States Minutes 26th October 2004

THE STATES assembled on Tuesday, 26th October 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 Jean Amy Le Maistre – out of the Island

S e nator Wendy Kinnard – out of the Island

S e nator Richard Joseph Shenton – out of the Island

K e nneth Priaulx Vibert , Connétable of St. Ouen– out of the Island T h omas John du Feu, Connétable of St. Peter – ill

A l an Simon Crowcroft , Connétable of St. Helier – out of the Island D a niel Joseph Murphy, Connétable of Grouville – out of the Island P h ilip John Rondel, Deputy of St. John – out of the Island

J u dith Ann Martin, Deputy of St. Helier – out of the Island

J u lian Alexander Bernstein, Deputy of St.  Brelade – out of the Island

Prayers

Subordinate legislation tabled

The following enactments were laid before the States, namely –

Shipping (Fees) (Amendment) (Jersey) Order 2004. R&O 128/2004. Harbours and Airport Committee.

Shadow Scrutiny Panels – resignation

THE STATES noted the resignation of Deputy Jeremy Laurence Dorey of St.  Helier as one of the Chairman, Shadow Scrutiny Panels.

THE STATES noted the resignation of Mr.  Maxwell Robert de la Haye, Connétable of St.  Brelade, as member o one of the Shadow Scrutiny Panels.

Appointment of Chairman of one of the Shadow Scrutiny Panels

THE STATES, referring to their decision concerning Shadow Scrutiny, (P.186/2003, lodged "au Greffe" on 9th December 2003), on 27th January 2004 and in accordance with paragraph (b) of that proposition, noted the nomination of Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern of St. Helier for the appointment of Chairman of one of the Shadow Scrutiny Panels. There being no other nominations, Deputy G.P. Southern was duly elected.

Matters presented

The following matters were presented to the States –

Machinery of Government Reform: composition and election of the States P.151/2004. Assembly (P.151/2004) – comments. Com.

Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Bellozanne Scrap Metal Yard, Bellozanne Valley, St.  Helier: lease to Picot and P.170/2004. Rouille Limited (P.170/2004) – amendment (P.170/2004 Amd) – comments. Amd.Com Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

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

Matters lodged

The following matters were lodged "au Greffe" –

Draft States of Jersey Law 200- (P.124/2004): second amendments. P.124/2004. Presented by Senator E.P.   Vibert . Amd.(2).

Draft States of Jersey Law 200- (P.125/2004): third amendments. P.124/2004. Presented by Senator S. Syvret. Amd.(3).

Machinery of Government Reform: composition and election of the States P.151/2004. Assembly (P.151/2004) – third amendments. Amd.(3) Presented by the Deputy of St.  Ouen.

Draft Education (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.179/2004. Presented by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

Draft Public Finances (Jersey) Law 200-. P.180/2004. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Meetings of the States in 2005. P.181/2004. Presented by the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

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

Presented by the Harbours and Airport Committee.

Draft Harbours (Amendment No.  38) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.183/2004. Presented by the Harbours and Airport Committee.

Draft Electricity Links with France (Protection of Submarine Cables) (Jersey) P.184/2004. Regulations 200-.

Presented by the Harbours and Airport Committee.

Draft Amendment (No.  29) to the Tariff of Harbour and Light Dues. P.185/2004. Presented by the Harbours and Airport Committee.

THE STATES acceded to a request of Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern of St.  Helier that his proposition regarding Child Care Scheme for low income families: amendments (P.173/2004), lodged "au Greffe" on 12th October 2004, should be referred to the Health and Social Services Committee for a report.

Arrangement of public business for the next meeting on 9th November 2004

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

on 9th November 2004 –

Draft States of Jersey Law 200-. P.124/2004. Lodged: 29th June 2004. (re-issue) Privileges and Procedures Committee.

Draft States of Jersey Law 200- (P.124/2004): comments. P.124/2004. Presented: 28th September 2004. Com. Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft States of Jersey Law 200- (P.124/2004): amendments. P.124/2004. Lodged: 19th October 2004. Amd. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St.  Brelade.

Draft States of Jersey Law 200- (P.124/2004): second amendments. P.124/2004. Lodged: 26th October 2004. Amd.(2). Senator E.P.   Vibert .

Draft States of Jersey Law 200- (P.125/2004): third amendments. P.124/2004. Lodged: 26th October 2004. Amd.(3). Senator S. Syvret.

Modernisation of Jersey's Gambling Legislation. P.62/2004. Lodged: 20th April 2004. (re-issue) Economic Development Committee.

Modernisation of Jersey's Gambling Legislation (P.62/2004): comments. P.62/2004. Com. Presented: 11th May 2004.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Transfer of Functions (Environment and Public Services Committee) (No. 2) P.137/2004. (Jersey) Act 200-.

Lodged: 20th July 2004.

Environment and Public Services Committee.

Draft Transfer of Functions (Environment and Public Services Committee) P.137/2004. (No.  2) (Jersey) Act 200- (P.137/2004): comments. Com. Presented: 17th August 2004.

Economic Development Committee.

Draft Dogs (Licence Duty) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.169/2004. Lodged: 12th October 2004.

Legislation Committee.

States Auditors: further extension of contract. P.178/2004. Lodged: 19th October 2004.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Meetings of the States in 2005. P.181/2004. Lodged: 26th October 2004.

Privileges and Procedures Committee.

THE STATES acceded to a request of the President of the Privileges and Procedures Committee that the draft States of Jersey Law 200- (P.124/2004 lodged "au Greffe" on 29th June 2004) and associated amendments be considered as the first item of public business at the next meeting, and agreed that consideration of the draft Law should continue, if necessary, on Wednesday 10th November 2004 and that the next meeting should continue, if necessary, on Tuesday 16th November 2004 to complete consideration of the items set down for consideration.

Oral questions

1. S e n a tor E.P.  Vibert to the Presidentof the Policy andResourcesCommittee:

" W  il l the President inform the Assembly of the steps being taken to provide accommodation for the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers by the end of 2005 and the likely cost of providing offices for the Chief Minister and all other ministers, including meeting rooms and where these are likely to be located?"

S e n a to r F.H. Walker (President of the Policy and Resources Committee):

" I  ca n advise the Assembly that no decisions have been taken in this connection. The Policy and Resources Committee has asked the Chief Executive to investigate this matter and to report back with recommendations."

1(a) S e nator E.P.   Vibert :

" C o u l d the President advise the House as to whether the Council members, Assistant Ministers and public servants connected with the Chief Officer's office require free parking?"

S e n a to r F.H. Walker :

"S  ir ,  th at is not a matter for my Committee."

2. D  ep  uty G.C.L. Baudains to thePresidentoftheEnvironment and PublicServicesCommittee:

" O n 2 5th and 30th August 2004, I e-mailed several queries to the President regarding Mont Orgueil, drains, traffic flows and Field 40; to date they remain unanswered. Would the President advise when he intends to respond to my queries?"

S e n a to r P.F.C. Ozouf (President of the Environment and Public Services Committee):

" S ir ,  I  received 2 e-mails on 25th August but none on 30th. I was on holiday at the time and all e-mails sent to me were returned to the sender with a clear message saying that they should refer their question/e-mail to either the Vice-President or the Chief Executive Officer. I had no contact from Deputy Baudains. Since last Friday, I assumed that he had contacted the then Vice-President or Chief Officer and the queries had been answered. I am aware that now there are clearly queries outstanding and shall endeavour to answer his queries as soon as possible, but he needs to re-send the e-mail that he sent me on the 30th because I never received it."

2(a) D e puty G.C.L. Baudains:

" I a m   grateful for that answer, Sir, but, having asked other members whether they have had similar problems, in case it was my transmitting them that was at fault, I am advised that other members have had similar problems, so I would hope that the Senator would make sure that he does reply to e-mails and other correspondence promptly in future."

B a il i ff :

"I s  t h a t a question, Deputy ?"

D e p u t y G.C.L. Baudains:

"I   w a s  hoping that he would merely confirm that he would, Sir."

S e n a to r P.F.C. Ozouf :

" If   it  w  as during the summer period, is it not reasonable for members to put a bounce back on their e- mails? I, like other members, receive some 40 to 60 e-mails every day. If one is on holiday, one puts a bounce back to say Please refer the question to the Vice-President or Chief Executive Officer.' If queries remain unanswered during the period that I was on holiday, I am sorry, but perhaps members will re-send those queries to me and I will endeavour to answer them as soon as possible, as I do

normally."

D e p u t y G.C.L. Baudains:

"P  er h a ps you should take shorter holidays."

3. D  ep  utyG.P. Southern to the Presidentof the Employmentand Social Security Committee:

" [a s i d e] – (a) What are the reasons for the 40% reduction in sickness benefit payable to a married man under changes introduced on 1st October 2004? (b) Does the Committee consider that the new Home Responsibility Protection Rules present difficulties for parents to remain at home to care for school age children or have an impact on the quality of family life?"

S e n a to r P.F. Routier (President of the Employment and Social Security Committee):

" M  em  bers, I am sure, will appreciate that the rates of benefit have not been reduced at all. In fact, sickness benefit or, as it is now known, Short-Term Incapacity Allowance, was increased by 3.3% on 1st October. The changes to incapacity benefits were approved by the States to remove the unfair distinction between claims made for incapacity due to illness and those due to accidents. At the same time the unequal treatment between men and women, which was evident in the old system of benefits, was tackled, whereby married men could claim additional benefits but married women could not. This reflected the old Beveridge principle of the male breadwinner, which also gave married women an option not to pay contributions. Under the old system that option was not available to men.

H o w  e ver, the position now stands that men or women can claim additional benefit if the spouse or

partner, who is not working, is caring for children under the age of five. This allowance is applicable for up to 10 years.

T h e H  ome Responsibility Protection also protects the pension position of either men or women caring for

children. This change reflects the changing life patterns of society. More women work and pay contributions. In fact, married women electing not to pay contributions has fallen dramatically in recent years. The vast majority of short-term incapacity claims are for very short periods of incapacity. In fact, 86% are for under a week, with a minority of about 20% coming from married men claiming an additional benefit.

It sh o u ld also be remembered that the previous system did not allow women who paid contributions on

their own behalf to qualify for a dependency benefit.

In a n s wer to question (b), no, quite the opposite. Before the advent of Home Responsibility Protection

(HRP) there was no protection in social security terms for a parent to stay at home to care for the family. Home Responsibility Protection gives a family a degree of choice and safeguards the provision of future pensions. It even gives the choice of what is becoming more common, that the father stays at home to care for the children.

In f ac t , the difficulties with the old system often only materialised in later life where gaps in a woman's

contribution record, for the very reason of child care, led to small pensions in later life. HRP and the rules  on  divorce,  multiple  marriages  and  widowhood  have  been  modernised  to  reflect  changes  in society, and actually work to protect female pension poverty."

3(a) D e puty G.P. Southern :

" A   su p  plementary if I may. It is a complex one, I am afraid. Does the President consider that when this complex Bill came through the House in an hour's debate in 2000 that members fully understood exactly what the detail would be when this came to be implemented, as it is being now? Furthermore, does he not agree that his levelling of the playing field is in fact a levelling down and could cause hardship to the 20% of cases where it is a married male claiming? Finally, can the President state how this new figure of less than £150 a week for a couple can be matched in any way with the Minimum Essential Budget Standard for couples without children of £196 a week produced by the Centre for Research in Social Policy, Loughborough University (CRSP) Report on Family Poverty in 2000?"

S e n a to r P.F. Routier:

"S  ir ,  a nswering this question, I think, would have been far better done as a written question because I can

go into a lot of detail and I have all the information here. To do this justice, I could spend a long, long time answering the question. I know that oral questions is not the place to do this, but I will do my best to answer the several parts of that question.

T h e f i rst was regarding whether States members understood what they were approving in 2000? I cannot

comment on whether members understood. I would hope that they did. Certainly, when this move to change the incapacity benefit started as far back as in 1996, with the Continuity and Change consultation process that went to the whole of the Island, it was made very clear that there were so many things that needed to be changed with the Social Security system, to make it fairer, to have more equality and to be more human rights compliant because men were being treated differently to women and women were not able to claim various benefits the same as men were, so all of these things needed to be addressed. This was done in a consultative manner and it started in 1996 when it had in principle' approval of this House at that stage. It came forward in amendments to the Law in 2000. That was the process that we went through. It has been communicated to people along the way in various methods, whether it be through direct communication to employers, or writing to the beneficiaries prior to the changes happening. It is a system which has received a lot of support from people within the community.

A s t o the question regarding levelling down, the Deputy seems to be missing the point entirely. The new

system is on an individual basis. Benefits are on an individual basis, and they are no longer done as a married couple. There are protections in moving to this new system which has put in place transitional arrangements which will ensure that people are protected for the future. I will leave it at that."

D e p u t y G.P. Southern :

"C  a n  I  repeat the direct question?"

B a il i ff :

"N o .  D  eputy, I think the President is correct that this is a question which should properly have been made

as a written question. In fairness to other members, I am not going to allow any further supplementary questions."

D e p u t y G.P. Southern :

"C  o u ld  I have a second supplementary, please, Sir?"

B a il i ff :

"N o .  D  eputy, in fairness to other members.."

D e p u t y G.P. Southern :

T h is   is  a clear abuse of question time, I believe."

B a il i ff :

I n  f a i rness to other members, I think I will disallow further supplementaries and the matter can be

considered by you.."

D e p u t y G.P. Southern :

" I   a s ked a direct question, he waffles, avoids answering the question and you say no further supplementaries. I find that very unsatisfactory, Sir."

B a il i ff :

I  a m   so  rry that that should be so."

4. D  ep  utyR.G.Le Hérissier to thePresidentofthePolicy and ResourcesCommittee:

" T h a n k you, Sir. "Will the Committee undertake a review of the rules which currently govern the business interests of civil servants, and, if so, what reforms will be considered?"

S e n a to r F.H. Walker (President of the Policy and Resources Committee):

" N o .  As I outlined in my answer to Deputy Rondel's question last week, States procedures in respect of such matters represent established best practice and my Committee does not consider such a review as necessary."

4(a) D e puty R.G. Le  Hérissier:

" W  o u ld the President inform the House how many people he feels have activities that may have to be looked at carefully under the rules that currently exist? Thank you."

S e n a to r F.H. Walker :

" I  c an  n  ot possibly answer that question. That is not information I have available to me. What I can say is that every States' employee under the Code of Conduct, to which they are all subjected, is obliged to register any possible conflict of interest and any failure to do so is a disciplinary offence. So this is, as I have already said, consistent with best practice. It is the same practice, essentially, as used in Guernsey, as in the U.K., and we are satisfied that it meets all reasonable requirements."

4(b) D e puty R.G. Le  Hérissier:

" W  o  u  l d the President accept that in some cases, for example, in the case of a Chief Officer, it is almost entirely inappropriate in almost all circumstances for such a person to run a business which may relate to the work of the Committee which employs him?"

S e n a to r F.H. Walker :

" S ir ,  i f an employee of the States is running a business which may relate to his or her employment, then it is absolutely their obligation to declare that business and to ensure that all normal standards of avoiding a conflict are adhered to."

4(c) T h e Deputy of Trinity :

" W  o u ld the President confirm that the requirement upon civil servants to disclose such interests also extends to their spouses?"

S e n a to r F.H. Walker : "Y  e s ,  sir, I do confirm."

5. D  ep  uty G.C.L. Baudains:to the Presidentof the HarboursandAirportCommittee:

"W  o u l d the President advise:

(a )   h o w m a n y, if any, Harbours Department senior officers have any external trade, profession

or employment, and if so, was the Committee notified and when? and,

(b ) w hether any such interest involves direct trade with the Department?"

S e n a to r L. Norman (President of the Harbours and Airport Committee):

" T o  t h e best of my knowledge, one senior officer at Jersey Harbours has an outside business interest, that is the Acting Chief Executive, who is a non-executive director of a software company called Portfolio Solutions Limited. The officer was a non-executive director of that company at the time of his appointment to the Civil Service and within the specific terms of his contract of employment with the States, subsequent to obtaining proper legal advice, it was agreed that he might continue in this role. Therefore, the employing Committee will have approved these terms. Jersey Harbours have purchased one program from this company. Evaluation was carried out and the decision to purchase was made before the officer's appointment to the Civil Service, and his predecessor in post made the purchase within the 2001 Business Plan. There has been no other trade between Jersey Harbours and the company, except for the on-going maintenance contract."

5(a) D e puty G.C.L. Baudains:

" I  h a v e a supplementary, if I may, Sir. Does the President not consider that if a States' employee should in fact own a firm which trades directly with his own department that that is likely to cause suspicion amongst the public and resentment among departmental staff? Would he not also, further, admit that the Committee has failed because, according to the answer given to us at the previous sitting by the President of P&R, we were told that after an employee has notified his employer of an interest, it is then up to the employer to ensure that the interest cannot, in any way, be used by the employee to further his own interest to any interest of the States of Jersey?"

S e n a to r L. Norman:

" A s   t o  that  last  point,  Sir,  that  is  absolutely  the  case.  The  business interest  was  declared,  it  was incorporated in the contract and there was no trade, other than as I mentioned in my answer, between the company that the Acting Chief Executive is a non-executive director of and Jersey Harbours. here is no conflict. The matter is transparent, open and always has been. Everyone who is involved in this knows the situation and there is no conflict because the conflict is avoided by the rules of the Civil Service."

5(b) S e nator P.V.F. Le  Claire:

" I  w o u ld like to ask a supplementary question. Just hearing this this morning, basically, are there any on- going costs with this package which was purchased before the employee became a States' employee, because, in software and related issues there are on-going costs and updates, upgrades, etc., and surely if this is a package which has been purchased, there would need to be cognizance of on-going costs. If so, if there are, what are they?"

S e n a to r L. Norman:

" I s a i d in my answer today that the only on-going cost is the maintenance contract which includes maintenance up-date and support from the software company."

S e n a to r P.V.F. Le  Claire:

" T h a t  is my question, Sir. These can sometimes be significant figures. I wonder if the President could outline what those costs are?"

S e n a to r L. Norman:

"Y e s .  The total cost is £1,300 a year."

5(c) S e nator E.P.   Vibert :

"W  o u l d the President confirm whether all members of his Committee were aware of this deal?"

S e n a to r L. Norman:

"S ir ,  th e purchase – the deal – was made in 2001. It would have been included in the Jersey Harbours and

Airports Committee's budget and the purchase made by the officers of the day. While they may not have been aware of the specific contract, they would have made the budget provision for it."

5(d) D e puty G.W.J. de Faye:

" S ir ,  I would be grateful if the President of the Harbours and Airport could clarify what clearly would be an important feature of this somewhat foggy issue. Did the senior officer at any time have a role in the decision-making process to adopt this particular software, or did the senior officer declare an interest and take no part in the decision-making process?"

S e n a to r L. Norman:

" S ir ,  t he purchase, the deal, was made in 2001. It would have been included in the Jersey Harbours and Airports Committee's budget and the purchase made by the officers of the day. While they may not have been aware of the specific contract, they would have made the budget provision for it."

D e p u t y G.W.J. de Faye:

" S ir ,  I would be grateful if the President of the Harbours and Airport could clarify what clearly would be an important feature of this somewhat foggy issue. Did the senior officer at any time have a role in the decision-making process to adopt this particular software, or did the senior officer declare an interest and take no part in the decision-making process?

S e n a to r L. Norman:

" S ir ,  t he officer to whom I am referring, the current Acting Chief Executive of Jersey Harbours, was not a member of the Civil Service, was not working for Jersey Harbours when the decision to make the purchase was made. Therefore, he had no influence on it whatsoever. Sir, the Deputy used the word "foggy". There is nothing foggy about this. This whole situation is open and transparent."

5(e) D e puty G.C.L. Baudains:

"S  ir ,  I just seek clarification, because in a previous answer the President advised us or gave the indication

that everybody knew about it obviously in relation to the Committee. I have asked members of the present Committee and the previous Committee and I cannot find anybody who was aware of the fact that this person had his own company."

B a il i ff :

"D  e p u ty, I am sorry to interrupt you, but I do not think that is what the President did say. That is not what

I heard him say. I thought he said that everything had been declared and made available to members in the budget statements and so on, but that he was not aware whether individual members had had it drawn specifically to their attention."

D e p u t y G.C.L. Baudains:

" I  w a s  actually referring to a previous comment that he had made. When he first answered my question, he did say that he thought everybody was aware, if I can paraphrase what he said. On the other matter, I seek clarification of the comment that he made in response to Deputy de Faye. Is he aware that the person involved registered his company after taking up the position that he currently holds?"

S e n a to r L. Norman:

" S ir ,  I would not be aware of that, but certainly the company was in existence and trading well before the officer joined the Civil Service. The Deputy is shaking his head. Obviously, it had to be, otherwise Jersey Harbours could not have purchased the software."

S e n a to r P.F.C. Ozouf (President of the Environment and Public Services Committee):

" S ir , b efore Senator Le  Claire puts his next question, may I make a statement about the next question? The question that we next come to refers to a property owned by a personal friend of mine. Whilst this matter dates back some years, I have never and will not take part in applications concerning this individual. With your permission, Sir, I ask the Assembly's permission to put the question to the Vice- President?"

B a il i ff :

"V  e ry  well. Senator Le  Claire."

6. S e n a tor P.V.F.Le Claire:

" S ir , t here was never any implication in my question. I appreciate the President passing the question over. However: What process was employed by the Committee and what reasons were given for granting permission to build houses adjacent to the La Hougue Bie site; what archaeological and heritage impact assessments and considerations, if any, were made?"

D e p u t y J.L. Dorey (Vice-President of the Environment and Public Services Committee):

" T h is   matter goes back 5 Committees to July 1999 when the then Planning and Environment Committee received an informal request from Fairview Farm Limited to construct 3 dwellings close to the company's operating headquarters, Southfork, Rue du Trot, St. Saviour. At its meeting on 8th July 1999 the Committee accepted there was justification for one dwelling to be constructed close to the farm. Following a request from Fairview Farm Limited to reconsider its July decision, the Committee discussed the matter again on 30th September and accepted that there was justification for 3 dwellings to serve the farm given its size, and that there was no reasonable accommodation other than portacabins. It agreed that 2 units could be constructed close to the farm and the third could be constructed on a former glasshouse site owned by the company in Rue de Neuilly, St. Martin. Fields immediately adjoining Southfork on Rue du Trot could not be used for the construction of the 2 homes as they were required to serve the dairy unit at the farm. Attention turned to other land in the company's ownership.

O n 7 t h December 2000 the Department received an application to construct 2 two-storey agricultural

dwellings with garaging and storage on Field 1003 Rue des Pigneaux, St.  Saviour. This is the site referred to in the Senator's question.

T h e C ommittee gave consideration to the application at its meeting on 15th March 2001 and expressed misgivings about the suitability of the site and directed that the applicants consider alternative locations

closer to Southfork. However, on 23rd April 2001 the Committee gave further consideration to the

matter, alternative sites having been considered by the applicant and discussed with the Department. The

Committee of the day received a presentation from the applicants and their architect.

H a v i n g given the matter serious consideration, the Committee decided that the 2 houses were of a

traditional character and would relate in scale and character to Fairview Farm immediately across Rue des Pigneaux. Further, the houses were sufficiently distant from La  Hougue Bie not to impact adversely on its setting. Accordingly, the Committee granted permission in principle, subject to an agricultural occupancy condition and a corpus fundi condition linking the houses to the fields in which they stood.

T h e d etailed application was received on 2nd September 2002 and was approved by the Applications

Sub-Committee at its meeting on 6th November. That permission contained conditions requiring that before development commenced a period of no less than a month should be allowed for the undertaking of exploratory archaeological explorations within the site and that during the course of any ground works within the site advanced notification should be given and access must be allowed to enable an archaeological watching brief to be maintained during these works. The supervision of the ground works was undertaken by the Jersey Heritage Trust.

6(a) S e nator S. Syvret:

" S ir , I  think this is really quite a serious matter. There is probably no other country in western Europe which would have permitted any development on a field abutting a Bronze Age passage grave of this nature. I consider this matter of the utmost seriousness and I am completely dissatisfied with the explanation which has been given. It is, frankly, mind boggling that any permission for a development should have been granted next to Jersey's premier archaeological site and, indeed, a site that is of world importance.

B a il i ff :

"W  o u l d you come to the question, please."

S e n a to r S. Syvret:

" W  i l l  the President explain whether any objections were received to this application; whether the actual views of La  Société Jersiaise were sought, whether an independent archaeological academic was sought to advise or investigate the site?"

D e p u t y J.L. Dorey:

" T h e  S enator maintains that such permission would not have been given in any other European country. It is an assertion and it is no more than an assertion. It seems not to be supported by any other evidence, unless the Senator has something. I cannot add significantly to the details which I have provided. Apart from anything else, quite clearly, this was the work of 2 different previous Committees. All that I have access to, in order to answer any of the questions, is what I have given, which comes directly from the minutes of the Committee of the day."

6(b) D e puty R.G. Le  Hérissier:

" S ir , t his obviously has been a matter of deep concern to people in that part of St.  Saviour. I wonder if the Vice-President could tell me whether occurrences such as this are leading to a revision of the whole policy re: agriculturally necessary buildings?"

D e p u t y J.L. Dorey:

" N o t  o ccurrences such as this. I am not quite sure how the Deputy would define occurrences such as this', but certainly the policy relating to the building of new homes for people involved in the agricultural industry is certainly under review."

6(c) S e nator S. Syvret:

" C o u ld  the Vice-President find out, if he cannot answer immediately, whether this decision was entirely in keeping with all of the relevant planning policies of the day? Secondly, will he not accept that the 2  dwellings are in fact substantial luxury family homes and not farming accommodation?"

D e p u t y J.L. Dorey:

" O n   t he second point, I have not myself seen the houses. As I say, this was the work of a previous

Committee and I do not go round checking on the work of a previous Committee 2 or 3  years later, so I have no

way of confirming or denying that assertion. Certainly, any member who is interested can be provided with copies of the minutes of the Committee of all of the relevant meetings that I have mentioned in the original answer. They can see how exactly the Committee arrived at its decision."

6(d) S e nator P.V.F. Le  Claire:

" T h e   offer from the Vice-President of the circulation of who the Committees were and the Sub- Committees would be very helpful. Would the Vice-President not agree that, as stated in previous States documents, the archaeological scrutiny of this Island is severely weak, to say the least? As to these kinds of developments, one of the points was that it went from a farm building in 2001 to 2 houses in 2002. We will have to see those minutes. From the answer that I have heard, I could not quite make out exactly what was being said. Does the Vice President, in agreeing to circulate these, also agree to circulate who the sub-committees were and what their decisions were, and also acknowledge that the archaeological protections that we would like to see in these sites in the future need to be beefed up?"

D e p u t y J.L. Dorey:

" I   w o uld not agree with the statements that archaeological protection and scrutiny in Jersey is significantly weaker than in other jurisdictions. It is an opinion that one might have but somebody else might hold the opposite opinion. I have already given an undertaking that all relevant minutes will be circulated to members. I think the easiest thing is if I arrange for those minutes to be collated, including the Applications Sub-Committee. All members will be provided with copies of all the documents."

6(e) S e nator P.V.F. Le  Claire:

"S  ir ,  in  relation to the statement that the archaeological services in Jersey are severely stretched, I believe

the Deputy – perhaps, it may have been the President – at the time the extensions for the road works at the Le Masurier site over the Dolmen, when that report was issued the archaeological services did state that there could not be a proper survey undertaken to preserve that because of the fact that the service in Jersey is severely stretched. Does the Vice-President of the Environment and Public Services Committee not acknowledge, and is he not at least prepared to make himself aware of the fact that we are severely stretched? This Vice-President is in charge of the preservation of key sites on the Island. If he does not know that we are severely stretched in these areas, then nobody is going to know."

D e p u t y J.L. Dorey:

" I r e a lly do not know what the question means. What is the definition of severely stretched'? All departments these days have difficulties in keeping up with workload and we are trimming back wherever we can. Severely stretched' is purely a subjective assessment which one person might agree with and another person might not. I really can add nothing further to the undertaking I have given that all relevant documentation will be supplied to all members."

6(f) D  ep  uty G.P. Southern :

" W il l  the Vice President assure members that should a similar request for planning permission come before his Committee today, he will make reference to the relevant archaeological and heritage society?"

D e p u t y J.L. Dorey:

" A b s o lutely. I do find the whole basis of this question rather strange in the sense that any Committee of the States has enough difficulty examining its own policy and making its own decisions without having to come to the House and justify or support the decisions made by an ancestor of the current Committee. Certainly, where any planning application has an archaeological impact, then that will be part of the assessment of this current Committee. Of course it will."