States Minutes 11th May 2004

THE STATES assembled on Tuesday, 11th May 2004 at 9.30 a.m. under

the Presidency of the Bailiff ,

Sir Philip Bailhache .

All members were present with the exception of –

J e nnifer-Anne Bridge, Deputy of St. Helier – out of the Island G e offrey John Grime, Deputy of St. Mary – ill.

Prayers

Welcome – Sir Laurence New, former Lieutenant Governor, Isle of Man

The Bailiff , on behalf of all members, welcomed to the States Sir Laurence New, former Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Man during his visit to the Island.

Subordinate legislation tabled

The following enactments were laid before the States, namely –

Inquests and Post-Mortem Examinations (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Rules 2004. R&O 32/2004. Royal Court (Amendment No. 20) Rules 2004. R&O 33/2004. Petty Debts Court Rules 2004. R&O 34/2004. Royal Court (Appeals from Petty Debts Court) Rules 2004. R&O 35/2004. Road Traffic (Protective Helmets) (Jersey) Order 2004. R&O 36/2004. Community Provisions (Zimbabwe – Restrictive Measures) (No. 4) (Jersey) Order R&O 37/2004.

2004.

Matters presented

The following matters were presented to the States –

Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority: Annual Report 2003. Presented by the Economic Development Committee.

Tourism Development Fund: Annual Report 2003. R.C.21/2004. Presented by the Economic Development Committee.

Jersey Council for Safety and Health at Work: report for the period 1st July 2002 to R.C.22/2004. 30th June 2003.

Presented by the Employment and Social Security Committee.

Public Sector Housing: establishment of a management company (P.105/2003) – P.105/2003. comments. Com. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Public Sector Housing: establishment of a management company (P.105/2003) – P.105/2003. comments. Com.(2) Presented by the Housing Committee.

Public Sector Housing: establishment of a management company (P.105/2003) – P.105/2003. comments. Com.(3) Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Income Tax: allowance for children over 17 in full-time education (P.16/2004) – P.16/2004. Com. comments.

Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Committee of Inquiry: construction of 76  houses at Jambart Lane,St. Clement; and P.33/2004. Com. public consultation procedures (P.33/2004) – comments. (2) Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

Draft Extradition (Jersey) Law 200- (P.39/2004): comments. P.39/2004. Com. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Fields 1282 and 1287, La Fredée Lane, St. Helier : extinguishment of restrictive P.48/2004. Com. covenants (P.48/2004) – comments.

Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Former School, Clearview Street, St. Helier : proposed sale (P.49/2004) – P.49/2004. Com. comments. (2) Presented by the Housing Committee.

Travelling and entertaining costs: provision of information (P.51/2004) – P.51/2004. Com. comments. (2) Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Sale of properties (P.52/2004): comments. P.52/2004. Com. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Sale of properties (P.52/2004): comments. P.52/2004. Com. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee. (2)

Modernisation of Jersey's Gambling Legislation (P.62/2004): comments. P.62/2004. Com. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

The following matters were presented on 4th May 2004 –

Administrative Appeals System: proposals for improvement – consultation report. R.C.20/2004. Presented by the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

Travelling and entertaining costs: provision of information (P.51/2004) – P.51/2004. Com. comments.

Presented by the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

Le Squez Estate, St. Clement , Phase 1A: redevelopment – approval of drawings P.76/2004. Com. (P.76/2004) – comments.

Presented by the Finance and Economics 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 15th April 2004, showing that, in pursuance of Standing Orders relating to certain transactions in land, the Committee had approved –

 ( a ) as recommended by the Environment and Public Services Committee, the sub-lease to Paul Davis

Freight Services Limited from Avo Shocks International of Unit 5, La Rue Gosset, La Collette, St. Helier , for a period of nine years from a date to be agreed, at an annual rent of £42,000 with the remaining terms to be those contained in the head lease between the public and the head lessee, on the basis that the head lessee would be responsible for meeting any reasonable legal and surveyors fees arising from the transaction;

( b ) as recommended by the Economic Development Committee, the lease to Mr. Richard John Baudains, of

La Pepinière Farm, La Rue de Crabbé, St. Mary , of Fields Nos. 330 and 331,St. Mary, (required for the grazing of cattle), at an annual rent of £225, with the lease being deemed to have commenced upon the completion of the contract for a period of three years, on the basis that each party was to be responsible for its own legal costs arising from the transaction;

( c ) as recommended by the Economic Development Committee, the sub-lease to Master Farms Limited, of

Westlands Farm, Route de Francfief, St. Brelade , of Fields Nos. 810 and 811, adjacent to The Elms, St. Mary , from the National Trust for Jersey, (which had agreed to the sub-lease in accordance with clause 3(ii) of the Head-Lease), for a period of 21 months from 25th March 2004, until 24th December 2005, at an annual rent of £1,510 payable in two equal instalments on 24th June 2004, and 2005. All other terms and conditions were to remain as in the head-lease and each party was to be responsible for its own legal costs arising from the transaction;

( d ) as recommended by the Housing Committee, the lease to the Jersey Electricity Company Limited of an

area of land sufficient for the provision of the proposed electricity sub-station (No. 650) at the former Le Coie Hotel Redevelopment site, Janvrin Road, St. Helier , for a period of 99 years from the date of occupation of the building, for a one-off payment of £990 upon completion of contracts, on the basis that each party would be responsible for its own legal costs arising from the transaction;

( e ) as recommended by the Environment and Public Services Committee, the annulment of the lease to CTS

Computing Limited of the Ground Floor offices at Broadcasting House, Rouge Bouillon, St. Helier , presently subject to a lease for a period of four years from 25th March 2003, at an annual rent of £30,320, subject to payment by the tenant of one quarter's rental and any additional professional and managing agent's fees arising from the transaction.

29th April 2004

( f ) as recommended by the Environment and Public Services Committee, the sale to the Trustees of the

Douglas Haig Memorial Homes of two areas of land at Nos.  1 to 12 Princess Elizabeth Court, Grève d'Azette, St. Clement ,  so  as  to  enable  the  further  development  of  the  site  by  the  construction  of additional residential units to house members of the ex-Service community, for a nominal sum of £10, subject to appropriate conditions and/or covenants in order to ensure the continued use of the site for social rented housing within the stated objectives of the Trust;

(g )  as  recommended  by  the  Housing  Committee,  the  entering  into  of  a  Deed  of  Arrangement  with

Mr. Clement Charles Pallot and Mrs. Phyllis May Pallot, née Le Lievre, in relation to the grant of access rights to the public onto the property No. 2 Garlyckehythe, Janvrin Road, St. Helier , with or without workmen, material, ladders and scaffolding in order to repair, replace, maintain and up-keep not only the newly-built walls, (which work was to be the sole responsibility of the public), but also parts of the roof, soffits and gutters; the said works to be carried out as quickly as possible and to cause the least inconvenience possible to the owners of No. 2 Garlyckehythe, with the public to reinstate any affected areas to the same state as they were before the work was carried out. Any rights of access would be conditional upon two weeks notice being given to the owners of No. 2 Garlyckehythe except in the case of an emergency. It was intended that the abovementioned clauses would be created in perpetuity and the public was to pay for the reasonable legal costs incurred, up to a maximum of £750, by the owners of No. 2 Garlyckehythe in relation to the preparation of the contract and that the public was to pay the current owners of No. 2 Garlyckehythe sum of £500 in recognition of the grant of the abovementioned rights. As part of the abovementioned works the public would re-build the existing party wall between the two properties concerned with the public being responsible for all costs relating thereto; and,

( h ) as recommended by the Environment and Public Services Committee, the sale to Mr. James William

Wesley Harris on and Miss Emma Letitia Pirouet of a section of land, (measuring 105  square metres), to the  west  of No. 9  Vue  des  Mielles,  La  Route  des  Quennevais, St. Brelade,  (as  shown  on  Plan No. 12/1091/1), for a consideration of £2,735 on the basis that Mr. Harris on and Miss Pirouet would be responsible for both  parties' reasonable  legal costs  arising from the transaction, together with the administration costs of the Department of Property Services – estimated at £300.

Matters lodged

The following matters were lodged "au Greffe" –

Machinery of Government: relationship between the Parishes and the Executive P.40/2004. Amd. (P.40/2004) – amendment.

Presented by the Connétable of St. Helier .

Machinery of Government: relationship between the Parishes and the Executive P.40/2004. Amd. (P.40/2004) – second amendment. (2) Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Sale of properties (P.52/2004): amendments. P.52/2004. Amd. Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade .

Draft Data Protection (Jersey) Law 200- (P.70/2004): amendments. P.70/2004. Amd.

Presented by Deputy J.L. Dorey of St. Helier .

Draft Petty Debts Court (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 2000 (Appointed P.83/2004. Day) Act 200-.

Presented by the Legislation Committee.

D'Hautrée Gardens, St. Saviour's Hill, St. Saviour – proposed deed of P.84/2004. arrangement.

Presented by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

Draft Road Traffic (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.85/2004. Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

Draft Privileges and Immunities (Diplomatic, Consular, etc.) (Amendment) P.86/2004. (Jersey) Law 200-.

Presented by the Legislation Committee.

Jersey Community Relations Trust: appointment of Chairman and a Trustee. P.87/2004. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft Waste Management (Jersey) Law 200-. P.88/2004. Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

Draft Honorary Police (Parochial Domicile) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law P.89/2004. 200-.

Presented by the Legislation Committee.

The following matters were lodged on 4th May 2004 –

States Strategic Plan 2005 to 2010. P.81/2004. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Vote of censure: Senator Frank Harris on Walker . P.82/2004. Presented by Senator E.P. Vibert .

Draft Waste Management (Jersey) Law 200-, P. 211/2002 – withdrawn

THE STATES noted that, in accordance with Standing Order 22(3), the President of the Environment and Public Services Committee had instructed the Greffier of the States to withdraw the draft Waste Management (Jersey) Law 200-, (P.211/2002 lodged "au Greffe" on 12th November 2002), the Committee having lodged a revised projet at the present meeting.

Arrangement of public business for the present meeting

THE STATES, in accordance with Standing Order 22(1), granted leave to Deputy Alan Breckon of St. Saviour to withdraw  the  proposition  regarding Public  Sector  Housing:  establishment  of  a  management  company, (P.105/2003 lodged "au Greffe" on 8th July 2003).

THE STATES agreed to defer consideration of the following matters set down for consideration at the present meeting to a later date –

Former School, Clearview Street, St. Helier : proposed sale. P.49/2004. Lodged: 30th March 2004. (re-issue) Environment and Public Services Committee.

Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority: appointment of member and Chairman. P.63/2004. Lodged: 20th April 2004.

Economic Development Committee.

Arrangement of public business for the next meeting on 25th May 2004

THE STATES confirmed that the following matters lodged "au Greffe" would be considered at the next meeting on 25th May 2004 –

Machinery of Government: relationship between the Parishes and the Executive. P.40/2004. Lodged: 9th March 2004.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Machinery of Government: relationship between the Parishes and the Executive P.40/2004. Amd. (P.40/2004) – amendment.

Lodged: 11th May 2004.

Connétable of St. Helier .

Machinery of Government: relationship between the Parishes and the Executive P.40/2004. Amd. (P.40/2004) – second amendment. (2) Policy and Resources Committee.

Income Tax: allowance for children over 17 in full-time education. P.16/2004 Lodged: 3rd February 2004.

Deputy of St. Martin .

Income Tax: allowance for children over 17 in full-time education (P.16/2004) – P.16/2004. Com. comments.

Presented: 11th May 2004.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Committee of Inquiry: construction of 76  houses at Jambart Lane,St. Clement; and P.33/2004. public consultation procedures.

Lodged: 24th February 2004.

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

Committee of Inquiry: construction of 76  houses at Jambart Lane,St. Clement; and P.33/2004. Com. public consultation procedures (P.33/2004) – comments.

Presented: 9th March 2004.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Committee of Inquiry: construction of 76  houses at Jambart Lane,St. Clement; and P.33/2004. Com. public consultation procedures (P.33/2004) – comments. (2) Presented: 11th May 2004.

Environment and Public Services Committee.

Draft Prison (Amendment No. 5) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.45/2004. Lodged: 23rd March 2004.

Home Affairs Committee.

Draft Christmas Bonus (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.55/2004. Lodged: 6th April 2004.

Employment and Social Security Committee.

Public Sector Re-organisation: Five Year Vision for the Public Sector. P.58/2004. Lodged: 20th April 2004.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Shadow Scrutiny Panels: appointment of member. P.59/2004. Lodged: 20th April 2004.

Privileges and Procedures Committee.

States  Abattoir,  La  Route  du  Veulle,  La  Collette  St  Helier:  transfer  of P.67/2004. administration.

Lodged: 20th April 2004.

Harbours and Airport Committee.

States  Abattoir,  La  Route  du  Veulle,  La  Collette, St. Helier :  transfer  of P.67/2004. Com. administration (P.67/2004) – comments.

Presented: 27th April 2004.

Environment and Public Services Committee.

Animal Waste Products Site, La Rue Phillippe Durell, La Collette, P.68/2004. St. Helier : transfer of administration.

Lodged: 20th April 2004.

Economic Development Committee.

Animal  Waste  Products  Site,  La  Rue  Phillippe  Durell,  La Collette, St. Helier : P.68/2004. Com. transfer of administration (P.68/2004) – comments.

Presented: 27th April 2004.

Environment and Public Services Committee.

Draft Non-Contributory Pensions (Repeal) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.73/2004. Lodged: 20th April 2004.

Employment and Social Security Committee.

Draft Social Security (Amendment No. 17) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.75/2004. Lodged: 20th April 2004.

Employment and Social Security Committee.

Le Squez Estate, St. Clement , Phase  1A: redevelopment – approval of drawings. P.76/2004. Lodged: 27th April 2004.

Housing Committee.

Le Squez Estate, St. Clement , Phase  1A: redevelopment – approval of drawings P.76/2004. Com. (P.76/2004) – comments.

Presented: 4th May 2004.

Finance and Economics Committee.

States Assembly: improving efficiency. P.79/2004. Lodged: 27th April 2004.

Privileges and Procedures Committee.

Sale of properties. P.52/2004. Lodged: 13th April 2004.

Housing Committee.

Sale of properties (P.52/2004): comments. P.52/2004. Com. Presented: 11th May 2004.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Sale of properties (P.52/2004): comments. P.52/2004. Com. Presented: 11th May 2004. (2) Policy and Resources Committee.

Sale of properties (P.52/2004): amendments. P.52/2004. Amd. Lodged: 11th May 2004.

Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade .

Ormer landings – question and answer (Tape No. 912)

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

" W  ould the President advise members –

 ( a )  w  hether the Committee proposes to restrict the number of ormers landed, and, if so, would he

explain the reasons for this and provide evidence to support the proposals together with the levels of ormer landings that will apply? and,

 ( b )  i f records of ormer landings currently exist, and, if so, how these records have been compiled and

the size of these landings over the last three years?"

The President of the Economic Development Committee replied as follows –

" ( a)  Yes, the Committee is considering putting a bag limit on the number of ormers that may be caught per day.

In s p e c tions during low water surveillance for undersized shellfish suggest that landings at Les Minquiers

have dropped from 12 to about 3 per person and on the southwest coast from 10 to 4 per person. These records are not comprehensive and some low water fishermen may have up to 3 or 4 times this amount.

B e c a u se catches of ormers have decreased from the high levels that occurred immediately after the

fishery opened following disease, the introduction of a bag limit will give the opportunity for more of the general public to catch at least a few ormers. The Committee is considering a bag limit of 20 per person per day and a maximum of 100 per boat per day. These proposals will also be applicable to the French on the offshore reefs.

( b ) No formal record of landings exist as this is not a commercial fishery and putting in place a catch

reporting system would be costly and time-consuming." Border restrictions – question and answer (Tape No. 912)

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 )  whether the Committee will be reviewing the need to tighten border controls amid concerns that

individuals granted bail in the U.K. are coming to Jersey pending their U.K. trial, and, if so, provide members with the reasons for this?

( b ) whether the Committee considers Jersey to have become a soft-target' for such individuals from the

U.K.? and,

( c ) whether the Committee will be taking action regarding this matter, and, if so, what action will be taken?" The President of the Home Affairs Committee replied as follows –

" ( a) At present there is no legal basis for refusing entry to British Citizens wanted on warrant or released on bail from the U.K., unless it is a condition of bail that they do not leave the U.K.

 T h e Immigration (Jersey) Order 1993, extends certain parts of the British Nationality Act 1981 to Jersey.

Jersey is part of the Common Travel Area, which is made up of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. There is no immigration control for people travelling within this Common Travel Area.

 T h at aside, border controls are tighter now than they have ever been, mainly due to the terrorist threat,

and therefore more checks are being carried out which identify such individuals.

( b ) There is no reason to believe that Jersey is any softer a target for such individuals than any other place to

which they are free to travel.

( c ) Whilst the terrorist threat continues, tight border controls will be maintained." St. Helier hoppa' bus service – question and answer (Tape No. 912)

The Deputy of St. John asked Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf , President of the Environment and Public Services Committee, the following question –

" W ould the President inform members whether any financial settlement was awarded to Pioneer Coaches some years ago when an agreement to provide a hoppa' bus service for St. Helier was withdrawn at late notice, and, if so, the size of the settlement and from where the funds were made available?"

The President of the Environment and Public Services Committee replied as follows –

"I am advised there was a financial settlement of £15,000 which was paid out of the Public Services

Committee's cash limit in 2001."

Out Patients Clinics – question and answer (Tape No. 912)

Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier of St. Saviour asked Senator Stuart Syvret, President of the Health and Social

Services Committee, the following question –

" W  ould the President  advise members –

( a ) of the number, and percentage, of patients who did not attend Out-Patient Clinics over the last three

calendar years?

( b ) of the estimated cost of this non attendance?

( c ) of the reasons why the Benchmarking Report indicates that these figures are higher than those in other

comparable jurisdictions? and,

( d ) explain what steps, if any, are planned to rectify this situation?" The President of the Home Affairs Committee replied as follows –

" ( a)  The number, and percentage, of patients who did not attend Out Patients Clinics over the last three calendar years is outlined in the table below:

Total

( b ) The cost of an outpatient appointment which the patient did not attend (DNA) is difficult to quantify as

an allowance for potential DNAs is built into clinic lists, (see below). The marginal costs, however, amount to a few minutes of time either to remove the patient from the system and re-file the notes or to issue a new appointment.

( c ) The Benchmarking report indicated that the local DNA rate varied from National figures by between 1%

and 2.8%. This variance occurs in an environment where referral rates are generally higher and it is possible that some patients do not attend as their condition may have abated and they will have forgotten to cancel their appointment.

W h i l st National Guidelines indicate that no more than 16 – 18 patients should be seen in each clinic, new

and urgent referrals are often added to the end of the clinic list with the effect that 20 – 22 patients are frequently seen. This level of additional activity more than compensates for a DNA rate of 10%.

( d ) Efforts are constantly being made to reduce DNAs –

P o s t er s a r e widely  displayed  in  outpatient  areas  to  publicise  the  impact  of  DNAs  and  raise

awareness.

O u t p a ti e n t a ppointment letters specifically request patients to ring to cancel appointments they

cannot attend and the telephone number is highlighted.

T h e re is a 2 4 -hour answerphone so patients can cancel at any time of day or night.

F o ll o w i n g a DNA, outpatient staff routinely telephone the GP or patient to check the address, make

a new appointment at a convenient time and will explain the inconvenience caused by non- attendance.

P a ti e n ts w  it h annual or six monthly appointments are reminded of these one month in advance.

P a t ie n t s w  h o require follow-up appointments are encouraged to make them in person at the

outpatients desk before leaving the building so that it is more likely that the appointment is convenient for them.

A n in i t ia t iv e to introduce a partial booking' system, whereby the onus is put upon the patient to

secure an appointment that is convenient to his/her own circumstances, is being pursued. It is anticipated that this measure should help to further reduce DNAs."

Collection of leachate at Beauport – question and answer (Tape No. 912)

The Deputy of St. John asked Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf , President of the Environment and Public Services Committee, the following question –

" W ould the President inform members –

(a ) w hether leachate is still being collected from Beauport and, if so, how much longer it is anticipated

that this will have to continue?

(b ) o f the total volume of leachate collected, and the cost of collection and disposal, in 2003? (c ) o f the total volume collected since the leachate problem was identified in the 1990s?

( d ) o f the total cost, since the problem was first identified, of collection, treatment, disposal and

storage of the leachate, plus the cost of any remedial works to date?"

The President of the Environment and Public Services Committee replied as follows –

" ( a) Leachate is still being collected from Beauport and it is anticipated that this may need to continue for an additional 15 to 18 years.

( b ) The total volume of leachate collected was 1.1 million gallons. The cost for tankering this volume was

£18,360.

( c ) The average annual volume is approximately 1 million gallons per annum which equates to 12 million

gallons since 1992.

( d ) The original cost estimate was for £150,000 and ongoing costs are approximately £20,000 per annum for

tankering and £8,900 per annum for operation of the pumping station. Maintenance and remedial works continue on an as required basis with recent civil works modifications totalling £11,500 in 2003."

Disposal of potato waste and the protection of smaller farm units – questions and answers (Tape No. 912)

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

" 1 . Would the President explain to members whether the Committee has formulated a policy on the disposal of excess potato waste arising during this year's season, as in 2003 some was disposed of at Crabbé and some was dumped on fields. If so, could he provide details for members?

2 . W ould the President inform the Assembly whether the Committee has in place a policy to protect

smaller farm units in the light of the emergence of one single very large business within the agriculture industry which has led to concern that a monopoly situation is being created? If so, could he provide details for members?"

The President of the Economic Development Committee replied as follows –

" 1 . The Committee's policy on the disposal of potato waste is that farmers should deal with their own waste

in a manner consistent with good environmental practice, as they did in 2003.

2 .  T he Committee does not have a policy in place to protect smaller farm units. At this time the Committee

is adhering to the policies of the former Agriculture and Fisheries Committee, as detailed in the Policy Report of 2001, that was approved by the States in July 2002. A strategic review of the agriculture and fisheries industries is to be carried out during the coming months and should be complete by September."

Summer tourist bus service – question and answer (Tape No. 912)

Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier of St. Saviour asked Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf , President of the Environment and Public Services Committee the following question –

" W ould the President advise members –

( a ) what the loss of revenue is to Connex as a result of awarding the licence to Easylink to operate a summer

tourist service?

(b )  what the estimated contribution is to the Committee's revenues from the premium applied to the

Easylink service? And

( c ) why a town "Hoppa" service was not made part of the Easylink service?" The President of the Environment and Public Services Committee replied as follows –

" ( a) The previous Committee had estimated the loss, based on the previous tourist season of Easylink and which was included in the report to the States, of approximately £400,000. The agreement the new Committee has reached with Easylink for the 2004 summer tourist service provides the Committee with full disclosure of passenger numbers and fare income. This will facilitate a full assessment of the service this year and allow the Committee to make decisions regarding the whole of the scheduled bus service for next year.

( b ) The word premium' has not been used in any decision concerning the tourist bus service. I therefore

cannot answer the question.

( c ) The Easylink service is a visitor-focused entity, directly fed by dedicated hotel collection and return

services. A Hoppa' service would need to cater for residents all year round and may be considered as part of the Committee's overall appraisal of public transport provision in the autumn."

Confiscation of alcohol – question and answer (Tape No. 912)

The Deputy of St. Martin asked Senator Wendy Kinnard, President of the Home Affairs Committee, the following question –

" W ill the President inform members when the Committee intends to present draft legislation relating to the confiscation of alcohol for the consideration of the States following the adoption of P.46/2002 on 21st May 2002, and explain the reasons for the continuing delay in presenting the draft legislation concerned?"

The President of the Home Affairs Committee replied as follows –

" T he Deputy of St. Martin asked a similar question in September last year. At that time the Committee undertook to consult with all interested parties before presenting the draft Law.

D  uring October and November 2003, several points required further clarification, particularly the disposal of

the intoxicating liquor, and its confiscation in open or sealed containers. In December the Law Officers were asked to check whether the legislation was Human Rights compliant, and in early January the fourth draft of the Law was sent out, requesting comments by early February 2004.

The comments received as a result of the consultation exercise were considered by the Committee at its meeting on 19th February 2004, together with the seventh draft of the Law which contained significant amendments concerning the circumstances under which intoxicating liquor could be confiscated. Soon after this meeting, the eighth draft of the Law was sent to the Deputy of St. Martin for his comments thereon. He responded on 8th March 2004, raising a number of issues which were brought to the attention of the Committee at its next meeting held on 26th March 2004.

Following that meeting, the Director, Home Affairs sought clarification on the issues raised by the Deputy of St. Martin from the Law Draftsman's office. The Senior Assistant Law Draftsman attended the Home Affairs Committee at its next meeting held on 30th April 2004. At that time the Committee approved the Law, subject to some final consultation, particularly with the young people of the Island; the Law will then be ready to be debated by the States."

Monitoring of drinking water – question and answer (Tape No. 912)

Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains of St. Clement asked Senator Stuart Syvret, President of the Health and Social Services Committee the following question –

" W ould the President advise members –

( a ) how many staff at the Health and Social Services Department are currently employed on water pollution,

quality monitoring and related health aspects? and,

( b ) whether the Committee monitors the level of chlorine in Jersey's mains water and, if so, give figures

showing how it compares with the guidelines the Committee uses in view of recent concerns expressed in the U.K. regarding chlorine in drinking water?"

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

" ( a) Health protection within Public Health Services employs 0.4FTE to monitor water supplies. This is almost entirely sampling private water supplies at the request of the owner/occupier of the property. A fee is charged which covers the cost of the analysis.

A l l o t her responsibilities for monitoring the Water Law requirements for mains water supplies lie with

the Water Resources Section of the Environment Department, though they will refer issues relating to health to the Assistant Director – Health Protection and the Medical Officer of Health.

( b ) The Jersey New Waterworks Company monitor the levels of chlorine (amongst other things) weekly and

supplies details to Water Resources and to Health Protection. The analysis is carried out in the States' Analyst department. The aim is to maintain a level of 0.5mg/l when water leaves the treatment plant and a level of around 0.1-0.05mg/l at the tap. A review of recent data confirms chlorine levels of this order. Most public health interest is in ensuring high enough levels throughout the whole distribution system to keep the water safe. There are no local, U.K. or E.U. upper levels for chlorine though the American Environmental Protection Agency has a 'maximum residual disinfectant level goal' of 4mg/l – far higher than levels found in Jersey."

Income tax contributions of 1(1)(k) residents – question and answer (Tape No. 912)

Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains of St. Clement asked Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur , President of the Finance and Economics Committee, the following question –

" I n an answer to a recent question regarding proposed new tax measures, the Vice-President stated it is a condition that a 1(1)(k) resident who takes up residence on economic grounds must pay an agreed amount of tax every year'.

W  ill the President advise members what action, if any, is taken when such a resident's contribution falls

substantially below that level, either through declining income or by re-arrangement of his/her affairs?"

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

"The Comptroller of Income Tax regularly checks the files of 1(1)(k) residents to ensure that the agreed tax contribution is paid and, in the vast majority of cases, the 1(1)(k) in question pays the tax that he/she has agreed to pay, either through the medium of a trust, a company or in his/her personal Income Tax Notice of Assessment.

The Comptroller currently has seven 1(1)(k)s under investigation for failing to pay the agreed amount of their tax contribution. He has written to all of them, or their professional advisers, asking for an explanation.

A number have suffered financial reverses due, amongst other things, to the substantial fall in the U.K. Stock Market in the last few years, albeit with a rise in the last few months, to the lowest interest rates for some 40 years and, for some, to some specific business setbacks. In such cases, the Comptroller will typically ask the 1(1)(k) to either write to the Chief Executive of the Housing Department or, alternatively, give the Comptroller the written authority to discuss the 1(1)(k)s' changed circumstances with the Chief Executive of the Housing Department, so that an agreed position is taken as to the 1(1)(k)s' revised tax contribution.

There is no financial limit set out in Regulation 1(1)(k) so it is possible to agree a revised tax contribution where the circumstances warrant such a change.

Some of the 1(1)(k)s under investigation have yet to reply fully to the Comptroller's enquiries and one has steadfastly refused to explain his changed circumstances or engage in correspondence with the Comptroller. In that particular case, the Comptroller has written to the professional adviser informing him that a Royal Court summons is likely to be issued for recovery of the agreed tax contribution unless an explanation is forthcoming. The professional adviser and the 1(1)(k) has still to respond to the Comptroller on the matter.

I would like to reiterate, however, that over 95% of 1(1)(k)s do continue to meet their agreed tax contribution and benefit Jersey in other ways, such as providing local residents with employment, the giving of charitable donations, spending in local shops and restaurants and the purchase of property which is well outside the reach of local residents."

Proposed new tax proposals – questions and answers (Tape No. 912)

Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern of St. Helier asked Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur , President of the Finance and Economics Committee the following questions –

" 1 . In response to questions on 30th March 2004, the President informed members that the Comptroller of Income Tax had ruled in 154 cases of tax avoidance under Article 134A of the Income Tax Law in the previous 6 months. Will the President inform members –

(a ) h ow many cases in total were ruled on in the full year to April 2004 along with the total value

involved under Article 134A?

( b ) t he total number of transactions and their total value that were wholly or partially counteracted

under the Article? and,

(c ) t he total number of transactions and their total value that were allowed under the Article?

2 .  I n his proposal to introduce a Goods & Services Tax (GST) at 5%, the President has given assurances

that those who fall below income tax thresholds will be protected from further financial strain by increases in benefits of the order of £9 – £13.5 million. Would the President inform members

what measures will be put in place to prevent the risk of creating a benefits trap' by such a move as the

incentives of employment relative to benefits are proportionately reduced?

3 .  I n answer to questions on 30th March 2004, the President stated that the Committee was pursuing ways

of recovering estimated tax losses of between £20 and £30 million relating to non-finance businesses owned non-locally. Would the President inform members –

(a ) w hat progress has been made on this issue? and,

(b ) w hether this situation places these businesses at a competitive advantage compared with locally

owned non-finance businesses, and, if so, whether this advantage accrues to the £50 million lost tax revenue arising from finance business owned locally and non-locally?

4 .  I n answer to questions, also on 30th March 2004, the President referred to the economic benefit test

established in 1997 under the RUDL. Will the President inform members –

(a ) h ow this test operates today? and,

(b ) h ow it will be affected by a move to zero/ten tax?"

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

" 1 . (a) 4 04 cases with a total value of £42.9 million and estimated profits of £5 million were ruled on by the Comptroller of Income Tax in the full year to April 2004 under Article 134A.

(b ) 1 45 transactions with a total value of £20.1 million and estimated profits of £5 million were wholly

or partially counteracted by the Comptroller under Article 134A.

( c ) 2 59 transactions with a total value of £22.8 million were allowed by the Comptroller and not

counteracted by him under Article 134A.

2 .  T he Employment and Social Security Committee is in the process of developing a low income support

system which will aim to maintain the work incentive by taking an integrated approach to financial support rather than the current piecemeal arrangements where benefits are provided by a number of States Committees. Whilst most beneficiaries are likely to fall outside the Income Tax net, there is at this stage no firm indication of who might or might not benefit. Similarly, figures for increases in costs can at this stage only be indicative, and will be dependent on adequate additional tax revenues to fund them. There is no empirical reason why mitigating the impact of a Goods and Services Tax on low income households should result in a poverty trap' or benefits trap', and indeed it should be the aim of any new income support system in maintaining the incentive to find employment to avoid creating any such traps.

3 . ( a) A lthough non resident shareholders may live in a variety of jurisdictions, the majority currently

reside in the U.K., and we have had discussions with the U.K. authorities for some time now on a possible way forward. We have put forward some proposals which we feel could provide at least

a partial solution to the transfer of corporate tax revenues and these are currently being considered constructively

by the U.K. Inland Revenue and others and we await the technical response. Whilst we have to be realistic, we strongly believe there is a case for a considerable part of the potential leakage' to be recovered.

N a t urally, there is some sensitivity about such discussions, so I trust members will understand the

degree of circumspection which I have evidenced in my answer. When there is more definite information available this will be published by the Committee.

( b ) No,  a zero corporation tax  treatment for  non-locally owned businesses  does not  confer any

competitive advantage over locally owned businesses because they will continue to pay overall the same amount of tax on the profits they make, but the tax will arise only in one place, (for example in the U.K.), rather than shared between two places, (for example Jersey and the U.K.), as is currently the case. That is the technical consequence of zero tax for overseas owned businesses which our current discussions and possible refinements to the zero regime are trying to mitigate – in the circumstances which I describe in my preceding answer. I appreciate that this may appear a less than entirely satisfactory situation for Jersey, and one which we are aiming to mitigate, but we need to understand that the Jersey entity itself, or the non-resident shareholder, does not actually benefit. The beneficiaries are the revenue authorities of other jurisdictions. Furthermore, if we get it wrong and impose alternative charges which will not qualify for relief under overseas tax laws we will actually be placing these businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the future, resulting in their possible closure and accompanying loss of local job opportunities.