States Minutes 7th December 2004

THE STATES assembled on Tuesday, 7th December 2004, at 9.30 a.m. under the Presidency of the Bailiff ,

Sir Philip Bailhache .

His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor,

Air Chief Marshal Sir John Cheshire, K.B.E., C.B., was present.

All members were present with the exception of –

M  aurice François Dubras, Deputy of St.  Lawrence – out of the Island.

Prayers

Subordinate legislation tabled

The following enactments were laid before the States, namely –

Community Provisions (Implementation of the mandate of the International R&O 146/2004. Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) (Jersey) Order 2004.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Excise Duty (Relief and Drawback) (Amendment No.  3) (Jersey) Order 2004. R&O147/2004. Finance and Economics Committee.

Residential Homes (General Provisions) (Amendment No.  11) (Jersey) Order R&O148/2004. 2004.

Health and Social Services Committee.

Nursing Homes and Mental Nursing Homes (General Provisions) (Amendment R&O149/2004. No.  11) Order 2004.

Health and Social Services Committee.

Ancillary Dental Workers (Registration) (Fees) (Jersey) Order 2004. R&O150/2004. Health and Social Services Committee.

Food and Drugs (Ice-Cream Stalls etc.) (Amendment No.  25) (Jersey) Order R&O151/2004. 2004.

Health and Social Services Committee.

Cremation (Fees) (Amendment No.  2) (Jersey) Order 2004. R&O152/2004. Health and Social Services Committee.

Nursing Agencies (General Provisions) (Amendment No.  20) (Jersey) Order R&O153/2004. 2004.

Health and Social Services Committee.

Matters presented

The following matters were presented to the States –

States Members' parking (P.199/2004): comments. P.199/2004. Presented by the Privileges and Procedures Committee. Com.

States Members' parking (P.199/2004): comments. P.199/2004. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.(2)

Budget 2005: amendments (P.203/2004) – comments. P.203/2004. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.

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

Housing Rent Subsidy Scheme: disregard to long-term incapacity benefit P.207/2004. (P.207/2004) – comments. Com. Presented by the Employment and Social Security Committee.

Budget 2005: second amendments (P.208/2004) – comments. P.208/2004. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.

Budget 2005: third amendments (P.212/2004) – comments. P.212/2004. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee. Com.

Budget 2005: third amendments (P.212/2004) – comments. P.212/2004. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.(2)

Budget 2005: fourth amendments (P.215/2004) – comments. P.215/2004. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.

Budget 2005: fifth amendments (P.216/2004) – comments. P.216/2004. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.

(re-issue)

Budget 2005: sixth amendments (P.217/2004) – comments. P.217/2004. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.

(re-issue)

Budget 2005: seventh amendments (P.218/2004) – comments. P.218/2004. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.

Budget 2005: eighth amendments (P.220/2004) – comments. P.220/2004. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.

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 25th 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 lease to Mr.  John Jackson of a three-bedroom house with garden known as No.  3 Howard Davis Farm, Trinity , for an initial period of

12  months at an annual rent of£13,000, subject to annual review at the discretion of the Committee in line with

the Jersey Retail Price Index thereafter, with the agreement to be terminable by either party upon 3  month's notice, on the basis that the lease was to be granted upon tenant's internal repairing terms with the public to be responsible for the structural items, external repair and decoration, and the tenant to be responsible for the payment of occupier rates and utility invoices;

 ( b ) as recommended by the Housing Committee, the sale to Mr.  David Dorgan and Mrs.  Patricia Joan

Dorgan, née Feltham , (owners of Dale Cottage, No.  106 St.  Saviou'rs Road, St.  Helier), of an area of land, (measuring 50  square  metres) adjacent to Dale Cottage, (as shown on Drawing No.  M701/03 date 11th June 2004 prepared by the Public Services Department), for a consideration of £5,000, with the terms of the sale of land to be as set out in a report, dated 9th November 2004, prepared by the Director of  Property  Services.  Each  party  would  be  responsible  for  its  own  legal  costs  in  relation  to  this transaction (The Committee accordingly rescinded its Act No.  A2(i) of 29th November 2002.);

( c ) as recommended by the Environment and Public Services Committee, the assignment to Mr.  Attilio

Pirozzolo and Mrs.  Brenda Ann Pirozzolo, née Evans, by Mr.  Peter Gibbins and Mrs.  Ann Huelin, né Gibbins of the property known as Le  Braye Café, St.  Ouen's Bay, St.  Brelade, for the remaining term of the current 6-year lease, the assignment to take effect from 30th November 2004, with the Lessee to be responsible for the payment of the reasonable costs of the transaction;

 ( d ) as recommended by the Environment and Public Services Committee, the renewal of the lease to

Mr.  Vernon Stuart Pallot of Field No.  724, Le  Pré de la Reine, Grouville (measuring approximatel 3.30.0  vergées), to be used for agricultural purposes only, for a period of 3 years from 25th Decembe 2004, at an annual rent of £150, (payable on 24th June each year), on the basis that each party would be responsible for its own legal costs arising from the transaction; and,

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

Arrangement with Dandara Jersey Limited for the undermentioned land exchange and counter-exchange in respect of the Rex Hotel site, Pleasant Street, St.  Helier –

(i ) th e acquisition by the public of a strip of land (measuring approximately 70.66  square metres – as

shown on Drawing No.  PHT  678  01) along the length of the site and bordering Pleasant Street i order to facilitate the creation by the company at its cost of a 2  metre-wide pavement to the satisfaction of the Public Services Department, including making good the carriageway surface as required adjacent to the new pavement (whilst maintaining a 4  metre-wide carriageway), for a consideration of £10;

( ii )  t he acquisition by the company of a parcel of land to the rear of No.  35 St.  Saviou'rs Road

(adjoining Pleasant Street – measuring approximately 28.78  square metres, as shown on Drawing No.  PHT  678  01), for a consideration o£f10.

D a n d a r a Jersey  Limited  would  be  responsible  for  both  parties' legal  costs  arising  from  the

transaction.

Matters lodged

The following matters were lodged "au Greffe" –

Draft Medicines (Amendment No.  2) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.214/2004. Presented by the Health and Social Services Committee.

Manual Workers' Joint Council: membership. P.219/2004. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Senatorial Elections 2005. P.221/2005.

Presented by Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade.

Draft Income Tax (Amendment No.  24) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.222/2004. Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Income Tax (Amendment No.  24) (Jersey) Law 200- P.205/04 – withdrawn

THE STATES granted leave to the President of the Finance and Economics Committee to withdraw the Draft Income Tax (Amendment No.  24) (Jersey) Law 200-, (P.205/2004 lodged "au Greffe" on 23rd November 2004), set down for consideration at the present meeting, the Committee having lodged a revised proposition at the present meeting.

Arrangement of public business for the next meeting on 14th December 2004

THE STATES confirmed that the following matters lodged "au Greffe" would be considered at the next meeting on 14th December 2004 –

Sites of Special Interest and Buildings of Local Interest: financial implications. P.166/2004 Lodged: 28th September 2004.

Deputy of St.  John.

Sites of Special Interest and Buildings of Local Interest: financial implications P.166/2004. (P.166/2004) – comments. Com. Presented: 23rd November 2004.

Environment and Public Services Committee.

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

Lodged: 26th October 2004.

Harbours and Airport Committee.

Fields 89, 89A, 90, 92 and 93, Le Marais, St.  Clement: redevelopment–  approval P.200/2004. of drawings.

Lodged: 16th November 2004.

Housing Committee.

Maritime House, La  Route du Port Elizabeth, St.  Helier: transfer of administration. P.201/2004. Lodged: 16th November 2004.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft Planning and Building (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.210/2004. Lodged: 23rd November 2004.

Environment and Public Services Committee.

Share transfer property: stamp duty. P.211/2004. Lodged: 23rd November 2004.

Deputy of St.  Martin.

Draft Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) (Amendment No.  60) (Jersey) P.213/2004. Regulations 200-.

Lodged: 30th November 2004.

Employment and Social Security Committee.

Services of general practitioners – question and answer (Tape No. 982)

The Deputy of St.  John tabled the following written question of Senator Stuart Syvret, President of the Health and Social Services Committee –

" W ould the President inform members –

( a ) whether the Committee intends to validate General Practitioners (GPs), as currently done in the U.K.,

and, if so, how this will be achieved in the light that most of the Island's GPs are in private practice and have invested heavily in these practices?

( b ) whether the Committee is considering taking over the various practices, and, if so, how this will be

achieved and whether this includes reimbursement of those GPs' financial investment in those practices? and,

( c ) whether the Committee will undertake to bring to the States any proposals for the implementation of

revised GP's service before any new scheme is put in place, if any, given the concerns of current GPs in the Island?"

The President of the Health and Social Services Committee tabled the following written answer –

" T he General Medical Council (GMC) is the U.K. based body which is responsible for registering both consultants and general practitioners and, through that process, is responsible for ensuring that these professionals conform to clearly set professionals standards. The GMC is the body, which in extreme circumstances can strike off' a doctor from its register thus making it impossible for that doctor to continue to practice medicine. (For either a consultant or a GP to practise medicine in Jersey he/she must have full GMC registration and then be registered by the Royal Court).

I n response to a number of medical blunders and scandals which occurred in the 1990s, the GMC proposed

the introduction of "re-validation". Re-validation is the means by which a consultant or a GP submits to a 5- yearly assessment of his/her clinical practice. If that doctor is re-validated then he/she will be issued with a licence to practice' which will be valid for 5 years, at which point the process would repeat itself. However, if that doctor failed to be re-validated then, in extremes, he/she could be de-registered and thus no longer be able to practice medicine legally.

S i nce the concept of re-validation was first canvassed there has been a growing interest, and growing anxiety,

amongst doctors about re-validation. These feelings are increasing now because the date from which re- validation comes into effect is close at hand, namely April 2005, less than four months away. The introduction of re-validation at this time is part of the U.K. government's response to the Fifth Report of the Shipman Inquiry which is due for publication imminently. The report is assumed to be extremely critical of the current governance regime which allowed Shipman to murder so many of his patients.

 T  he formal position is that only doctors working in the U.K. are required to subject themselves to re-

validation. However, the convention and practice in Jersey is that the standards governing doctors are the same standards as apply in the U.K. Thus the Health and Social Services Committee will be taking steps to amend Jersey law to ensure that the re-validation and licence to practice arrangements which will apply in the U.K. apply also to Jersey. The Bailiwick of Guernsey has already begun the process of changing its law in this way. Retiring GPs look to new GPs from the U.K. to buy into the equity of their practices. The likelihood is that without re-validation operating in Jersey, the Island will be deemed to be a clinical backwater. It will, therefore, fail to entice new GPs, and this equity will rapidly become worthless. Thus on material grounds alone re-validation is extremely important for Jersey based GPs.

H owever,  it is important to stress that representatives of consultants and GPs have declared that it is

unacceptable for the medical profession in Jersey not to be re-validated and not receive licenses to practice. They believe this is important if they are to continue to give re-assurances to their patients and to the general population that clinical standards in Jersey are of the highest.

I t is fair to say that, as a result of representations made by the Health and Social Services Committee to the

GMC on behalf of Jersey based doctors, the GMC has recognised that it has under-estimated the impact of re-validation on those small jurisdictions which look to the U.K. for the determination of clinical standards. Thus, the Health and Social Services Committee has assisted the GMC in establishing contact with these jurisdictions; jurisdictions as far away as the Falkland Islands, in order that these new arrangements can be introduced equally across the board.

T  here are two routes by which GPs, (and consultants for that matter), can be re-validated. The first is an

onerous and intrusive arrangement by which the individual doctor is subject to close personal scrutiny by the GMC itself. The second route is an arrangement by which doctors are actively involved in a GMC approved environment'.

A GMC approved environment is one which has all of the following characteristics –

A p p r a isal is practiced to a high standard.

T h e re is a robust governance regime in place.

P ro c e d ures exist for identifying and dealing with significant concerns about a doctor's health or probity. T h e re are clear lines of responsibility and accountability for the overall quality of clinical care.

T h a t t he above arrangements are quality assured by a competent external agency such as the Healthcare

Commission, (previously known in the U.K. as the Commission for Health Improvement).

I f doctors work in such an environment then a senior accountable person can locally certificate' a doctor; in

other words, re-validation would be by proxy. The Health and Social Services Committee can offer consultants such local certification because the characteristics of a GMC approved environment are almost in place, and will be fully in place for April 2005. Clearly, local GPs fall outside of such an environment at present.

I n the light of the above preamble the three questions are answered as follows –

( a) W hether the Committee intends to validate General Practitioners (GPs), as currently done in the

U.K., and if so, how this will be achieved in the light that most of the Island's GPs are in private practice and have invested heavily in these practices?

I t c a n b e se en from the above that it is not the Committee which validates GPs. It is the GMC. If GPs

wish to enter into a formal arrangement with the Health and Social Services Committee, by which they would fully participate in the Health and Social Services Committee's MC approved environment', then they are most welcome to do so. However, this would have to be on the basis of a clear and unequivocal policy statement which binds all GPs. Should GPs wish to become active members of the Health and Social Services Committee's GMC approved environment, and it is entirely up to them, then it must be recognised that this would have significant implications for the way in which general practice is deployed, funded and managed' in Jersey.

(b ) W hether the Committee is considering taking over the various practices, and if so, how this will be

achieved and whether this includes reimbursement of those GPs' financial investment in those practices?

T h e C o m  m ittee has no plans to take over GP practices. Indeed, the Committee has no powers to do this. However, the Committee is aware that some GPs believe that the pay and conditions of Jersey-

based GPs are now falling significantly behind those of their U.K.-based counter-parts. Thus should GPs wish to re-negotiate their present remuneration arrangements with the States of Jersey then it will certainly be necessary to include in such a re-negotiation consideration of a number of factors

including national remuneration rates for GPs, incentivisation , equity values and the high ratio of GPs on the

Island.

(c ) W  hether the Committee will undertake to bring to the States any proposals for the implementation of

revised GP's service before any new scheme is put in place, if any, given the concerns of current GPs in the Island?

T h e C o m  m ittee has no powers to take over practices as explained at (b) above. However, should the

circumstances arise that Jersey-based GPs wished to re-negotiate and change their remuneration arrangements, it goes without saying that such significant new arrangement would be brought to the States for approval. The Committee is not aware of any concerns of current GPs on the Island (about) any new scheme'; for whilst I and the departmental officers have had discussions with local GPs on a wide range of issues, as the States would expect as part of an on-going discourse with GPs, general practice currently falls outside the management of the Committee itself. The Committee is aware that significant discussions are taking place amongst the General Practitioners at present, with a diverse range of views being expressed. We await with interest the conclusion of these discussion and we look forward to receiving a clear proposal from the Jersey Medical Society as to their preferred way forward."

Public sector employees with outside financial interests – question and answer (Tape No. 982)

The Deputy of St.  John tabled the following written question of Senator Frank Harris on Walker , President of the Policy and Resources Committee –

" W ould the President inform members whether any civil servants or other public sector employees have been permitted to resign from their posts or leave on health grounds for having outside financial interests and if so whether these involved trade with other States' departments, and, if so, would he provide details of the number of personnel involved in the last 5 years?"

The President of the Policy and Resources Committee tabled the following written answer –

" T he question would appear to suggest that there may have been instances where an individual's employment could have been terminated due to outside financial interests, but that individual may instead have been permitted to resign or leave on health grounds.

I n relation to retirement on health grounds, it should be noted that this would have to be fully justified on the

basis of long-term incapacity and is subject to independent verification by the States medical advisers BMI. There have been no cases where an individual has been permitted to retire on health grounds rather than face dismissal for having outside financial interests.

I n relation to the termination of employment on disciplinary grounds, any department considering dismissal

on this basis is required to take advice from the States Human Resources Department. I am not aware of there having been any cases where an individual was permitted to resign for having outside financial interests, rather than face disciplinary action."

Possible review of Jersey Heritage Trust's management of Mont Orgueil Castle – question and answer (Tape No. 982)

Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains of St.  Clement tabled the following written question of Deputy Sarah Craig Ferguson, Shadow Chairman of the Shadow Public Accounts Committee –

" I n the light of recent public comment regarding the Jersey Heritage Trust's management of Mont Orgueil Castle, including such things as the commissioning and placing of statues, would the Shadow Chairman agree to undertake a review of this Body as soon as possible to ensure that public monies are being used

efficiently and effectively?"

The Shadow Chairman of the Shadow Public Accounts Committee tabled the following written answer –

" O ne of the areas which the Shadow Public Accounts Committee (PAC) intends to review next year is the accountability and corporate governance arrangements over grants paid by States departments to organisations. This follows on from the internal audit report produced earlier this year which identified a concerning lack of corporate governance surrounding the grant paid by the Economic Development Committee to the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority (JCRA). The Shadow PAC will be issuing its own report on the lessons to be learnt from the internal audit report on the grant paid to the JCRA in January 2005.

I n the absence of a Comptroller and Auditor General, the professional audit support provided to the Shadow

PAC is currently supplied by the internal audit department of the States Treasury. The 2005 internal audit plan includes an audit of the grant paid by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee to the Jersey Heritage Trust. The primary objective of the audit will be to confirm how the Education, Sport and Culture Committee administer the grant payment, monitor how the expenditure contributes to their own objectives and satisfy themselves that the money is spent for the purpose intended and with due regard to the principles of corporate governance and value for money. The audit will involve checks at the Department of Education, Sport and Culture and the Jersey Heritage Trust.

T h e internal audit was scheduled to take place in April 2005. I can confirm that I have instructed that the

audit should be brought forward to January 2005 and that the results will be reported to the Shadow PAC. The audit will be managed by the Chief Internal Auditor and undertaken by Foursight Consultants."

Vehicle Registration Duty claimed back by the farming industry – question and answer (Tape No.  982)

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

" W ould the President advise members how much money has been claimed back by the farming industry on Vehicle Registration Duty since the scheme began, the number of claimants and the number of and types of vehicles registered?"

The President of the Economic Development Committee tabled the following written answer –

" T he scheme began in 2003, and since then there have been 32  claimants. The total paid out is£94,550 and the number and types of vehicles registered are as follows –

2 4 t ra c tors

6 a g r ic ultural material handlers 2 f o rk l ifts

2 c o m  bine harvesters

1 f o ra g e harvester."

Proposed States Business Plan – question and answer (Tape No. 982)

The Deputy of St.  John tabled the following written question of Senator Frank Harris on Walker , President of the Policy and Resources Committee –

" W ill the President inform members whether the Committee intends to include the judicial departments and the Law Officers' Department in the proposed States Business Plan in support of the States Strategic Plan, to ensure a level playing field exists in relation to the even administration of public money in respect of matters such as the £10.7 million which is currently retained in the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund, and, if not,

the reasons why?"

The President of the Policy and Resources Committee tabled the following written answer –

"Y  es, the Committee does propose to include the judicial departments and the Law Officers' Department in the proposed States Business Plan, in the same way that they are currently included in the Resource Plan and Budget, and cash limits for all departments will be included in this document.

The Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund (C.O.C.F.) is managed and controlled by the Finance and Economics Committee in accordance with Article 24 of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999. The C.O.C.F. is a Special Fund which is outside general States revenues, and the Law specifies that it may be used in promoting or supporting measures that, in the opinion of the (Finance and Economics Committee), may assist –

(i ) in preventing, suppressing or otherwise dealing with criminal conduct; (i i) i n dealing with the consequences of criminal conduct; or

(i i i) without prejudice to the generality of clauses (i) and (ii), in facilitating the enforcement of any

enactment dealing with criminal conduct;

( b ) discharging the Island's obligations under assets-sharing arrangements; and ( c ) meeting the expenses incurred by the Committee in administering the Fund.'

O  ther examples of Special Funds include the General Reserve and the Social Security Reserve Fund. As with

these other funds, the C.O.C.F. has not been included in the Resource Plan and Budget, nor will it be included in the Business Plan."

Benefits – questions and answers (Tape No. 982)

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 –

" 1 . Further to answers provided by the President to written questions on 9th November 2004, would the President –

(a )  co n firm that the figures provided in response to question  1(b) show a marked decrease from 18% to

6.6% in those claiming a dependency increase for Short Term Incapacity Allowance (STIA) and that if this reduction were indicative of the year it would produce a saving on annual STIA spending of around £1.2 million?

( b ) explain the meaning of the answer to question 2(a) that "if the CRSP research set the level of

contributory benefits, this would mean substantial reductions in benefits" given the fact that the CRSP figures contain no housing element?

( c ) ex plain, if there is to be no connection between the CRSP minimum budget standards and

contributory benefit levels, how and when these levels were set, and whether they are to be reviewed in the future?

2 . ( a) Will the President undertake to produce for members estimates of the following annual figures in

January, based on the 4th quarter of 2004 –

( i) t h e n umbers claiming dependency increase for STIA as in question  1(b) of 9th November 2004?

( ii ) t h e n umbers moving to Long Term Incapacity Allowance (LTIA) with wives, working and non-

working, now unable to claim dependency increase as in question 2(c)?

( ii i) th e numbers claiming LTIA now assessed at a percentage of benefit who previously would have

claimed invalidity benefit at the full rate, and the consequent reduction in this budget?

( b ) Will the President confirm whether LTIA does not only apply to those with permanent loss of faculty'

as implied by his answer to question  3(a) on 9th November 2004, but to those persons who have a long- term illness and who are receiving treatment and who may recover sufficiently to return to work?"

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

"1 . (a) The figures supplied in the answer on 9th November 2004, were based on only one month's

experience of the new incapacity benefits but did show a reduction in those claiming dependency increases from 18% to 6.6% in STIA. If this reduction continues, and the future incidence of sickness is at the same level and depth as that in 2003, (though it is impossible to make such a prediction), the estimated reduction in the payment of short-term incapacity allowance compared to sickness benefit would be between £800,000 and £900,000. However, this is not the whole picture as the system now allows payment of LTIA to those in work.

(b )  T h e figures published by CRSP were for a modest but adequate budget and were found to be lower

than the standard rates of Social Security Benefits. Neither the CRSP figures nor Social Security Benefits contain an element for Housing.

H o u s in g support  is  currently provided  through  other  mechanisms  such  as  the  Rent Rebate  and

Allowance Schemes and Welfare Grants for those in need.

(c )  C o ntributory benefit levels were set in 1974 and since that time have been annually increased firstly

by the index half way between the cost of living and the earnings index and latterly from 1992 by the earnings index alone. Originally, the rates were set at the Welfare level except for the pension which was set 20% below this figure but this was equalised in 1987. The effect of increasing benefits in this way has resulted in Social Security benefits outstripping price inflation and, therefore, Welfare benefit levels.

T h e le v e l s of benefit were last reviewed in the Continuity and Change' consultation in 1996 and were

generally considered to be reasonable in relation to contribution levels. At that time, no-one wanted to increase contributions to provide a higher rate of benefit, preferring to increase contributions to sustain the benefit system through the demographic period.

A s th e D eputy is aware, the Committee has embarked on another Policy Review of the Social

Insurance system in Jersey' and recently presented an interim report to the States (R.C.49/2004). No doubt, as this Review proceeds, benefit levels will be discussed, amongst all the other priorities identified in that report.

2 . ( a) The Committee will, as a matter of course, review progress and is happy to share any statistics with

interested members. The Committee will be receiving a quarterly comparison from the Department to avoid any seasonal bias. This will also include all new incapacity benefits to ensure that a full and honest comparison can be made, including those who may not have qualified for benefit under the old system. The Committee would also add at this stage that one quarter's evidence can be superficial and will be conducting a post implementation audit after one full calendar year of operation.

(b ) I ca n do no more than quote Article 16 (1) (c) of the Law – S u b j e c t to th e provisions of this Law, a person who..

as a re s u lt o f t h e relevant disease or injury is suffering from a loss of physical or mental faculty which is likely to be permanent, and.'

s h a ll b e e ntitled to long-term incapacity allowance."

Effects of the proposed tax rate rises – question and answer (Tape No.  982)

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

" W ould the President inform members whether the Committee's own calculations support the conclusions set out in the figures produced by the Institute of Directors relating to the Committee's '20 per cent mean 20 per cen't process which suggest that tax rate rises will be greater for the middle earners than for the highest earners, and if not, will he explain why?"

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

" N o one has, as yet, provided a definition of what constitutes middle earners' and higher earners' but I can confirm that under the '20 per cent means 20 per ce'nptroposals higher earners will not only pay more in tax than middle earners but also a higher proportion of their incomes. The Deputy may be confused because mathematically the percentage increase for high earners could be lower, since they already start from a higher tax bill. However, the actual increases will indeed be higher."

Oral questions

1. D  ep utyS.C. Ferguson to the Presidentof the HousingCommittee:

" W  h en will repair work start on the severe cracks to Le  Bel Denton, St. Aubin, and what reparations, i any, will be made to the residents in compensation for living in substandard accommodation for over two years? Will any reparation be sought from the builders?"

D e p u ty T.J. Le  Main (President of the Housing Committee):

" W  o rk is not considered to be essential at this time. It will not be carried out until the third party responsible for causing the damage has agreed to meet the costs. It is not necessary to consider the issue of compensation for residents. While there is undoubtedly damage to the building, this has not made the building either uninhabitable or substandard and, yes, Sir, lawyers acting on behalf of the Committee are presently pursuing those deemed responsible for the damage to make reparations."

1(a) D eputy S.C. Ferguson:

" B u t this has been going on for 2  years. Given that the walls of most of the flats resemble a map of the world, will the President confirm when he thinks repairs will be able to start?"

D e p u ty T.J. Le  Main:

" N o , I cannot give any details on that. Negotiations are being pursued at the moment between the lawyers and the insurers acting for the third party and it is all in the hands of the legal team at the moment, and the Housing Committee is not prepared to start any works – we do not feel it is necessary at this time – until the matter has been satisfactorily resolved between both parties."

1(b) Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

" W i l l the President confirm that he will speak to his officers and the lawyers in order to speed this affair up? It has been going on for more than 2  years."

D e p u ty T.J. Le  Main:

" T h e re is no point in speaking to the officers. The officers have advised me that they are fully on top of the issue but cannot push the lawyers and both parties any further than they are doing. It is a legal delay,

and many of us know how long it can take sometimes to resolve some of these disputes."

2. T h  e Deputy of St.  John to the PresidentoftheEconomicDevelopmentCommittee:

" C a n members be given details of the accord between Jersey and Guernsey over Fishing Rights? Will he explain what involvement the United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has had, if any, in the accord and what implications this will have on Jersey's fishing industry; and will any Jersey fishermen be deprived of fishing in Guernsey waters?"

D e p u ty F.G. Voisin (President of the Economic Development Committee):

" Y e s , members can have details of the accord. There is certainly nothing secretive about this. If members wish, I can circulate a copy to everybody. The general thrust of the accord though is that both Jersey and Guernsey give a commitment to reaching agreement over access of Jersey fishing vessels to Guernsey waters and to reach that agreement before the end of the year. I can report indeed that discussions are continuing in a very fruitful vein, and I am confident that we are going to be able to achieve that deadline. The U.K. and DEFRA have not been involved on Jersey's side, although they may have been involved on Guernsey's side. We believe that this is a matter that the 2  Islands should be capable of resolving themselves. The implications for Jersey's fishing industry are that in the future we will have certainty over how access of Jersey vessels is to be achieved into Guernsey waters and to resolve the dispute that has beset the industry for the last few years. There is certainly no intention for any Jersey fisherman to be deprived of fishing in Guernsey waters if they have the required track record."

2(a) T he Deputy of St.  John:

" W  it hin the accord will the President confirm that something like only a third of fishermen who have actually applied for a licence will be given a licence and the other two-thirds will fall by the wayside; and does he consider that his Committee has not done sufficient to make sure all our fishermen are treated equally?"

D e p u ty F.G. Voisin:

" I th i nk the Deputy must be referring to the figures contained within the accord, which is also going to be contained within the access agreement that sets out the total limit of 28 vessels – Jersey vessels – that will be allowed into Guernsey waters. That is against the background of about, I think, 70-odd applications that were made when the Guernsey scheme was originally established. I think that both sides do accept that there were some spurious applications made by fishermen that do not fish, and had not been fishing, in the waters around Guernsey. It was accepted – and I think it is accepted – by both sides that those fishermen should not therefore be granted an exclusive or at least a right to exploit those waters in the future. I would say though that the way negotiations are going at the moment, there is going to be some flexibility within the numbers – sorry, within the individuals – who are able to fish within the waters around Guernsey; and that will be able to help the situation where new fishermen coming into the industry will be able to get access to Guernsey waters."

2(b)  T he Deputy of St.  John:

" T h e President is trying to tell us that there is something like in the region of 40 spurious applications. I think it is incredible to believe that a fisherman would go to all the trouble of producing all the documentation that was required (and there was a lot of documentation required) in every application. I think the President is doing the fishermen a disservice. Does the President not consider that, first, by his late action in dealing with this particular matter, which is under his Committee's control; and, secondly, getting to grips with the fishing dispute, his Committee has let our Island fishermen down and that it should consider standing down and resigning over this issue?"

D e p u ty F.G. Voisin:

" [A  si de]. Sorry, but I do not believe for one moment that the Committee was ever late in taking action over this issue. Indeed, as soon as the Committee came into office it was briefed on this situation. We have consistently made representations to Guernsey. I think that there was one Senator who got into trouble for suggesting that it was like dealing with the hearing impaired. The thing is that we have now moved on from the situation where neither island were actually sitting down and entering into meaningful discussions about this and we now have a situation where we are very close to agreement and we are

going to be able to have an agreement where 28 Jersey boats have access to the waters around Guernsey. That is a

considerably better situation than we had, for example, when the Jersey Fishermen's Association took the Guernsey authorities to court because they had issued just, I think, a handful of licences on the back of about 70 or 80  applications, so I do not accept that the Committee has been remiss in dealing with this. We have got to grips with it and we have certainly moved the situation on considerably from when we first took office. I should make it quite clear that I am not intending to resign and neither is my Committee intending to resign on this."

3. T h  e Deputy of Grouville to the Presidentof the FinanceandEconomicsCommittee:

" W o u ld the President inform the Assembly how much tax is generated from the Jersey exempt company fees annually?"

S e n a tor T.A. Le  Sueur (President of the Finance and Economics Committee):

" T h e amount of tax generated from Jersey exempt company fees is approximately £10 million per annum."

3(a) T he Deputy of Grouville :

" G i v en that that sum is relatively small – and I appreciate that there is a knock on effect of tax income generated from the industry as a whole – would the President consider it to be worthwhile, given that the ordinary people of Jersey have got to make up £100 million tax deficit, to accommodate this portion of the finance industry?"

S e n a tor T.A. Le  Sueur: