n the future, I have no doubt that the Council of Ministers will develop a new public image for itself and for

the new corporate public service as a whole and, in so doing, will ensure that maximum value for money is achieved by the standardised and centralised production of all its documentation. However, we can only lead by example in such matters and cannot require others to follow suit."

Fire safety regulations and practices at Mont Orgueil Castle – question and answer (Tape No. 813)

Deputy Celia Joyce Scott Warr en of St.  Saviour askedSenator Terence Augustine Le Sueur, President of the Finance and Economics Committee, the following question –

" A t some time in the future there may be more people visiting Mont Orgueil Castle, and I would therefore ask the President to advise members whether a fire audit of the Castle has been carried out by the Jersey Heritage Trust in order to ascertain that the proposals contained in the Development Strategy are fully compliant with all current fire safety regulations and practices?"

The President of the Finance and Economics Committee replied as follows –

" E very application from the Jersey Heritage Trust for development or alteration of Mont Orgueil Castle is subject to the normal planning processes, which include compliance with the fire safety requirements of the current Building Bye-Laws, administered by the Building Control section of the Environment and Public Services Department. That Department works closely with the Fire Prevention Officer in determining an application, and in considering any conditions to be placed on a permit.

T h e proposals outlined in the Development Strategy have been explained to the Fire Prevention Officer, in

order that he may carry out an appropriate risk assessment. His recommendations will form part of any permit that may be issued. Furthermore, the finished works will also be inspected by the Fire and Rescue Service, and their officers may stipulate further conditions if they deem them necessary, such as a limitation on the number of persons that can be in a room at any one time.

I t should also be borne in mind that

th e ca s tle is considered of low risk, being primarily constructed of incombustible materials;

sm  o k in g is not permitted within the castle buildings; and,

p ro v i s ion for a fire alarm system  is included within the project budget.

 I have full confidence in the ability of the Fire and Rescue Service to impose any conditions it deems

necessary, and I am equally confident that the Jersey Heritage Trust will appreciate the need for safety as being of paramount importance."

Waterfront bridge project – question and answer (Tape No. 813)

Senator Edward Philip Vibert asked Senator Frank Harris on Walker , President of the Policy and Resources Committee, the following question –

" W ould the President inform members how much the Waterfront Enterprise Board Limited has spent on the new bridge project to date, and what the specific cost is relating to the public opinion poll run by NOP?"

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

" T o date, the costs incurred in running the international design competition and the public consultation exercise for the proposed bridge have amounted to £42,768. Of this sum, £20,000, which was the first prize awarded to the winner of the design competition, would be recovered if the bridge was to be built. The additional cost of the opinion poll run by NOP was £5,500."

Public Employees Contributory Retirement Scheme – question and answer (Tape No. 813)

Senator Leonard Norman asked Senator Frank Harris on Walker , President of the Policy and Resources Committee, the following question –

"( a) What, if any, is the current and projected funding deficit of the Public Employees Contributory

Retirement Scheme?

( b ) If there is a current or projected deficit, how is it to be funded?

( c ) What assumptions are made when calculating the surplus or deficit in terms of investment returns from

the fund, longevity of members and the rate of inflation?

( d ) What are the current employees' and employer's contributions as a percentage of total States payroll

costs and as pure annual cash amounts?

 ( e ) Does the Committee consider the scheme to be sustainable in its current format, given its defined

benefits, and if the answer is in the negative, what action does the Committee plan to take?

( f ) How is the Committee currently able to take informed decisions regarding the scheme when the last

available valuation is five years out of date, and the next available valuation will be at least two years out of date?"

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

" ( a) The last published valuation was at 31st December 1998, when a funding deficit of £22.2 million was shown. As this was a relatively small deficit it was agreed to carry it forward until the next triennial valuation as at 31st December 2001. The results of that valuation have not yet been finalised, but preliminary indications are that it is likely to reveal a significant deficit.

( b ) Officers of the States Human Resources Department and the Treasury have already met on a number of occasions with the Actuaries to consider a variety of ways of addressing the likely deficit, including a

possible new scheme for future employees. Once proposals have been approved by the Policy and Resources

Committee they will be put to the PECRS Joint Negotiating Group which consists of representatives of current employees and pensioners under the scheme. A paper on this subject is to be considered by the Policy and Resources Committee's Human Resources Sub-Committee on 21st March 2003.

( c ) The current assumption which the Actuaries adopt regarding investment returns on the fund is that they

will exceed inflation by 3.75 per cent per annum averaged over the long term future.

 W  ith regard to longevity, the Actuaries base their assumptions on the mortality experience of the scheme

membership, but prudent allowances are made for future improvements in longevity. The longevity assumptions are reassessed by the Actuaries at each triennial valuation to ensure that they reflect the most up to date experience of the scheme.

 T h e rate of inflation is not considered to have a significant impact on the results of a valuation because it

is the difference between the projected investment returns and projected inflation which is of key importance. Having said that, it is worth noting that allowance is made for inflation in Jersey to exceed inflation in the United Kingdom.

(d ) In 2002, the employees' contribution to the scheme was slightly under £8 million, which was

approximately 3.2 per cent of total State'spayroll costs. In the same year, the employer's contribution was just over £22.2 million, which was approximately 8.9 per cent of total State'spayroll costs.

(e ) The Committee believes that if agreement can be reached with the Joint Negotiating Group and

Committee of Management of PECRS on ways of addressing the likely deficit, the scheme can be sustainable for the foreseeable future. It is important to note that this is not a scheme where the States meets the balance of costs. An increase in the employer's contribution rate can only come about with the approval of the States. In this respect the scheme is different from defined benefits schemes generally. In the final analysis, if the States and the Committee of Management are not able to agree on ways of addressing a deficit, pensions in payment are reduced accordingly to dispose of the deficit.

( f ) As I said in my answer to question (a), the Committee has already received preliminary results for the

fund as at December 2001. Those results are subject to further discussion with the Actuaries before being finally published. However, I understand that the Actuaries in formulating their advice take into account changes in financial markets since the due date of the valuation."

Recommendations of the Dr. Donald McQueen report on the dairy industry in Jersey – question and answer (Tape No. 813)

Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern of St.  Helier asked Deputy Francis Gerald Voisin of St.  Lawrence, President o the Economic Development Committee, the following question –

" F ollowing the decision of the States on 4th March 2003, to defer debate on the proposition P.7/2003 School Milk: provision for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005', and in the light of recommendation Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of the report by Dr. Donald McQueen dated February 2003 regarding The Dairy Industry in Jersey: a Strategic Review', will the President –

(a ) in dicate when he expects to bring measures to the States on the immediate assistance outlined in

recommendation 22 of the report?

( b ) i ndicate when he expects to report what action the Committee is proposing in order to meet the

longer term goal of lowering milk production costs and stabilising the size of the Island herd, as outlined in recommendations 23 and 24? and,

(c ) c o nfirm that some means will be found to support the continued provision of school milk, (as stated in recommendation 22(c)), when the current funding arrangements terminate at the end of this

year?"

The President of the Economic Development Committee replied as follows –

" ( a) Following the release of Dr. McQueen's report on 14th February 2003, the Economic Development Committee allowed a period of one month for the dairy industry and any others with an interest in the future of the industry to put forward their views. That period ended on Friday 14th March 2003. The Committee will now be considering what steps need to be taken bearing in mind Dr. McQueen's recommendations and the views subsequently expressed by the industry and the Agriculture and Fisheries Advisory Board. The Committee will be discussing the matter at its meeting on 26th March 2003. Depending on the outcome it is possible that the Committee will then discuss with the Finance and Economics Committee the extent to which Dr. McQueen's recommendations for additional short- term financial assistance can be met. If necessary, the Committee will consider bringing proposals to the States.

(b ) Before deciding what action to take, the Committee must first evaluate the responses from the

consultative process that ended last Friday. Dr.  McQueen will be involved in deciding any proposed action.

( c ) I am not able to confirm this."

Restrictions on foreign nationals for driving tests as related to Human Rights – question and answer (Tape No. 813)

Senator Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire asked Senator Wendy Kinnard, President of the Home Affairs Committee, the following question –

" W ould the President advise members –

(a ) w hether there are any restrictions on Polish workers taking their driving tests in Jersey, and, if so,

why such restrictions apply?

(b ) w  hether there are any restrictions on other foreign workers taking their driving tests in Jersey, and, if

so, which nationalities are concerned? and,

(d ) w hether the Committee sought legal advice confirming that any such restrictions do not contravene

human rights legislation, and, if so, what this legal advice stated?"

The President of the Home Affairs Committee replied as follows –

" ( a) In order to undertake a driving test a candidate has to obtain a Jersey provisional licence. In order to obtain a Jersey provisional licence the applicant must apply to the parochial authority on the prescribed application form under Article 2 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Jersey) Order 2003. The prescribed application form, (Schedule 2 of the same Order), requires the applicant to provide a permanent Jersey address.

In c o m mon with other countries, Jersey only issues provisional and full licences to permanent residents.

Polish workers who work in the Island as seasonal labour can only do so for a maximum period of nine months and are here on immigration permit, so, therefore, are not permanent residents.

( b ) This restriction is not placed only on Polish workers as all non EEA (European Economic Area) citizens

are subject to immigration controls, are not normally entitled to take up permanent residence and therefore not entitled to hold a Jersey licence. In the case of Polish and all non EEA workers, they cannot become residents without immigration clearance. In the event of being allowed to remain for longer than 12  months  they  become entitled  and, indeed must,  obtain a Jersey  licence.  As Polish

licences are not exchangeable the prescribed Jersey test would have to be passed.

T h o s e who are working for the season on permit are entitled to drive in the Island on their own country's

licence. If an employer wished his/her worker to drive as part of his/her employment he/she should perhaps first have checked that a licence was held by that employee.

( c ) As human rights legislation has yet to be implemented in the Island, advice was sought from the DVLA

in Swansea as this legislation has been in force in the United Kingdom for over a year. The advice received was that there is no definitive right to drive.

A s a result of the Senator's question additional clarification is being sought from the Law Officers'

Department."

Interception of Communications (Jersey) Law 1993 – question and answer (Tape No. 813) Senator Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire asked H.M. Attorney General the following question –

" B y virtue of Article  3(2) of the Inception of Communications (Jersey) Law 1993, Her Majesty's Attorney General shall not  issue a warrant  under  that Article for the  interception of communications  unless he considers it necessary in the interest of national security or for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime. Under Article  1(3)(a), the definition of serious crime includes conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose.

(a ) w ould the Attorney General explain what is meant by a large number of persons', in this context,

and how that is legally defined?

(b ) w ould the Attorney General explain whether the reference to a large number of persons in pursuit

of a common purpose' could lawfully include people who are interested or actively involved in creating political parties in Jersey?

( c) if the answer to (b) is in the affirmative, how many such warrants have been issued in the past

10  years?"

H.M. Attorney General replied as follows –

" ( a) The word "large" is not legally defined either in the Interception of Communications (Jersey) Law, 1993, or in the Interception of Communications Act 1985, upon which the relevant parts of the 1993 Law are based. In accordance with the standard principles of statutory interpretation, this means that the word would be given its ordinary dictionary definition. The ordinary dictionary definition of "large", so far as it is relevant, is "having a relatively great quantity".

(b ) The Interception of Communications (Jersey) Law 1993, empowers the Attorney General to issue

warrants for the interception of communications in the interest of national security or for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, but he cannot issue a warrant for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime unless the crime is serious. The matters specified in Article  1(3)(a), including the reference to conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose, are the factors which make a crime a serious crime for the purposes of the law. The common purpose must, however, be criminal before the fact that a large number of persons are pursuing it together entitles the Attorney General to issue a warrant.

U n l e s s the objectives of the political party were criminal – one example would be the carrying on of

terrorist activities – it would not be lawful to issue a warrant under Article 3(2)(b) of the 1993 Law.

( c ) It is generally inappropriate that the Attorney General be questioned on the floor of this Assembly as to warrants which may have been issued because the purpose of the 1993 Law is to enable the covert

gathering of information in the interests of national security or for preventing or detecting serious crime.

H o w e v er, and exceptionally, I am prepared on this occasion to depart from that rule. I confirm that I have

not, and to the best of my knowledge and belief my predecessors have not, issued any warrant under the 1993 Law for the interception of communications on the grounds that those whose communications were to be intercepted included people interested or actively involved in creating political parties in Jersey."

Feasibility studies on the future use of Fort Regent – question and answer (Tape No. 813)

Senator Edward Philip Vibert asked Senator Michael Edward Vibert , President of the Education, Sport and Culture Committee, the following question –

" ( a) On 11th April 2000, the States adopted a proposition of the former Sport, Leisure and Recreation Committee, P.181/99 – Fort Regent: redevelopment, which stated that the proposed scheme was "intended to upgrade and re-develop the Fort in a new and exciting way, by creating a workable, attractive sporting and historic facility which is appropriate to its important prominent location in the heart of St. Helier. The scale of the building and the all-encompassing sport and recreation facilities to be provided under one roof, develops the idea originally mentioned in the 1997 Roger Quinton Associates (RQA) report".

 ( i)  Would the President explain to members why the Committee has changed its thinking regarding the

use of Fort Regent since the Assembly debated and approved P.181/99?

 ( i i) Would the President inform members how much was spent by the Committee on preparing the

report by Roger Quinton Associates (RQA)?

( b ) Would the President inform members how much has been spent at Fort Regent by the Committee for

repairs and maintenance in the last three years excluding any costs relating to the pool facility, and provide members with the details of what is currently necessary to be spent on any urgent repairs and maintenance and the upgrading, where necessary, of any of the current facilities?

( c ) Would the President confirm that the Committee is now planning to carry out two feasibility studies on

the future use of Fort Regent, and describe what the Committee has in mind?

( d ) Will the President undertake to bring to the Assembly full details of the brief that will be provided to the

company engaged to carry out the first feasibility study, together with the costs, so that the Assembly can consider the matter before any contracts are signed in order to avoid any potential unnecessary expenditure?"

The President of the Education, Sport and Culture Committee replied as follows –

" ( a) (i) Whilst the States adopted P.181/1999, the associated funding was not allocated. Subsequently, each year, the then Sport, Leisure and Recreation Committee applied for resources through the capital allocation process to undertake the redevelopment of Fort Regent. However, each year, the project was not considered to be of a sufficient priority when compared to other projects, and, consequently, funding was not allocated. During 2002, the Committee Presidents undertook a prioritisation exercise for applications for funds for the 2004 capital programme. The submissions included an application for the redevelopment of Fort Regent, seeking funding of £2 million per annum over a ten-year period. Again this application was unsuccessful, falling short of other States' priorities. It was clear to the then Sport, Leisure and Recreation Committee that under the current fiscal climate the Roger Quinton Associate's proposals for the redevelopment of Fort Regent was not of sufficient priority to attract funding from the capital budget for the foreseeable future.

W  i th n o si gnificant investment, standards will inevitably decline at Fort Regent, particularly when

compared with nearby modern facilities. These include the pool and fitness centre on the Waterfront, Haute

Vallée School pool and sports hall and the Langford pool and sports hall. The merger of the former Education, and Sport, Leisure and Recreation Committees to form the Education, Sport and Culture Committee presents the opportunity to make better community use of school sites, and I have previously expressed a commitment to ensuring that full advantage is taken of this opportunity.

I n 2 0 0 2 , a ll States Committees were asked to undertake a fundamental review of their business and

budgets. The then Sport, Leisure and Recreation Committee completed an in depth review of its services and facilities to determine how it could best meet the needs for sport and recreation in the Island in the future.

T h e s e a r e t he reasons that have prompted the Committee to review its range of provision. The review

will determine whether the facilities at Fort Regent can continue to serve the Island while maintaining current high level standards of customer service, without further significant States' investment, or whether more appropriate arrangements may be provided at little or no additional cost to the States.

( ii ) T he preparation of the Roger Quinton Associates' report cost the former Sports, Leisure and

Recreation Committee £49,625.

( b ) Over the past 3  years,£960,500 have been spent on repairs and maintenance at Fort Regent. In addition

£2.4 million have been spent on amenity improvements and minor capital works. Other than provision contained in the Roger Quinton Associate's report for the proposed redevelopment, there are maintenance requirements estimated at £1.8 million that cannot be met from the Fort's existing annual maintenance budget. These include replacement of glazing, access road repairs, the upgrading of mechanical and electrical equipment and the demolition of the former aquarium area. All of these items have potential implications for health and safety.

( c ) The Committee is intending to carry out a single feasibility study in two stages. The study will, in the

first instance, examine the market potential for a mixed development within the Fort Regent site, set out a number of development scenarios and prepare an overall business case assessment of the Fort's potential. This will ascertain whether a mixed use development can be self funding and not reliant on any capital or revenue contributions from the States. The study will also examine the possible displacement of existing Fort user groups and set out options either for their relocation or retention on site. The study will of course, address the implications of no changes being made to existing provisions and arrangements.

T h e s e cond stage, intended to examine the potential development of sport and leisure activities to the Le

Rocquier school site, will only proceed if it is clear that the needs of the community living and working in St.  Helier may adequately be met.

T h e s t udy is due to commence in June 2003, and will take approximately 16 weeks.

( d ) The Education, Sport and Culture Committee is charged by the States to fulfil its mandate on behalf of

the States and this is what it is doing by preparing the terms of reference of the study, prior to the recruitment and selection process of the consultants. For States members' information I have today circulated the Study Brief and Request for Expressions of Interest. However, I do not wish to make known the amount being requested from the Finance and Economics Committee for a planning vote until such time as the tendering process has been completed so as not to undermine that process."

Jersey Conference Bureau's report on a conference centre at Fort Regent – question and answer (Tape No. 813)

Senator Edward Philip Vibert asked Deputy Lyndon John Farnham of St. Saviour, Vice-President of the Economic Development Committee, the following question –

" ( a) would the Vice-President inform members of the full cost, including publication of the report, of the recent study carried out into building a conference centre at Fort Regent by the Jersey Conference Bureau?

( b ) would the Vice-President inform members whether or not the Jersey Conference Bureau liaised with the

Education, Sport and Culture Committee during this process?

( c ) would the Vice-President inform members when the Jersey Conference Bureau became aware of plans

by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee to research a proposal to move certain facilities from Fort Regent to the Le Rocquier School site?"

The Vice-President of the Economic Development Committee replied as follows –

" ( a) The full cost of the conference study is £25,000. The report is being funded by the Tourism Development Fund.

( b ) The former Sport, Leisure and Recreation Committee and senior officers of that department were aware

that the study was being prepared and had previously been shown copies of architects visuals and outline proposals for the conference centre within the Queen's Hall .

( c ) The Jersey Conference Bureau was not aware of the plans of the then Sport, Leisure and Recreation