States Minutes 23rd November 2004

THE STATES assembled on Tuesday, 23rd November 2004 at 9.30 a.m. under the Presidency of the Bailiff ,

Sir Philip Bailhache .

All members were present with the exception of –

S e nator Frank Harris on Walker – out of the Island.

Prayers Right Reverend Paul Butler, Bishop of Southampton – welcome

The Bailiff , on behalf of all members, welcomed the Right Reverend Paul Butler, Bishop of Southampton, to the States.

Environment and Public Services Committee – membership

THE STATES, in accordance with Article  28(2)(b) of the States of Jersey Law 1966, as amended, adopted a proposition of Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf , President of the Environment and Public Services Committee, and determined that the Environment and Public Services Committee should, henceforth, consist of the President and 5 other elected members of the States.

Members present voted as follows –

POUR: 33 CONTRE: 15 ABSTAIN: 1

Senator L. Norman Senator J.A. Le  Maistre Connétable of St. Peter Senator T.A. Le  Sueur Senator S. Syvret

Senator P.F. Routier Senator W. Kinnard

Senator M.E.   Vibert Senator P.V.F. Le  Claire

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf Senator E.P.   Vibert

Connétable of St. Martin Connétable of St. Mary

Connétable of St. Ouen Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)

Connétable of St. Saviour Deputy of St.  Martin

Connétable of St. Brelade Deputy of St.  John

Connétable of St. Clement Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)

Deputy  C.J.   Scott   Warr en

Connétable of Trinity (S)

Connétable of St. Lawrence Deputy R.G. Le  Hérissier (S)

Connétable of Grouville Deputy J.A. Martin (H)

Connétable of St. John Deputy G.P. Southern (H)

Deputy of Trinity Deputy of St.  Peter

Deputy A. Breckon (S)

Deputy J.J. Huet (H)

Deputy T.J. Le  Main (H)

Deputy M.F. Dubras (L)

Deputy J.L. Dorey (H)

Deputy P.N. Troy (B)

Deputy F.G. Voisin (L) Deputy L.J. Farnham (S) Deputy J.B. Fox (H) Deputy J-A. Bridge Deputy J.A. Bernstein (B) Deputy of St.  Mary Deputy of St.  Ouen Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (H) Deputy M.A. Taylor (C) Deputy of Grouville Deputy J.A. Hilton (H) Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (H)

Subordinate legislation tabled

The following enactment was laid before the States, namely –

Road Traffic (Saint Helier) (Amendment No. 17) (Jersey) Order 2004. R&O 135/2004. Environment and Public Services Committee.

Matters presented

The following matters were presented to the States –

The Jersey Child Care Trust: Report and Financial Statements at 31st December R.C.53/2004. 2003.

Presented by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

Speed limits: revised policy (P.1/2004) – amendment (P.1/2004  Amd.) – P.1/2004. comments. Amd.Com. Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

States Members' parking: withdrawal of provision (P.152/2004) – comments. P.152/2004. Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee. Com.(3)

St.  Clement: pedestrian improvements (P.158/2004) – comments. P.158/2004. Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee. Com.

St.  Clement: pedestrian improvements (P.158/2004) – comments. P.158/2004. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.(2)

Sites of Special Interest and Buildings of Local Interest: financial implications P.166/2004. (P.166/2004) – comments. Com. Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

Child Care Scheme for low income families: amendments (P.173/2004) – P.173/2004. comments. Com.(2) Presented by the Employment and Social Security Committee.

Child Care Scheme for low income families: amendments (P.173/2004) – P.173/2004. comments. Com.(3) Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Child Care Scheme for low income families: amendments (P.173/2004) – P.173/2004. comments. Com.(4)

Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Planning applications: requirement to publicize (P.175/2004) – comments. P.175/2004. Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee. Com.

Jersey  Airport:  Fireground  Remediation – Deed  of  Settlement  (P.176/2004) – P.176/2004. comments. Com. Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

Draft Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003 (Appointed P.186/2004. Day) (No.  2) Act 200- (P.186/2004): comments. Com. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Machinery of Government Reform: election of Senators (P.195/2004) – comments. P.195/2004. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee. Com.

States Members' parking (P.199/2004): amendment (P.199/2004  Amd.) – P.199/2004. comments. Amd.Com. Presented by the Environment and Public Services 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 11th November 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  sale  to  the  Waterfront

Enterprise Board Limited (WEB) of an area on the St.  Helier Waterfront, (as outlined on drawing 1386/04/76 and previously referred to as "Parish Road" in Drawing No.  1 accompanying P.45/2002 – "St.  Helier Waterfront: lease and sale of land to Waterfront Enterprise Board Limited" – adopted by the States on 23rd April 2002), for a consideration of £10, on the basis that WEB would be responsible for both parties' legal fees arising from the transaction; and,

( b ) as recommended by the Environment and Public Services Committee, the entering into of a Deed of

Arrangement with Mrs.  Drusilla Mary Burdon, née Herbert, of White Lodge, Le  Chemin des Moulins St.  Helier, in respect of the purchase of a strip of land, (measuring 4,166  square fee–t shown on drawing No.  982-003D), required for the establishment in perpetuity of a road stabilisation structure and a new hoggin public footpath to improve pedestrian safety along the eastern side of Le  Chemins des Moulins (Waterworks Valley), St.  Helier, (as shown on drawing No.  982-003), for a sum of £5,200, on the basis of terms set out in a report dated 26th February 2004 of the Director of Property Services, and with the Committee being responsible for both parties' legal costs arising from the transaction. (The Committee accordingly rescinded sub-sub-paragraph  (ii) of its Act No.  A2(i) of 15th March 2004).

Matters lodged

The following matters were lodged "au Greffe" –

Maison St.  Louis Observatory, Highlands Lane, St.  Saviour and La  Moye Weather P.204/2004. Radar Station, La Fosse Voerin, St.  Brelade: transfer of administration.

Presented by the Harbours and Airport Committee.

Draft Income Tax (Amendment No.  24) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.205/2004. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Income Tax (Prescribed Limit and Rate) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.206/2004. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Housing Rent Subsidy Scheme: disregard to long-term incapacity benefit. P.207/2004. Presented by Deputy G.P. Southern of St.  Helier, and referred to the Finance and

Economics, the Employment and Social Security, and the Housing Committees.

Budget 2005: second amendments. P.208/2004. Presented by Deputy G.P. Southern of St.  Helier.

Draft Finance (Jersey) Law 200-. P.209/2004. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Planning and Building (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.210/2004. Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

Share transfer property: stamp duty. P.211/2004. Presented by the Deputy of St.  Martin, and referred to the Finance and Economics

Committee.

Budget 2005: third amendments. P.212/2004. Presented by Connétable of St.  Helier.

Draft Boats and Surf-Riding (Control) (Amendment No.  27) (Jersey) Regulations 200-, P.182/2004 – withdrawn

THE STATES noted that, in accordance with Standing Order 22(3), the President of the Harbours and Airport Committee had instructed the Greffier of the States to withdraw the following item –

Draft Boats and Surf-Riding (Control) (Amendment No.  27) (Jersey) P.182/2004. Regulations 200-.

Lodged: 26th October 2004.

Harbours and Airport Committee.

Arrangement of public business for the present meeting

THE STATES granted leave to the President of the Harbours and Airport Committee to defer consideration of the following matter set down for consideration at the present meeting to a later date –

Jersey Airport: Fireground Remediation – Deed of Settlement. P.176/2004. Lodged: 19th October 2004.

Harbours and Airport Committee.

The  States  agreed  that  the  following  matter,  set  down  for  consideration  at the  present  meeting,  should  be considered as the third item of public business –

Machinery of Government Reform: election of Senators. P.195/2004. Lodged: 9th November 2004.

Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St.  Brelade.

Arrangement of public business for the next meeting on 7th and 8th December 2004

THE STATES confirmed that the following matters lodged "au Greffe" would be considered at the next meeting

on 7th and 8th December 2004 –

Budget 2005.

Lodged: 9th November 2004. Finance and Economics Committee.

Budget 2005: amendments. P.203/2004. Lodged: 16th November 2004.

Senator M.E.   Vibert .

Budget 2005: second amendments. P.208/2004. Lodged: 23rd November 2004.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier.

Budget 2005: third amendments. P.212/2004. Lodged: 23rd November 2004.

Connétable of St. Helier.

Draft Income Tax (Amendment No.  24) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.205/2004. Lodged: 23rd November 2004.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Income Tax (Prescribed Limit and Rate) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.206/2004. Lodged: 23rd November 2004.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Finance (Jersey) Law 200-. P.209/2004. Lodged: 23rd November 2004.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Harbours (Amendment No.  38) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.183/2004. Lodged: 26th October 2004.

Harbours and Airport Committee.

Draft Amendment (No.  29) to the Tariff of Harbour and Light Dues. P.185/2004. Lodged: 26th October 2004.

Harbours and Airport Committee.

Draft Family Allowances (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.188/2004. Lodged: 2nd November 2004.

Employment and Social Security Committee.

States Members' parking. P.199/2004. Lodged: 11th November 2004.

Environment and Public Services Committee.

States Members' parking (P.199/2004): amendment. P.199/2004. Lodged: 16th November 2004. Amd. Senator J.A. Le  Maistre.

States Members' parking (P.199/2004): amendment (P.199/2004  Amd.) – P.199/2004. comments. Amd.Com. Presented: 23rd November 2004.

Environment and Public Services Committee.

Projet withdrawn under Standing Order 17(6)

THE STATES noted that, in pursuance of Standing Order 17(6), the following matter lodged "au Greffe" had been withdrawn –

Belle Vue Residential Nursing Home and Day Care Centre, St. Brelade: business P.163/2003. case.

Lodged: 18th November 2003.

Connétable of St. Helier.

Rehabilitation of Offenders (Jersey) Law 200- – question and answer (Tape No. 975)

Deputy Terence John Le Main of St.  Helier tabled the following written question of Senator Wendy Kinnard President of the Home Affairs Committee –

"W ill the President inform the Assembly why, despite the coming into force of the Rehabilitation of

Offenders (Jersey) Law 200-' on 1st December 2002, it is not possible to have one's minor convictions erased or spent, and when this will be possible?"

The President of the Home Affairs Committee tabled the following written answer –

" I n December 2003, the Legislation Committee invited' the Home Affairs Committee to take responsibility for the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Jersey) Law 2001, and the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders (Exceptions) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. The Committee accepted this responsibility and, with the permission of the Probation Board, has agreed that the Chief Probation Officer would undertake the necessary work in respect of the draft Regulations, subject to core business taking priority.

A  ccess to criminal records usually takes place during vetting for certain areas of employment, or where a

person applies for subject access in respect of their own convictions. In the first category, it is the case under the Law that the Health and Social Services Committee, for example, will need to vet those applying for occupations involving work with children or vulnerable people where the complete record must be known and which is catered for in the Law. In the case of the second category, i.e. where there is no automatic right to have access to the complete record for vetting purposes, the individual makes an application for the information held about previous convictions under the subject access procedure. That information is personal to the individual and spent convictions need not be disclosed, where the law identifies they need not be disclosed. Employers with no right to vet the full record should not require an employee to provide this information and individuals need not disclose it. There is no lawful right for the employer in this category to have sight of this complete subject access material. Information about unspent convictions should be given in the context of an application form, which is filled in by the applicant, and which carries a clear warning about the consequences of providing false information.

T h e Chief Probation Officer has identified a couple of areas where there are difficulties –

T h e f irst concerns the Rules in respect of exemptions. The finance industry and Financial Services

Commission want further categories to be exempted from legislative protection, and the Legislation Committee, which had previous responsibility for this Law, received a degree of lobbying on behalf of the finance industry to allow them access to the complete records of all levels of staff, not just principals and senior staff. So far this encroachment on the original purpose of the Law has been resisted by both Legislation and Home Affairs Committees.

T h e se cond concerns the ability of the Police to issue records amended in line with the Law. Criminal

records in Jersey come from 2 sources. The first is a local database relating to minor convictions. These typically include minor drunkenness, breach of the peace, some traffic offences, and some findings of Parish Hall Enquiries. The main source of Criminal Records is the Police National Computer database for England and Wales. The database contains records of offences classed as recordable' under English

guidelines. These typically include offences such as theft, burglary, assault and more serious crimes. This

database is controlled by authorities in the U.K. and managed in accordance with U.K. Law. The States Police are able to gain direct access to this database subject to conditions and performance criteria set by the U.K. authorities. One caveat is that the information gained from the Police National Computer cannot be tampered with or amended in any way. To require the States of Jersey Police to issue records amended in line with the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Jersey) Law 2001, would be both difficult and costly. It would involve the re-inputting of data from the Police National Computer into a separate database, assuming that the clearance from the U.K. authorities to do so could be obtained, which is doubtful. Furthermore, amendment of that data to show only unspent convictions would have to be constantly updated, and constantly checked against the information held elsewhere to ensure it was a true record in real time. This process would be both costly and labour intensive, even if it could be done.

T h e Committee is looking at possible ways to overcome these difficulties, which it is determined not to leave

unaddressed, and it hopes to receive a paper on this subject at its meeting in December."

Proposed new income support system – question and answer (Tape No. 975)

Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern of St.  Helier tabled the following written question of Senator Paul Francis Routier, President of the Employment and Social Security Committee –

" W ith regard to R.C.48/2004, entitled Income Support System', would the President –

( a ) give details of the calculation which results in a rise of 2.4% in the single adult's budget standard, from

table 2 (summary consensual budget standards 2001) of page 5 of the Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP) report 2001 of £125.05 to the figure of basic adult budget for 2002 of £128.03, given on page 7 of the report?

( b ) what funding mechanism is envisaged for the citizens fund', shown on page 3 of the report, given that

the exceptional costs' on page 8 of the report are currently met throughone-off' grants from welfare; what thought has been given to funding the fur furniture and equipment costs for various types of families, with and without disability, outlined in the CRSP report?

( c ) give details of who has been consulted and what comments have contributed so far to what is described

as a mixed response' from consultation on HIE and health issues outlined in section 6 of the report of the report, and explain to members what the Committee regards as the way forward from the alternatives presented, and, in particular, advise whether any concerns have been expressed by representatives of general practitioners on the Island?

( d ) explain why there is no mention in the entire report of the level at which the minimum wage is to be set,

despite the intrinsic interaction between it and low income support in terms of means-testing and poverty traps', outlined on page 6 of the report, and requirement to work' mentioned on page 13?

( e ) state at what income levels the Committee envisages the introduction of a very strict application of a

means test with pound-for-pound regression', outlined on page 6 of the report, and give a worked example of how such a means test will operate for a single person in the income range between current benefit levels (£7,568 annual income) and the income tax threshold?

( f ) explain how this means test will interact with the assets test' also proposed on page 6 of the report?

Will this parallel the Housing Committee's rent rebate rules on incomes and savings over £50,000, which is currently awaiting a ruling on its legitimacy from the Attorney General?

( g ) clarify the Committee's stance on changes to child care components to income support, outlined on page

11 of the report?

( h ) give further guidance on the question of incentives for carers', outlined on page 12 of the report,

especially in terms of the effect on carers of the inclusion of 2 individual components rather than a couple' in income support? and,

( i)  confirm that he has, or will, consult the Data Protection Registrar over any privacy issues raised by the

proposed database to be shared by his department and the parishes, outlined on page  14 of the report.?"

The President of the Employment and Social Security Committee tabled the following written answer –

" ( a) The budget standards were re-priced in 2002 to match the Income Distribution Survey data and not directly indexed from the 2001 figure. Therefore, the figures of £125.05 and £128.03 are not directly comparable. The budget figures will need to be re-priced yet again before the design of the system is complete.

( b ) I would draw the Deputy 's attention to the last paragraph of section one of R.C.48/2004, which states –

  T h i s report outlines the progress made and thinking to date so that States members and the public

generally can comment before the final proposals are put to the States in February 2005.'

T h e p u rpose of R.C.48/2004 is to engage both States members and the public at large in a wide ranging

consultation on both the principles and practice of Income Support over the next 2 months. To that end, 7 specific meetings have been set up so far with a range of stakeholders and States Members. Information is regularly appearing in the local media and the Department is collating responses from the general public. Further meetings are planned for the New Year.

  W  hilst such consultation is under way, the Committee will be responsive to all the comments and

suggestions that are made to it. When the consultation finishes, the Committee will assess all the proposals at that time and produce a final document which will be presented to the States early next year.

 T h e proposed Citizens Fund will be funded by the States, as it forms part of the Income Support system

which will be funded from the revenue budget. As stated in section  5 of R.C.48/2004 it is envisaged that this would cover the kind of exceptional costs that might be covered by the U.K. Social Fund', Guernsey's Medical Emergencies Fund or, in Jersey, through a one off grant covered by the Welfare Grants System. The Committee has also recently heard from the Jersey Community Savings and Credit Ltd. group, which has an interest in this area. Final proposals for such a Fund will be developed following this consultation round.

( c ) R.C.48/2004, and, indeed the related R.C.49/2004 outline the Committee's thinking to date' and also

reflect some of the ideas of the Integrated Health Care group involved in the Health Strategic Review to date. The Integrated Health Care Group was originally set up with representatives of all the health care professions. In addition, the Department meets regularly with the Jersey Medical Association's representatives and some of the ideas contained in R.C.48/2004 and R.C.49/2004 also reflect discussions over the years. At the present time, there are a number of views and options being considered as part of the Health Strategic Review. The Committee will give further consideration to health subsidies in the light of the results of the Health Strategic Review and the current consultation exercise. This will, of course, include the views of the local medical community.

( d ) The level of the minimum wage has been set and will be introduced on 1st April 2005. R.C.48/2004 does

not make specific reference to this as there are a very complex set of interactions, not least those relating to wages in the Island (not just the minimum wage) and the size of the family unit, not to mention particular needs such as disability, childcare and health. The prime purpose of R.C.48/2004 was to set out the key policies and methodology of the Income Support system itself.

( e ) As set out in section  13 of R.C.48/2004, the Committee has commissioned OXERA to model the overall

cost of the Income Support scheme. This work is progressing well and will continue in parallel with the

public consultation. Work is also continuing to refine the income figures and income levels will be included in the

Report and Proposition to be presented to the States in early 2005. The report and proposition will include worked examples for a range of household situations. The principle of Income Top-Up as set out in R.C.48/2004 is that, as the income of a household rises, benefit levels will decrease. It should help many benefit recipients as some of the current means tested benefits, such as welfare grants and HIE, apply a strict cut-off rather than a graduated one.

( f)  It is proposed that realisable assets will be included as part of the means test, and realisable assets will be

assumed to produce an income. It is also reasonable to expect that there will be some upper value of liquid assets owned by a household, which will debar it from receiving Income Support. This is not an unusual approach to means tested, welfare, Income Support systems which are meant to target the less well off in society. Final details will be put forward to the States in the context of the whole system.

( g ) The Committee is aware that the Education, Sport and Culture Committee is developing a strategy for

early years education and care; final details to changes in child care components will be dependent on any proposals that may arise from the new strategy. If a childcare component is to be included in the final Income Support scheme, this will be set out in the Report and Proposition to be presented to the States early next year. At the present time, the Committee is of the view that support should continue to be targeted to those in work with more specific alleviations to cover periods of sickness, unemployment and essential training, which might currently be covered by the Parish Welfare System. Any component, though, must ultimately support a new early years/childcare strategy approved by the States following the review of the Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

( h ) The Committee is aware of the valuable work undertaken by carers within the community and that the

carer is often faced with considerable loss of income through having to give up work. One suggestion is that if one partner cares for the other, within a household, then the household would receive 2 single adult components, thus providing extra financial support (as the component for a couple is less than that for 2 single adults). Other suggestions may arise from the consultation exercise.

 ( i )  The nature of the administration has yet to be decided. In addition, the proposed database will be

administered under a law that has not yet been drafted. At the appropriate time, consultation with the Data Protection Registrar will take place."

Benefits – question and answer (Tape No. 975)

Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern of St.  Helier tabled the following written question of Senator Paul Francis Routier, President of the Employment and Social Security Committee –

"Further to oral questions asked on 9th November 2004, would the President inform members –

( a ) what policy changes are currently envisaged for the welfare delivery mechanisms detailed below and

which are to remain unaffected?

( b ) what assumptions have been, or will be, given to OXERA in order that they may properly model the

costs of benefits, for example, of the approved 3 tier disability system?

( c ) whether the Committee accepts that the total spent on income support currently is accurately portrayed

by the figures in the table below?

( d ) will the President give an assurance that the total income support although differently delivered in 2006,

will match the total below with appropriate uprating and indicate how he proposes this uprating can be achieved?

N a t iv e Welfare

Item

Parish welfare

Welfare administration C o n t r ibutory benefits

Item

Old Age Pension

Survivor's Pension

Invalidity Benefit

Sickness Benefit

Survivor's Benefit Disablement & Injury Benefit Maternity Allowance Maternity Grants

Death Grants

Social Assistance Pensions

Cost £,000 7,002  (2002)

801  (2000)

Cost £,000 7 1 ,572

1 6 ,358

1 6 ,260

1 0 ,869

3 , 8 81

5 , 2 95

1 , 5 61

4 1 8  

3 4 1  

7

Source

Report on Rel. between Parish & Exec – 2

" "  

Source

E&SS Report & Accounts 2003

Total   1 26,562

C o m  m unity Benefits and States contribution

Item Cost £,000 Source

HIE 1,072 E&SS Report & Accounts 2003 Family Allowances 4,944

Dental Benefit 106

Non-Contributory Death 18

Milk 380

Attendance Allowance 3,290

Invalid Care and Disability 2,296

Non-native Welfare 3,240

Christmas Bonus 1,256

Childcare Allowance 689

DTA 5,988

Social Fund 198

65+ Health Plan 371

Total 24,248 H o u s i ng Benefits

Item Cost £,000 Source

Rent Abatement 16,205 Budget 2004 (Estimate 2003) Rent Rebate 7,374

Total 23,579 M i s c e llany

Item Cost £,000 Source

GST Compensation 9,000 – 13,500 OXERA, 2002

Unemployment Benefit 3,024 estimate based on contribution rate 0.35%

in RC49/2004

T o t a l possible sum involved in all forms of income support above = £198,716,000"

The President of the Employment and Social Security Committee tabled the following written answer –

" ( a) R.C.48/2004 sets out an outline of the proposed Income Support system, planned for introduction in October 2006. As stated in section one of the report, the proposed new Income Support system will replace existing means tested benefits which include welfare grants, housing and various non- contributory benefits.

 R  .C.49/2004 sets out some possible longer term policy directions for the Social Security contributory insurance system which at present covers incapacity, maternity, widow(er)hood and retirement.

 T  he welfare delivery mechanisms listed by the Deputy include these contributory benefits, which are

unaffected by the Income Support proposals. Only the means-tested benefits will be replaced by an Income Support system.

 T h e Committee is undertaking consultation at present on both the contributory and means tested systems.

It is important to identify policies which cut across the main Social Security and underpinning Income Support systems in order to ensure they join up as a whole. As stated in Section  2 of R.C.49/2004 –

B  y  e n suring the Social Security system maintains wide coverage on an equitable and fair basis, the new

Income Support system can be targeted to those, who through no fault of their own, need additional help. The Committee is also mindful of the need to target additional support as fairly as possible whilst maintaining and strengthening work incentives'

( b ) OXERA have been given access to the income distribution survey, budget standards, the 2001 census

data and current information on the number of benefit claimants, including disability benefits. The Initial Assumptions given to OXERA include a component-based system and an income top-up that includes a pound for pound regression. Discussions with OXERA will continue to refine the model as the consultation process further refines the proposals, for example on the proposed 3-tier approach to the disability system.

( c ) The figures in the table do not accurately portray the total spent on Income Support (Welfare) benefits at

present.

 T h e section headed contributory benefits does not form part of the proposed new Income Support system

as these are benefits paid from the Social Security insurance scheme to contributors.

 T h e miscellany section refers to costs that do not exist at present. There is no GST payable in Jersey and

there is no contributory unemployment benefit as yet. Support for the unemployed is currently only available through the Parish Welfare Grant System, included in other sections of the Deputy 's table.

 T h ere is also an omission in the figures, as the Deputy has not included the cost of educational grants

made to children over 16, still at school in Jersey.

( d ) I would suggest that the Deputy refers to R.C.49/2004 Policy Review of the Social Insurance System in

Jersey', Interim Report. Section 6.2 gives details of expenditure on Means Tested Benefit and Welfare Grants in 2003, that is, the current Income Support' system. I doubt that it will be any less but until the Committee completes its consultation, OXERA cost proposals, and the proposed new system is approved by the States, I cannot give such an assurance. Also, as explained in (c) above, the total given by the Deputy does not accurately reflect the budget for Income Support. Ultimately, the new system will be approved by the States and target support where it is most needed and expenditure will be dependent on the level of claims."

Tendering processes – question and answer (Tape No. 975)

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

" W ould the President inform members –

( a ) whether the Committee applies the States' tender process, and how frequently, for sites for crushing

aggregates and the hire of heavy plant and machinery on an hourly basis for such operations as beach work, sea defence work and emergency work?

( b ) who have been the successful applicants in the last 7 years?

( c ) how many companies have applied to tender during this period, how many actually tendered, and the

figures tendered in each area?

( d ) when is this process likely to be repeated and how will it be advertised?

 ( e ) of the quantity of re-cycled aggregate used by the Committee annually and the cost of purchasing

recycled aggregate? and,

( f )  whether the Committee has been offered free of charge for collection re-cycled aggregates from re-

cycling contractors, and, if so, from which companies, and whether the Committee has taken advantage of this offer; if the answer is in the negative, would the President state the reasons why?"

The President of the Environment and Public Services Committee tabled the following written answer –

" ( a)  The States currently employs one contractor, D.B. Cummins Limited, which operates on the La  Collette land reclamation site. The role of the contractor is to recycle aggregate and glass entering the La  Collette reclamation site on behalf of the Environment and Public Services Committee. The provision of these services was tendered in line with the States tendering process in the spring of 2000 and the contract period was for 5 years. The Committee is currently developing new contract documents in line with the draft Solid Waste Strategy and tenders will be sought in 2005 to provide the revised services. Once again, this new tender will be undertaken in accordance with the States tender process.

 I n relation to the hire of heavy plant and machinery, the department owns the majority of specialised

machinery for waste handling through the Vehicle and Garage Plant Trading Account. If there is a specific short-term need for heavy plant and machinery, the department reviews what is available on the Island and negotiates with the Island based contractors for the use of the equipment. The terms for this will vary depending on the application, urgency and market forces. For sea defence work, the contractor must be able to demonstrate they can work safely in view of tidal conditions. In selecting a contractor a number of considerations need to be taken into account, equipment must be safe, reliable and operated in a professional and competent manner. Decisions on the selection of contractors are made on a case by case basis, which is not necessarily the cheapest price, but always designed to ensure best value.

( b ) The successful applicants in the last 7 years for each area are as follows –

 T h e companies that have been involved in beach cleaning and sea defence work are –

E S P  

D  .B . C u mmins Ltd. B r i a n B l andin Ltd.

T h e companies that have undertaken Aggregate and Glass recycling are –

R .G  . Romeril Ltd. (Albert reclamation site)

D . B . C  u m m  ins (La  Collette Reclamation site)

T h e h i rers of Heavy Plant and Machinery Hire are –

B r ia n Blandin Ltd.

D . B . Cummins (Jersey) Ltd.

R . G . R o meril Ltd.

S u tt on Commercial

Je r s ey Demolition Contractors.

  I n addition to these contractors who provide specialised plant, the majority of the Island's haulage

industry is used to provide non-specialised equipment.

( c ) When the Committee used to undertake significant amounts of contract work using its own direct labour,

the provision of plant and machinery was subject to annual review of prices and equipment available. At that time, new companies could be added. The equipment would then be selected from that list based on price, availability, and suitability for the particular application.

( d ) With the significant decline in internal contracting work, the department no longer hires large quantities

of plant with the exception of the sea defence programme which is covered below. Any short-term hire is now negotiated with local contractors on a case by case basis.

 W  ith respect to heavy plant requirements on the sea defence works, in March 2004, the States Internal

Audit Department carried out a review of the sea defence programme. I was pleased to note that there were very few recommendations of any significance. One of the issues addressed was the procurement of the plant hire. The Committee had obtained quotations for the hire of specific plant at the beginning of the year. Internal Audit reviewed the 3  quotations and recommended that the Committee may benefit by negotiating longer term agreements with particular Plant Hire Contractors for the duration of the project. By this process, the contractors would be guaranteed work for a given period subject to meeting specified conditions and performance levels, therefore providing them with further opportunities to provide the most competitive prices. The department is in the process of preparing the necessary documents for such a contract for these works.

( e ) The Committee has used approximately 5,000  tonnes of recycled aggregates in 2004 at a cost of£25,000,

some of which have been as part of contract work such as lining of the rock armouring at La  Collette Reclamation site or for roadway and haul road strengthening and reinstatement. At present, the quality of recycled aggregate varies due to the method of processing and the nature of the incoming material. Part of the new tender process for the recycling contract at La Collette will require the successful contractor to apply a far more rigorous quality assurance programme to ensure that recycled aggregates reach the required certification standards and can be used for the majority of States contracts.

( f)  I cannot confirm that the Committee has been offered stone free of charge for collection. The Committee

pays the market prices for recycled stone. The price will vary depending on the type and quantity of stone being purchased, such as hardcore, hogging, fine screened (certified), shale and gravel."

Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund – question and answer (Tape No. 975)

The Deputy of St.  Johntabled the following written question of Senator Terence Augustine Le  Sueur, President of the Finance and Economics Committee –

" W ould the President undertake to liaise with H.M. Attorney General regarding the use of the accumulated funds amounting to £10.7 million retained in the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund (C.O.C.F.) in view of the number of competing areas of demand for financial resources which provide support in dealing with the consequences of criminal conduct, such as the operation of H.M. Prison, La Moye, and its facilities, and, if not, state the reasons why."

The President of the Finance and Economics Committee tabled the following written answer –

" Y es, I will undertake to liaise with H.M. Attorney General regarding the use of the accumulated funds in the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund. In doing so, I will be mindful of the irregular and uncertain income into the Fund, the need to ensure that the first call on the Fund is the cost of meeting the Island's international commitments in relation to mutual legal assistance as required by bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and the Financial Action Task Force, and the sustainability of using one off seizures to fund significant recurring expenditure, such as the operation of H.M. Prison, La  Moye."

2005 Budget allocation for the Emergency Planning Office – question and answer (Tape No.  975)

The Deputy of St.  Johntabled the following written question of Senator Terence Augustine Le  Sueur, President of the Finance and Economics Committee –

" W  ould the President provide a breakdown of the allocated one per cent budget in respect of the Emergency Planning Office (EPO) as indicated on the chart on page  14 of the 2005 Budget book, together with a comparison for the previous 5  years of budget and expenditure both in percentage and monetary values for the EPO?"

The President of the Finance and Economics Committee tabled the following written answer –

" T he Deputy will note from the attached analysis, which provides a breakdown of the Emergency Planning Office actual expenditure in 2001, 2002 and 2003 and budgeted expenditure in 2004 and 2005 both in percentage and monetary values, that the one percent budget reduction is due to a decrease in manpower costs and an increase in premises and maintenance costs.

F o llowing a review of staff costs, the department was able to reduce the budget set aside for this purpose by

£3,500.

T h e increase in the premises and maintenance budget, amounting to £2,300, is required to meet the increased

costs of building maintenance in 2005."