States Minutes 9th November 2004

THE STATES assembled on Tuesday, 9th November 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 –

S enat  or Richard Joseph Shenton – out of the Island

J ohn B  audains Germain, Connétable of St. Martin – ill

T hom  as John du Feu, Connétable of St. Peter – ill

C e lia Joyce Scott Warr en, Deputy of St. Saviour–  out of the Island.

Prayers

Subordinate legislation tabled

The following enactment was laid before the States, namely –

Post Office (General Provisions) (Amendment No. 56) (Jersey) Order 2004. R&O 131/2004. Committee for Postal Administration.

Overseas Aid Committee – appointment of member

THE STATES appointed Deputy Alan Breckon of St. Saviour as a member of the Overseas Aid Committee.

Special Committee on the Composition and Election of the States Assembly – resignation of member

THE STATES noted the resignation of Senator Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire from the Special Committee on the Composition and Election of the States Assembly.

Matters presented

The following matters were presented to the States –

Draft States of Jersey Law 200- (P.124/2004): amendments (P.124/2004 Amd.) – P.124/2004. comments. Amd.Com. Presented by the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

Draft States of Jersey Law 200- (P.124/2004): second amendments P.124/2004. (P.124/2004 Amd.(2)) – comments. Amd.(2)Com. Presented by the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

Draft States of Jersey Law 200- (P.124/2004): second amendments P.124/2004. (P.124/2004 Amd.(2)) – comments. Amd.(2) Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee. Com.(2)

Draft States of Jersey Law 200- (P.124/2004): third amendments P.124/2004. (P.124/2004 Amd.(3)) – comments. Amd.(3)Com.

Presented by the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

Draft States of Jersey Law 200- (P.124/2004): third amendments P.124/2004. (P.124/2004 Amd.(3)) – comments. Amd.(3) Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee. Com.(2).

Child Care Scheme for low income families: amendments (P.173/2004) – P.173/2004. comments. Com. Presented by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

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

Matters lodged

The following matters were lodged "au Greffe" –

Budget 2005.

Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Speed Limits: revised policy (P.1/2004) – amendment. P.1/2004. Presented by the Connétable of St. Helier, and referred to the Environment and Amd. Public Services and Home Affairs Committees, and the Comité des Connétable s.

Sports Facility at Hautlieu School, St. Saviour: approval of drawings. P.191/2004. Presented by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

Draft Public Employees (Retirement) (Validation and Amendment) (Jersey) Law P.192/2004. 200-.

Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft Honorary Police (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.193/2004 Presented by the Legislation Committee.

Compensation of victims of untraced drivers of motor vehicles: Agreement P.194/2004 between the Home Affairs Committee and the Motor Insurers' Bureau.

Presented by the Home Affairs Committee.

Machinery of Government Reform: election of Senators. P.195/2004. Presented by Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade.

Draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law 200-. P.196/2004. Presented by Home Affairs Committee.

Shadow Public Accounts Committee: appointment of member. P.197/2004. Presented by Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade.

Special Committee on the Composition and Election of the States Assembly: vote P.198/2004. of no confidence.

Presented by Senator P.V.F. Le Claire.

Meetings of the States in 2005 (P.181/2004) – withdrawal of paragraph (b)

THE STATES noted that, in accordance with  Standing Order 22(3), the  President of  the Privileges  and Procedures Committee had instructed the Greffier of the States to withdraw paragraph (b) of the proposition regarding the Meetings of the States, (P.181/2004 lodged "au Greffe" on 26th October 2004), and set down for consideration at the present meeting.

Arrangement of public business for the next meeting on 23rd November 2004

THE STATES adopted a proposition of Deputy Sarah Craig Ferguson of St. Brelade that the proposition concerning the Machinery of Government Reform: election of Senators, (P.195/2004 lodged "au Greffe" on 9th November 2004), be considered at the next meeting on 23rd November 2004.

Members present voted as follows –

POUR: 32 CONTRE: 12 ABSTAIN: 1

Senator L. Norman Senator J.A. Le Maistre Deputy G.P. Southern (H) Senator F.H. Walker Senator S. Syvret

Senator P.F. Routier Senator W. Kinnard

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf Senator T.A. Le Sueur

Connétable of St. Saviour Senator P.V.F. Le Claire

Connétable of St. Mary Senator M.E. Vibert

Connétable of St. Clement Senator E.P. Vibert

Connétable of Trinity Connétable of St. Ouen

Connétable of Grouville Connétable of St. Brelade

Connétable of St. John Deputy A. Breckon (S)

Deputy of Trinity Deputy P.N. Troy (B)

Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S) Deputy F.G. Voisin (L)

Deputy J.J. Huet (H)

Deputy of St. Martin

Deputy of St. John

Deputy T.J. Le Main (H)

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)

Deputy J.L Dorey (H)

Deputy L.J. Farnham (S)

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)

Deputy J.B. Fox (H)

Deputy J-A. Bridge (H)

Deputy J.A. Martin (H)

Deputy J.A. Bernstein (B)

Deputy S.C. Ferguson (B)

Deputy of St. Mary

Deputy of St. Ouen

Deputy M.A. Taylor (C)

Deputy of Grouville

Deputy of St. Peter

Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (H)

THE STATES confirmed that the following matters lodged "au Greffe" would be considered at the next meeting on 23rd November 2004, in the following order –

Special Committee on the Composition and Election of the States Assembly: vote P.198/2004. of no confidence.

Lodged: 9th November 2004.

Senator P.V.F. Le Claire.

Machinery of Government Reform: composition and election of the States P.151/2004. Assembly.

Lodged: 14th September 2004.

Special Committee on the Composition and Election of the States Assembly.

Machinery of Government Reform: composition and election of the States P.151/2004. Assembly (P.151/2004) – comments. Com. Presented: 26th October 2004. (re-issue) Policy and Resources Committee.

Machinery of Government Reform: composition and election of the States P.151/2004. Assembly (P.151/2004) – amendments. Amd. Lodged: 28th September 2004.

Deputy of St. Martin.

Machinery of Government Reform: composition and election of the States P.151/2004. Assembly (P.151/2004) – amendments (P.151/2004 Amd.) – amendments. Amd.Amd. Lodged: 12th October 2004.

Deputy M.F. Dubras of St. Lawrence.

Machinery of Government Reform: composition and election of the States P.151/2004. Assembly (P.151/2004) – second amendments. Amd.(2) Lodged: 12th October 2004.

Deputy M.F. Dubras of St. Lawrence.

Machinery of Government Reform: composition and election of the States P.151/2004. Assembly (P.151/2004) – third amendments. Amd.(3) Lodged: 26th October 2004

Deputy of St. Ouen.

St. Clement: pedestrian improvements. P.158/2004. Lodged: 14th September 2004, and referred to the Environment and Public

Services Committee.

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

Child Care Scheme for low income families: amendments. P.173/2004. Lodged: 12th October 2004, and referred to the Policy and Resources, Finance

and Economics, Employment and Social Security, and Health and Social Services

Committees.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier.

Child Care Scheme for low income families: amendments (P.173/2004) – P.173/2004. comments. Com. Presented: 9th November 2004.

Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

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

Harbours and Airport Committee.

Draft  Restriction  on Smoking  (Sales  of  Cigarettes  to  Children)  (Amendment) P.177/2004. (Jersey) Regulations 200-.

Lodged: 19th October 2004.

Health and Social Services Committee.

Sports Facility at Hautlieu School, St. Saviour: approval of drawings. P.191/2004. Lodged: 9th November 2004.

Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

Draft Public Employees (Retirement) (Validation and Amendment) (Jersey) Law P.192/2004. 200-.

Lodged: 9th November 2004.

Policy and Resources Committee.

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

Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade.

Shadow Public Accounts Committee: appointment of member. P.197/2004. Lodged: 9th November 2004.

Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade.

Tanker berth forward gangway – question and answer (Tape No. 965)

Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains of St. Clement tabled the following written question of Senator Leonard Norman, President of the Harbours and Airport Committee –

" ( a) With regard to the tanker berth forward gangway, would the President confirm whether –

(i ) ar ound February 1998 the tank supporting the gangway reached the end of its life;

( ii ) t he Harbours Department declined the offer of 2 replacement tanks costing approximately

£10,000;

( ii i) t he gas supply ships required 2 escape routes, one for'd and one aft, but considered a boat

alongside adequate;

( iv ) in 1999 the Harbours Department replaced the old system with a facility consisting of

6 landing stages (originally 3) which tanker operators refused to use because of its design, requiring up to 64 changes of gangway per day on a 40ft. tide; and,

( v ) t he 6-tier device costing approximately £180,000 required the supply of a safety boat on

approximately 450 occasions at a cost of £125 each time due to its failure.

( b ) In light of the above, will the President explain to what extent tanker operators were consulted with

regard to the 6-tier structure and, given that the original gangway forms part of the latest structure, why over half a million pounds has been expended providing an access route that could have been achieved by purchasing another tank complete with a saving of £10,000?

( c ) Would the President further confirm the existence of a loose lid, unmarked petrol storage vessel

nearby and will he confirm whether the ship discharge hoses are in a leaky condition, and, if so, whether this is deemed unsafe?"

The President of the Harbours and Airport Committee tabled the following written answer –

" ( a) (i) I can confirm that the tank and some of the ancillary steelwork supporting the bridge came to the end of its life at this time.

( ii ) I am not aware and cannot find a record that Jersey Harbours declined the offer of

2 replacement tanks at£10,000 and neither are the staff currently in post. If this were the case, it would not include the cost of the ancillary steelwork nor the cost of installation.

(i ii ) A ll fuel vessels require 2 means of escape from the ship and a boat alongside is only considered

acceptable where 'no safer means of access is reasonably practicable.

(i v ) I n 1998, Jersey Harbours replaced the original floating bridge system with a 6 level landing

stage (originally one level). This was to accommodate the current type of tankers operating, which were somewhat larger than those operating when the original system was designed in the 1970s. Certain tanker operators may have chosen not to use it and a boat was placed alongside their vessel as a short-term measure, as a means of escape. It is estimated that there might need to be 36 gangway changes over a 24-hour period on a 40-foot tide, but the frequency of 40-foot tides and tankers discharging at that time is small and they do not normally stay in port for more than 12 hours.

(v ) T he 6-tier landing platform did not cost £180,000, but cost in the region of £70,000 to £80,000. There are no readily obtainable records of the frequency and cost of the safety boat at that time,

although it is recognised that costs were significant and had a part to play in considering the purchase of the

current facility.

( b ) I am not sure of the extent which tanker operators were consulted, since staff concerned are not

currently in post, but wish to point out the following. The 6-level platform is similar to the existing 3- level platform, which is still in use at the aft end of the tanker berth, which requires frequent changes of gangway. The original arrangement at the forward end was not satisfactory and caused damage to the structure of the jetty and required significant maintenance. In view of my previous answers, I cannot agree with the costs and savings quoted in the question.

( c ) This area is operated by the Fuel Consortium. They have placed a thermal expansion chamber at the

jetty which is not a storage vessel, but has an unlocked steel lid which can be removed easily. It is unmarked, as those who operate the equipment are trained in its purpose and use, and only authorised personnel are allowed in the area. The discharge hoses do not leak on a regular basis, if there are occasional leaks from flanges these are repaired."

Waiting times – question and answer (Tape No. 965)

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

" Wou ld the President advise members –

( a ) if delays are occurring for the scheduling of mammograms, the average length of delay and what

action has been taken to notify the patients?

( b ) of the waiting time in other areas of medicine, i.e. orthopaedic etc. and would he advise members how

patients are kept informed about the waiting times?

( c ) what plans the Department has to improve waiting times?

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

" ( a) Patients present for mammography in 3 main ways –

R outine screening – women between the ages of 50 and 65 who have no symptoms of breast

disease either refer themselves or are referred by their General Practitioner (GP) for routine screening. Thereafter, they are called back every 2 years to check that they remain healthy.

S us pec ted cancer – GPs suspecting breast cancer refer patients to the Breast Unit who offer a

mammogram as part of a specialist consultation.

B en i gn conditions – GPs suspecting a benign breast condition requiring investigation by

mammogram refer directly to the Radiology Department.

A t p r es ent, waiting times are as follows –

R out ine s cr eening – Around 600 women each year reach the age of 50 and become eligible for the

screening programme. The U.K. standard is that they should have their first screening mammogram within the year. This standard in Jersey is always met and most patients receive their first appointment within a month of referral, but this can vary depending on whether referrals arrive in batches or are more evenly spread throughout the year. These women have no symptoms; thus there is no delay' for the initial referral to the routine screening service.

W hen pat i ents are recalled after 2 years, their appointment time will not be exactly 2 years later

but will vary up to 2 months from the anniversary of the initial date. This is not adelay' in scheduling but part of the cyclical management of the process to ensure a smooth workflow. The appointments being made last week (week commencing 1st November) are within 3 weeks of the 2nd anniversary of the original dates.

S us p ect ed cancer – urgent referrals to the Breast Unit are often offered a mammogram the same

day, the majority have their mammogram and first appointment with the consultant within one week, and none wait longer than 2 weeks either for a mammogram or to see the consultant. This standard is better than that which operates in the U.K.

B en ign c ondi  tions – The current wait for mammography in the Radiology Department is one

week.

B eca us e there are no delays in any of the 3 elements of this service, it follows that no especial action is

taken to communicate the "waiting time" to clients/patients.

( b ) Please find attached –

A ppen dix 1 – waiting times for routine outpatient appointments by doctor. A ppen dix 2 – waiting times for routine surgery by specialty.

T he se are the categories that are the focus of attention in the U.K. and are the usual subject of articles

in the media.

P a ti ent s whose clinical condition has been assessed as urgent' or soon' will be seen and treated very

much more quickly and in line with best practice for the particular problem.

T h e h ospital sends out an advice of waiting times for routine outpatient appointments to GPs on a

monthly basis, who advise patients accordingly.

H o s pi t al doctors or nurses tell patients how long they are likely to wait for their operation directly at

the time the decision is taken to list them for surgery.

H os pi t al waiting times are detailed below and key indicators are now published annually in the States

of Jersey Benchmarking report, for example as shown in Appendix 2 below.

(c )  The  President  will  be  making  an  announcement  about  waiting  lists  within  3 weeks  when

negotiations – currently underway with senior clinicians – are brought to a conclusion by the Chief Executive and his senior colleagues.

APPENDIX 1 Out-patient Waiting Times in Weeks

JD/01 Gyn/Colp/Oncol 2 JD/95/94 Colposcopy 3

Mr. Maclachlan NM/18/19 Infertility 18

NM/01/22 Gynaecology 6

NM/08,11 Gynaecology Colposcopy 2 Dr. Nelson FRN/00/03 Gynaecology 11

FRN/99 Gynaecology (TOP) 1

Mrs. Le Gresley CLG/19 Dietetics 10 Ms. Gough JAZJF1/00 Dietetics 10 Mrs. Brown JEZMB1/00 Chiropody New 33 Sister Le Lievre SLL/69 Urodynamics 6 Mr. Belligoi BEL/ Oral Surgery 14 Mr. Skinner BS/ Orthodontics 8

APPENDIX 2

Waiting Times for Routine Surgery by Specialty as at 29th October 2004

The Cavern and town drainage – question and answer (Tape 965)

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

" Wou  ld the President advise members –

( a ) how many occasions in 2004 to date has the Cavern not been able to cope with heavy rainfall and has

overflowed into the sea?

( b ) when the town drainage scheme will be completed and whether plans are still in place to separate

rainwater from the sewerage system?"

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

" ( a) Since 1st January this year to date, there have been 3 occasions when the Cavern has been unable to contain all of the excess flow during times of heavy rainfall, and there has been a resultant discharge to sea.

T he se s pills occurred on 7th/8th July, 19th August and 11th/12th October. In all cases, the flows in the

sewerage system were very high following prolonged periods of extremely heavy rainfall. The main pumping station at First Tower was working at the design capacity transferring flow to Bellozanne for treatment, with the excess flow spilled to the Cavern, but the duration and intensity of the rainfall on these occasions was such that the ability of the Cavern to store all of the excess flow was exceeded and flow spilled to sea. The storage capacity of the Cavern is 25,000 cubic metres or 5.5 million gallons.

Jul y 2004 was the fourth wettest July on record, and on 7th/8th July, some 51 millimetres of rainfall

was recorded, which was the second wettest July day recorded at Maison St Louis in 110 years.

O n 1 9t h August, the east of the Island experienced a localised and extremely intense rainfall event,

centred on St. Helier, with some 24 millimetres of rain falling in a very short period of time. Th intensity of the rainfall was such that the flow entering the Cavern backed up in the feeder system, triggering the emergency level sensor at the Weighbridge. Although the Cavern continued to receive the majority of the excess flow, this sensor allowed some flow to spill out to sea for approximately 45 minutes during the peak of the storm before closing again. The system contained the remaining high flows until the storm abated.

O ct ober 2004 was the wettest October on record since records began some 110 years ago and on

11th/12th October, some 60 millimetres of rainfall was recorded, again making this one of the wettest days on record.

A l thoug  h the rainfall events on these 3 occasions exceeded the ability of the Cavern to store all of the

excess flow, it is important to note that excess flows were successfully contained in the Cavern during rainfall events on 63 other occasions since 1st January 2004, thus preventing spillage to sea on all of these occasions.

( b ) The replacement, reconstruction and upgrading of the sewerage system in St. Helier, such as the

recently completed scheme in Gloucester Street, is an ongoing process which will continue for many years to come.

Wo r k on the construction of an overflow chamber, link sewers and a shaft in Phillips Street is

programmed to commence in spring 2005. These works will complete the project to divert excess flows from the foul combined sewers into the Cavern during times of heavy rainfall, thus significantly reducing the risk of flooding in the central area of St. Helier. The sewage will be held in the Cavern until the storm has passed and will then be returned to the main foul sewerage system for treatment at Bellozanne.

T he C om mittee is continuing the process of separating surface water from the foul combined sewerage

system where this is practically and economically feasible. The scheme which is nearing completion in the Union Street area and the works undertaken in Wellington Road this summer, are examples of this type of project.

F ur t he r water separation schemes are included in the current 5-year sewers capital programme but the

extent of the work that can be undertaken each year is severely limited due to the significant reductions in the proposed capital funding allocations for the sewers programme to be made available to the Committee during this 5-year period.

A t s om e stage the issue of funding for the sewerage network needs to be resolved. I intend to discuss

options for funding with the Presidents as part of the 2006 budget allocation."

Manpower and financial savings – question and answer (Tape No. 965)

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

" A  s the Committee has now encompassed the former Planning and Environment Committee and part of the Agriculture and Fisheries and Public Services Committees over the passed 21 months, would the President advise members –

( a ) of manpower savings that have been achieved by the rationalisation of these Committees? ( b ) the financial savings that have been achieved, in figures, across the entire area?

( c ) of the progress of the proposal to separate the planning function from the remaining functions of the

department, and when this is likely to occur?"

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

"W  hen the States approved P.70/2002, the decision to amalgamate the Public Services Committee and Planning and Environment Committee was taken on the basis that there were functions within the 2 Committees that needed to be reviewed and, where necessary, moved in order to provide clarity and clear distinction between regulation, policy and operations. The amalgamation was not made with a specific aim to reduce staff but, clearly with any initiative such as this, it is always the intention to seek out efficiencies and make savings where appropriate. One of the first tasks was to move the Water Resource section from Public Services to the Environment Section of the Committee in order to provide a clear distinction between the operations section and regulator.

I n s pecific answer to the question raised, I can advise as follows –

( a ) since the beginning of 2003 to date, 3 posts have been saved within the combined Environment and

Public Services Committee and the former Agriculture and Fisheries Committee. These are Chief Officer, Planning and Environment, Environmental Advisor to the States and a Finance Manager from Agriculture and Fisheries.

Mem be rs will be aware that early in 2004 the change programme was launched and the Fundamental

Spending Review for 2005 commenced. These programmes identified a number of savings required for 2005 and in some cases, savings over a 3 and 5-year period have been identified for certain areas within the Committee. As a result of this programme, in 2005 there will be 32.80 posts saved, some of which have already been achieved as staff vacancies have occurred.

I n t he case of the ex Agriculture and Fisheries sections that have transferred to Environment and

Public Services, the savings will be achieved over a 3-year period commencing in 2005. In the Parks and Gardens section, a 5-year change programme has been agreed commencing in 2005; however, as staff vacancies have occurred, these savings have already been taken.

In t he Me teorological service, a saving of 6 posts has been identified for implementation by 2006;

( b ) the financial savings achieved from the 3 staff savings are £286,922. The budget cuts imposed

throughout the combined departments in 2003/4 have resulted in savings in the order of £1.5 million being achieved although obviously the Committee received some growth in key service areas to be set against this. Throughout 2004, the Committee has been preparing for the implementation of the 2005 Fundamental Spending review that requires further savings to be achieved in the order of £1.85 million;

( c ) the proposal to split the planning function was highlighted in P.203/2002 – Strategy for the Future Resourcing of Planning and Building Core Services. The proposition indicated that the Committee

would investigate the feasibility of setting up a separate planning and building agency. Previous Committees have considered this option and decided to keep the service in-house as to separate the

planning and building control process from planning policy would result in the loss of co-ordination between

these 2 key elements of the planning process.

W hen the previous Chief Officer of the Planning and Environment Department retired, a single Chief

Officer for the combined Environmental and Public Services Committee was appointed in September 2004. One of the key objectives for this post is to identify and implement the remaining changes that are  required  in  the  Department  to  ensure  the  organisational  changes  required  for  Ministerial Government are in place by December 2005. In the first 2 months a number of significant changes in the administration areas have been made to streamline the organisation and plans are being developed for further organisational changes that will be implemented in the first half of 2005. It is only through this appointment of a single Chief Officer having total control that it has been possible to thoroughly review all areas and produce plans that will deliver the effective services to the public in the future.

I do not  anticipate any separation of the existing Committee structure until the end of 2005." Farm plastic – question and answer (Tape No. 965)

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

" Wa  ste Management (Farm Plastics) Regulations 1997 (No. 315 of 1997)came into operation on 1st August 1997 in the European Union, imposing an obligation on importers and manufacturers of farm plastic to arrange for their collection and recovery. Companies or persons placing farm plastic on the market have a choice of how to discharge the obligation imposed; they can do so individually or by directly undertaking the requirements of the Regulation or collectively by joining a body approved on the basis that it will pursue agreed waste recovery objectives.

Woul  d the President advise members –

( a ) how farm potato plastic is recovered in Jersey including bale wrap and bale bags for silage? ( b ) what percentage is recovered annually?

( c ) in Jersey, does the onus fall on the importers or manufacturers to arrange for collection and recovery,

as in the E.U., and if so, how do they discharge this obligation? If not, is this undertaken by the Committee and do the importers or manufacturers reimburse the Committee for this work?"

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

" ( a) Waste polythene crop cover is currently rolled onto plastic cores by growers and delivered to Bellozanne. The material is then shredded, baled and loaded onto trailers for export to British Polythene Industries' (BPI) reprocessing factory in Dumfries.

T h e B PI plant specialises in dealing with heavily soiled plastic waste and recycling it into granules

which are sold as raw materials for the plastics manufacturing industry.

O t he r types of waste farm plastic such as bale wrap, bags and heavy duty plastic sheeting used for

poly tunnels are incompatible for recycling with the crop cover. This material is also received at Bellozanne where it is received in relatively small quantities and is shredded and blended with other waste before being incinerated with energy recovery.

( b ) The Committee does not have access to actual figures for all types of farm plastics imported but

estimates that between 600 and 800 tonnes of crop cover plastic is imported annually. In a typical year between 500 and 600 tonnes are received at Bellozanne processed and exported for recycling.

Exports for recycling in recent years

2002 534 T

2003 142 T (price increase led to reduced deliveries) 2004 (to date) 454 T

O n th i s basis an estimated 80% of crop cover is recycled through the Public Services scheme. It is

assumed that growers manage the remainder themselves.

S peci f ic records are not kept for the quantity of other types of agricultural plastics delivered to

Bellozanne although technically 100% of this waste is recovered' through the energy from waste plant.

( c ) In Jersey there is currently no obligation for importers or manufacturers of plastics used in agriculture

to recover or contribute financially to the costs of managing this waste. Following a decision by the then Public Services Committee in October 2002, a gate fee was introduced at Bellozanne for the disposal of agricultural crop cover of £188 per tonne. The fee was subsequently reduced to £158 per tonne in August 2003, following successful negotiations with the reprocessor. On this basis, growers currently cover the costs of recycling this material.

T he W  aste Management (Farm Plastics) Regulations came into force in Ireland in 1997. The

legislation was introduced by the Irish Government to promote the recycling of agricultural plastics. There is no specific E.U. Directive requiring this legislation to be introduced by Member States. No such obligation on producers or importers exists in the U.K. and waste agricultural plastics are not covered by the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997, as most agricultural plastics such as crop cover do not fall under the definition of packaging.

T h e pr inciple of introducing a levy on polythene crop cover imported into the Island thereby placing a

financial responsibility on importers, and subsequently their customers, to cover the costs of recycling this material, was proposed in 2002 by the then Public Services Committee but rejected by the Finance and Economics Committee of the time due to concerns over high administrative costs for collecting such a levy."

Court and Case costs – questions and answers (Tape No. 965)

The Deputy of St. John tabled the following written questions of Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur President of the Finance and Economics Committee –

" 1 . In the Court and Case Cost Final Report dated December 2003 the deficit against budget totalled £3.97 million with a total expenditure of £6.9 million for 2002. Will the President explain what measures exist so as to approve a realistically set budget within this area, and if none exists, give reasons why?

2.   A working party/steering group has been established relating to expenditure incurred by the States of Jersey on Court and Case costs. Would the President advise members whether any of the members who make up this group are party in any way to law firms or accountancy practices which have carried out works for the Courts over this period. If so, could members be told who these members are, which practice they represent and how much the particular practice received?"

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

" 1. The Court and Case Costs base budget has already been supplemented by an additional £2 million following the outcome of the 2004 Fundamental Spending Review process, which recognised that this area had historically suffered from under funding. The Deputy will be aware from reading the Report arising from the Review of the Financial Framework for Court and Case Costs' that setting a realistic budget is extremely difficult due to the unpredictable nature of a small number of high cost cases. Despite this, expenditure to date indicates that costs in 2004 will remain within the increased budget.

C l ea rl y there will be years when unexpected costs will cause this budget to be exceeded; the

Committee continues to seek alternative sources of funding to meet the exceptional expenditure incurred in such years and has already identified the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund as one such option.

In add ition, the other recommendations contained in the Report continue to be implemented and the

Committee is confident that this will provide a framework for accurate budgeting and financial control.

2 . T he steering group no longer exists, having been disbanded on publication of the report in December

2003. The function of the steering group was to give a sense of direction and assistance to the Audit and Risk Management Division, which undertook the review. Only 2 members of the steering group were not public servants: Jurat Peter Blampied OBE, retired Jurat of the Royal Court, who was invited to assist the group as a consequence of earlier reports he had produced on related topics; and Advocate Alan Binnington (of Mourants), who was invited to join the group acting in his capacity as President of the Law Society. As already notified, Mourants received fees of £1.5 million for advising the States on the Les Pas Holdings issue. That firm has been separately re-engaged, (not Advocate Binnington specifically), by the Viscount in an ongoing financial services-related désastre, (following an earlier, related appointment of that firm by the Financial Services Commission). It is premature to estimate the overall fees payable to Mourants out of Court and Case Costs in this latter regard, since complicated legal processes are ongoing. Other payments to Mourants relating to general legal aid cases amounted to £35,750 in 2002 and £37,900 in 2003. In addition, payments have been made to Mourants, acting on behalf of the Crown in prosecution matters which totalled £270,382 in 2002 and £34,467 in 2003."

Creation of a proposed vodka distillery – questions and answers (Tape No. 965)

Deputy Terence John Le Main of St. Helier tabled the following written questions ofSenator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf , President of the Environment and Public Services Committee –

" 1. Would the President confirm that £105,000 has been spent by the States supporting a proposal by the Jersey Potato Export Marketing Board to create a Vodka Distillery on a preferred site, namely a 9 vergée field in the middle of the countryside in St. Lawrence, and can he confirm that this proposal could include bars, restaurant and visitor facilities?

2. I f the answer is in the affirmative, would the President also confirm that this preferred site is currently precluded from non agricultural development under the following Island Plan Policies –

 C 1 S u s ta inability and Stewardship of the Countryside C 2 C ou nt ryside character

C 3 B iodi versity

 C 6 C ou nt ryside Zone

 IC 9 P r op osals for New Industrial Buildings

 IC 12 N ew Industrial developments in the Countryside?

3. Wi ll the President therefore confirm that although the proponents of this factory will or could receive unsold and unsuitable potatoes for no more than 6 weeks in any one year, this could not be considered as an exception to the above policies and classed as an Agricultural undertaking?

4 . Wi ll the President confirm that his departmental officers are currently undertaking an Environmental

Impact Assessment of this proposal, and advise how many man hours have so far been spent carrying out this assessment and the financial cost?

5. W ill the President confirm that there are officers of his department visiting and contacting cattle farmers, riding schools and horse owners to see if there is a local market for by-products of this proposed Vodka Distillery, if so how many officer hours have been spent and what is the financial cost?
6. W ill the President confirm that in their business plan, the proponents of this Distillery will need to use –

 10,200 t on nes of imported wheat per year pot at oes f or onl y 80 days a year

 51,428 bot t les to be imported daily

 900 c ubi c m et res of water per day

 13,200 l i tr es of oil per day

 70 t ruc ks /l or ries a day moving goods to and from the site and the harbour.

7 . I n view of the extreme concern of Islanders, and particularly residents of St. Lawrence and St. John,

will the President give an assurance that no decisions or otherwise will be made if an application is forthcoming either on this preferred site or any other site in Jersey until that public meetings can be held to seek Islanders' views?

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

" 1. The Committee received an application for this proposal on 25th October 2004, which has been published in the normal manner in the Jersey Evening Post and the Department's website.

F ina nci al support for investigating the feasibility of this proposal is a matter for the President of the

Economic Development Committee.

I can c onfirm that the proposal includes a restaurant, shop and visitor facilities, but there are no bars

shown on the drawings.

2. I can confirm that the application will be considered against the above policies. None of the policies preclude development as such, but there are clear presumptions against development in the countryside, particularly in policies C6, IC9 and IC12. The tests to override those presumptions are high.

T he C ommittee will need to consider what, if any, public interest or other material considerations

might exist in the proposal, which could give it cause to make a significant exception to the presumptions against development. However, until the Committee has assessed all the relevant planning factors it would be inappropriate to comment further.

3 . I cannot comment on matters relating to a current application which the Committee has yet to

consider.

4. T he Committee does not carry out EIAs. EIAs are the responsibility of the proposer who would bear the cost should the application be progressed, the Department just co-ordinates the process and evaluates the Assessment once it is completed. To date, the Department has spent in the order of one day, (at a cost of £205), covering pre-application discussion about the project and the creation of a scoping document which sets out those issues that we would expect the Environmental Impact Assessment to address.
5. T he dairy and livestock advisor spent about 8 hours, (at a cost of £220), including farm visits, with consultants who were looking at the market for distillers grains.' Distillers Grains are a by-product of spirit manufacture and are used widely as a protein and energy source in rations fed to cattle and other animals in the U.K. and other countries. The involvement of the dairy and livestock advisor is reasonable in that it was worth exploring the possible benefits to the Island of an alternative protein feed that could replace expensive imported feed.
6. T he initial impact assessment summary supplied by the Jersey Potato Export Marketing Board suggested –

1 0,200 t onne s of imported wheat per year yes, but indicated could be grown on the Island p ot a t oes for only 80 days a year s ta t e d ear ly May to mid July so around 80 days 5 1,428 bo ttles to be imported daily ye s , at maximum production

9 00 cub ic metres of water per day yes , at maximum production

1 3,200 l itres of oil per day yes , at m a xi m um production

7 0 t rucks /lorries a day moving goods

to and f rom the site and the harbour ye  s.

M ovem ents suggested in summary document are –

f rom ha r bou  r 8 t r ips per day f or i m por te d grain if imported grain is used 6 t ri ps per day f or b r i ngi n g em pt y bot tl es

t o ha rbour 6 t r ip s pe r da y f or f ul l bot tl es

d ur ing potato season 25 t ract or l oad s per day

r em oving by-products from site 2 t ra ct or l oads per day.

7. C onsideration of an application of this scale will take some time. The Committee will consider all representations made on the proposal, including those that might arise from any public meetings arranged in the parishes affected. Representatives of the Committee and Department are prepared to attend those meetings to hear at first hand what the local residents have to say. All I would ask is that any such meetings are arranged as soon as possible, as the Committee has a duty to consider applications in a reasonably timely manner."

Certain allowances – questions and answers (Tape No. 965)

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

" 1. Would the President –

( a ) conf irm that a new (married) applicant for short-term incapacity (sickness) allowance will

henceforth receive only the single allowance of £145.53 a week in place of the previous allowance for couples of £241.57 a week?

(b ) pr ovide an estimate of how many couples this will affect over the coming year?

(c ) i nf orm members what advice will be available from within the Department to couples adversely

affected by this policy on short-term benefits?

2. Would the President –

(a ) expl ain why the Committee has reduced the benefit payable to a couple on long-term incapacity

to £145.53, which is below the "minimum essential budget standard" for couples without children, set at £196.03 a week by the Committee's advisers in the Centre for Research in Social Policy (Loughborough University)("CRSP") Report in 2000?

(b ) expl ain how the "minimum essential budget standard" is calculated, and whether it has changed

in the years since 2000?

( c ) give an estimate of how many couples the reduction affect?

(d ) inf orm members what advice will be available from within the Department to couples adversely

affected by this policy and who will have to cope on this reduced sum over a long period?

3. W ould the President –

(a ) c onf irm that, under the rules adopted by the Committee on 1st October 2004, in the transfer from

short-term to long-term incapacity allowance, a reduction in the benefit payable from the full benefit to a lower figure (say, 60% of the full amount) can occur?

(b ) e xpl ain the reasoning behind the application of this percentile rule to illness, as well as injury?

(c ) gi ve an estimate of how many applicants will be affected by this ruling over the coming year, and

by how much does the Committee expect the overall bill for those who were formerly invalidity claimants to be reduced?

(d ) conf irm whether the Committee has considered the possibility that the effect of the changes will

be either –

( i ) t o transfer the cost of incapacity allowance from the Committee to the Parish where

applicants seek welfare in cases of hardship? Or

( ii ) to f orce some sick people to return to work due to hardship?

4 . W ould the President advise on the steps taken to explain the impact of this measure to the general

public and to States members; if so, when did the Committee do this; if not, will he do so now?

5. H as the Committee considered whether –

( a ) limiting Home Responsibility Protection to a maximum of 10 years for the care of under-fives

will effectively bring an end to either parent choosing to be the home-maker for school-age children, and may damage traditional family life, and

( b ) female pensioner poverty may continue under his scheme as significant numbers of women will

continue to stay at home beyond the prescribed period,

an d i f s o, what measures will the Committee put in place to prevent this?"

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

" 1. (a) I cannot confirm that a new applicant to short-term incapacity allowance will henceforth receive a single allowance instead of a couples allowance for 2 reasons. Firstly, until October 2004 there has only ever been a single rate of benefit with an addition that married men could claim for a dependant wife and never a benefit for all couples regardless of the gender of the claimant. Secondly, a married (or indeed non-married) applicant after October 2004 can still receive an addition for a dependant spouse/partner whilst claiming short-term incapacity allowance if the dependant is not working and remaining at home to look after children under the age of 5.

(b ) It is impossible to give an exact estimate but the number is likely to be quite small in relative

terms. Taking a snapshot, of the 2,578 short-term incapacity claims made in October 2004, since the reforms were introduced, 170 received an additional dependent component. These would all be in respect of women not working in receipt of Home Responsibility Protection (HRP). In the month preceding the change there were 2,090 sickness benefit claims of which 377 claimed a dependency increase. However, it should be noted that, often under the old system, the dependent wife was also working and in receipt of wages. Also, it is important to point out that, on average, between 80% to 90% of all medical certificates received are for a week or less and in many circumstances, the claimant's employers will provide a top up sick pay, often to the full salary level.

( c ) T he nature of the advice given to any benefit claimants will depend upon their individual

circumstances. This might include advice on claiming a long-term incapacity benefit, on job support and returning to work, advice on other benefits which may be claimed through Employment and Social Security or other States Departments or about other agencies which may be of help.

2. ( a) I have already explained that there was no benefit rate for couples' and there is, therefore, no reduction in rate. The CRSP figures quoted in the question relate to the work being undertaken on the proposed new Income Support system which is looking at family budgets and is essentially a top-up' benefit for those unable to earn enough or who are unable to work for good reason. The minimum essential budget standard was not set by CRSP but, as was published in the methodology, was a budget devised by different groups of Jersey residents on a modest but adequate' basis. It varies for different groups and different couples. As the standard relates to the proposed new Income Support system, which looks at all household income, it was important to get an idea of household expenditure as well. These standards are not the basis by which Social Security benefits are measured. As I have already indicated to members, benefit rates have been increased not cut. Any change in payment is due to the removal of dependency increases for those whose partners are working or could work. I should point out that, if, as the question suggests, figures in the CRSP research set the level of the contributory benefits, this would mean substantial reductions in benefits to single beneficiaries and indeed couples with dependency

increases.

(b ) T he budgets proposed by the CRSP research were calculated using a consensual methodology by

discussion with men and women in their respective household groups. The Groups compiled an essential basket of goods and services from which the budgets were derived and then challenged by a second group before formulation and pricing. Work is still ongoing to refine these budgets and update in line with current prices for the Income Support proposals.

(c ) N obody who has remained on an old benefit has suffered a reduction in benefit. I can confirm that

it is estimated that about 15 claims a month will move from short-term benefits to long-term benefits but the majority of these have been, and will be, for single rate benefits. In fact, of a potential 32 claimants whomay move from short-term to long-tem incapacity next month, only 5 are claiming a dependency increase which would not be applicable if they applied for a long- term benefit. Of those 5, 2 have wives who are working and the other 3 have wives under the age of 50 who have no young children and do not work.

(d ) A s explained in the previous question, the nature of the advice given to any benefit claimants will

depend upon their individual circumstances. However, long-term incapacity claimants can make use of our Employment Services to help them retrain or find suitable work without losing benefit entitlement. And, in the unfortunate event of a permanent incapacity to work, they may move to incapacity pension and receive contribution credits until age 65 which will ensure a pension is paid in older age.

3. ( a) I cannot confirm the Deputy 's statement as reductions have occurred in this way since 1952 and not just since 1st October 2004. A person suffering an accident could have received injury benefit for a year and then, on assessment for loss of faculty, receive a much smaller percentage benefit rate. The new benefits, however, do not draw any distinction between illness and accident.

T he Short-term Incapacity Allowance is a replacement of earnings for a period of incapacity

where, typically through a self-limiting illness, an individual is unable to do any work and, where appropriate contributions have been paid, is paid at the full rate of benefit. Where someone has a permanent loss of faculty, they can apply for a long-term incapacity benefit. The amount of compensation that they will receive is dependent on the degree of that loss of faculty. So where there is a lesser incapacity, it is compensated for accordingly. It is expected that many people will take advantage of being able to move to LTIA before a year has elapsed to enable them to return to work on a gradual or part-time basis. Indeed, during the last major public consultation there was considerable pressure to reform the system to enable people to do so.

(b ) T he new system is fairer as it treats everyone the same. The old system treated people with the

same incapacity differently depending on whether it had resulted from an illness or an injury. If through injury, a person could return to work and continue to receive benefit as a compensation for a continuing loss of faculty. If the incapacity resulted through illness, then the claimant would lose all benefits when returning to work. This acted as a disincentive for people to return to employment and also meant that people were paid a full rate of benefit for lesser degrees of incapacity where they might reasonably be expected to return to the workplace and, with some compensation for their loss of faculty, support themselves. In essence, the cause rather than the effect of the condition drove the benefit.

(c ) A gain estimates are difficult. Previously, between 15-20 people each month moved to Invalidity

Benefit. It is not possible to tell how many of those who will claim a long-term allowance will have a reduction of benefit due to their loss of faculty assessment. However, with the new system, many will be advantaged by being able to return to work on a gradual or part-time basis while still receiving benefit.

  C l aimants receiving Invalidity Benefit on 1st October 2004, have retained rights and will continue

to receive the same rate of benefit therefore there will be no reduction in the overall bill for these claimants.

(d ) ( i ) The parishes and their Welfare Officers were advised of the changes and I have welcomed a

letter from the Chairman of the Comité acknowledging the possible effect and the promotion of the Home

Responsibility Protection system (HRP).

( i i ) The Committee totally refutes the suggestion that these changes will force people back to work because of hardship. People who are genuinely sick, either short or long-term, have

nothing to fear from the changes. For those on long-term benefit, hardship should be lessened as claimants are helped back into work with a combination of earnings and benefit.

4. T his change, part of a series of reforms which arose from a major public and political consultation exercise in the mid 1990s, was approved by the States in 1996 (P.132/1996 Social Security Scheme : Continuity and Change'). The Draft Social Security (Amendment No. 14) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.137/2000) was subsequently the subject of another States debate.

Mor e specifically, prior to the implementation of the changes to incapacity benefits, the Committee

wrote, explaining relevant changes to over 4000 employers and key stakeholders and Departmental Officers have held countless presentations to States Departments, charitable organisations and other interested bodies. A leaflet and some Frequently Asked Question are available on the Employment and Social Security website as a result of questions asked during that period. The Department has also been advising customers of changes to the system for some considerable time. In addition a Press Conference was held in the lead up to the change, attended by all media groups.

Mo s t importantly, however, beneficiaries who would not be affected by the changes because of

retained rights were also contacted individually to reassure them that they would not be adversely affected by the changes.

5. ( a) The debate at the time centred round family life, choice as to which parent stayed at home and career aspirations of parents but notably women. The feedback that the Committee received and the evidence of the high participation rate of women in the workplace pointed to the fact that the traditional male head of household' family unit had already changed before Home Responsibility Protection was introduced. Indeed, many women were working at the time of the debate and continue to do so. So, rather than deterring a parent to stay at home, HRP was introduced to give support to parents to stay at home during the child's early years, knowing that their pension is protected. A maximum of 10 years was felt reasonable (and affordable without increasing contributions further) as it generally covered the period of a 3-child family until the youngest child reached the age of 5.

(b ) I do not believe it will increase female pensioner poverty, rather it should help to ensure women

can receive a decent pension in their own right. It had been realised by the States many years ago that women were being affected where they relied solely on the husband's contribution record, particularly where matters became complicated by other factors such as divorce – hence the removal of the married women's option which previously enabled this group to opt out of paying contributions if they so chose. In order to help women build up a full contribution record, additional support has been built into the system, for example, by way of the home responsibility credit arrangements (which also apply equally to men who opt to stay at home to care for young children). How much anyone earns by way of benefits and pensions depends on the contributions made. Women and men are now treated on an equal basis."

Parish Civil Emergency Liaison Officers – question and answer (Tape No. 965)

The Deputy of St. John tabled the following question of Senator Frank Harris on Walker , Vice-President of the Emergencies Council –

" I note in response to written questions put to the Vice-President of the Emergencies Council on 26th October 2004, his reply to (a)(ii) does not appear to fully answer the question "what alternative arrangements have been put in place to cover this role (Parish Civil Emergency Liaison Officer, P.C.E.L.O.)" as his reply stated that "the Comité des Connétable s is currently giving consideration as to who should have responsibility for this function in the future".

G i ven that the P.C.E.L.O.s have been disbanded, would the Vice-President advise members which persons,

if any, currently undertake this work in an emergency and what training they have already received, the date of

training and where it has taken place?"

The Vice-President of the Emergencies Council tabled the following written answer –

" I n my answer to the written questions from the Deputy of St. John on 26th October 2004, I confirmed that alternative arrangements have been put into place to cover the rôle of the Parish Civil Emergency Liaison Officer (PCELO), and I stated that the Comité des Connétable s had agreed that this rôle should henceforth be undertaken by the Honorary Police.

In this new question, Deputy Rondel notes that the Comité des Connétable s is currently giving

consideration as to who should have responsibility for this function in the future', but I should point out that the function' referred to in my answer of 26th October was the responsibility of the P.C.E.L.O.s for the monitoring of radiation levels in the event of a radiological incident. I can advise the Deputy of St. John that the Comité has now considered this matter and has decided that it is not the responsibility of the Connétable s to provide persons to carry out radiological testing, but that this should be carried out by a central agency on behalf of the Island. The Chairman of the Comité wrote to the Emergency Planning Officer (EPO) on 2nd November to inform him of this decision, and the EPO is currently consulting with the Environmental Health Department to ascertain which authority should have responsibility for this service.

O n a more general note, I wish to make it clear that the Island is subject to continuous monitoring for the

presence of radiation, and there are 3 permanent fixed air monitoring devices in place in different locations around the Island. In addition, marine environmental samples are analysed on a regular basis by the U.K. Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. In an emergency this monitoring would be augmented initially by the volunteers of the Jersey Warning and Monitoring Organisation (JWMO) and within 24 hours by experts from various agencies in the U.K. The members of the JWMO receive regular training on a weekly basis during the winter months in the civil defence bunker, whilst some of the Scientific Advisor members of the JWMO received their initial training at the U.K. Civil Defence College in Easingwold.

I am unable to comment about the training given to members of the honorary police as this is a Parish

matter, but I understand that training is given to members of the honorary police in dealing with emergencies. Should the Deputy require further information in this respect, then I would suggest that he contact the Chairman of the Comité des Connétable s."

Parish Civil Emergency Liaison Officers – question and answer (Tape No. 965)

The Deputy of St. John tabled the following question of John Baudains Germain, Connétable of St. Martin, Chairman of the Comité des Connétable s –

" ( a) In response to my written questions on 26th October 2004, the Chairman stated that the decision had been taken in May 2004, to disband the P.C.E.L.O.s and that all Parishes had now disbanded the rôle. Would the Chairman advise members when the various Parishes notified their P.C.E.L.O.s that they were disbanded and give the date this was this done?

( b ) As the Parish of St. Helier retains a P.C.E.L.O. group, would the President inform members who will

replace the P.C.E.L.O.s in other Parishes?

( c ) Would the Chairman confirm that it has been proposed by the Comité des Connétable s that the

Territorial Army stationed in Jersey would be well placed to undertake the monitoring work formerly carried out by the P.C.E.L.O.s? Would he also advise whether discussions with the Home Affairs Committee have taken place on this matter and when and what was that Committee's response? If the answer is in the negative, will the Chairman explain who is currently carrying out any monitoring work in the event of an accident or emergency?"

The Chairman of the Comité des Connétable s tabled the following written answer –

"( a) The decision to disband the P.C.E.L.O.s was taken by the Comité des Connétable s at its meeting in

May 2004, following receipt of correspondence from the Emergency Planning Officer (E.P.O.) that he and the

Deputy of St John had reached agreement that the post should be disbanded as the Parish emergency procedures were based upon the Honorary Police. I am advised that the P.C.E.L.O.s were notified on various dates between May and October 2004.

( b ) The Parish of St. Helier does not retain a P.C.E.L.O. group. As stated in the reply on 26th October

2004, the Parish of St. Helier retains a group of volunteers who form the Parish of St. Helier Suppor Team. This team has been in existence for a number of years and operates under the leadership of the officer who was formerly the St. Helier Parish Civil Emergency Liaison Officer and who is also a member of the St. Helier Honorary Police. The St. Helier Support Team provides back-up support for various activities and events within the Parish including events such as closure of roads, first aid for public functions, dealing with casualties, etc.

( c ) The role of the P.C.E.L.O.s was reviewed as part of a review of the Parish Outline Responsibilities in

the Emergency Measures Plan. It was apparent to the Connétable s and to the E.P.O. that the responsibilities listed were, in practice, carried out by the Honorary Police through the emergency procedures and therefore the decision was taken to disband the post. However the E.P.O. stated that it would be useful in the event of a radiological incident to have expertise within the Parish capable of taking measurements and suggested either training members of the Honorary Police or using the Jersey Warning and Monitoring Team; although the latter option was later withdrawn as there are currently no members living in some parishes.

In re pl y, the Comité des Connétable s suggested that the Territorial Army stationed in Jersey would be

well placed to undertake the work. No discussions were held with the Home Affairs Committee but the Comité has recently been informed by the E.P.O. that the Field Squadron is unable to assist with this role.

T he C omité has decided that it is not the responsibility of the Connétable s to provide persons to carry

out radiological testing but that this should be carried out by a central agency on behalf of the Island. The Comité understands that the staff at Public Health Services is already involved with monitoring radiation levels in food and the environment and would consider any decision on health implications of the monitoring of radioactivity levels in the event of a radiological incident as being a matter for the Medical Officer of Health. I, therefore, wrote to the Emergency Planning Officer on 2nd November to inform him of the Comité's decision and to suggest he contact officers at that department to discuss arrangements for radiological testing.

S hou ld the Deputy require further information in this respect then he is most welcome to contact me

direct outside of the States Sitting."

Lease of The Quarry, Gorey Pier – question and answer (Tape No. 965)

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

"( a) In the Notification of Standing Order Decisions for 14th October 2004, it was stated that an

assignment of a lease for a 99-year period was entered into with Premier Services Marine Engineering Limited for The Quarry, Gorey Pier, Gorey Pier Road. Would the President advise members of the chronology of events and correspondence between the years 2001 to October 2004, between the Property Services Department and Premier Services Marine Engineering Limited, giving reasons for the delays in corresponding with the Company, if any? and,

( b ) Would the President advise members of the annual rental, in actual figures, proposed for the site and

how the figures have been arrived at?"

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

" F or ease, the answer to parts (a) and (b) can be stated as follows –

I n October 1999, following the demise of Gorey Boat Builders and Indy Marine, the buildings at the

Quarry site were left in poor condition, which caused difficulties in finding a new tenant to take-up occupation.

The property therefore remained vacant.

B ecause the lease to Gorey Boat Builders and Indy Marine had been a full repairing lease, the

administering department did not have a specific budget for repair and maintenance, nor was capital funding available to invest in the property in order to achieve a financial return.

T he Planning and Environment Committee of the day, with encouragement from the Harbours and Airport

Committee, decided that it would wish, if at all possible, to see a marine engineering facility continue at the property in Gorey. It instructed Property Services to advertise for expressions of interest in re- developing the site.

T he premises were advertised in the Jersey Evening Post in June 2000, and as a result there were 6 tenders

received. Only one was a marine related business, this being from Premier Service Marine Engineering. The Committee instructed Property Services to negotiate a redevelopment/lease package with that company.

N egotiations began in August 2000 with the company, but much consideration had to be given to what

could be built on the site bearing in mind its sensitive location and the fact that any lease agreement would be subject to the lessee obtaining the relevant planning approvals. Planning Officers were included in discussions at an early stage. There were also concerns in respect of rock stabilisation to the rear of the site which delayed progress.

P r emier Service Marine Engineering approached the Committee to seek approval for demolition of the

existing buildings to enable a detailed survey to be undertaken. The Committee did not agree to demolition, preferring that it should wait until a development scheme had received approval. This led to protracted negotiations. The Planning Office called for a model of the scheme, as plans alone could not demonstrate the size and dimensional constraints of the site.

I n addition, the Planning Office recommended that any building on the site should be of high quality (i.e.

granite walls, slate roof, wooden windows, etc.), which meant that substantial investment would be required by any developer to provide a building that would be acceptable to the Planning and Environment Committee. Therefore, Premier Services Marine Engineering would need substantial security of tenure with the degree of investment that would be required.

F or that reason, it became necessary to then devise a rental formula within the lease without benefit of

plans or an approved development scheme and which would give some security for Premier Marine to obtain funding for the development of the site.

T o assist Premier Services Marine Engineering, on 8th November 2001, following further consideration of

a request for the site to be cleared at public expense, the Planning and Environment Committee decided that if Premier Services Marine Engineering would meet the demolition costs at approximately £10,000 at its own expense, in the event that planning permission was not forthcoming within 12 months, the Committee would underwrite those costs.

A fter more negotiations, agreement was eventually reached on a long lease of 99 years and a formula for

rental which in the absence of an approved scheme provided for 4% of the estimated rental value of the completed development rising to 6% after 15 years. The rental was proposed as being reviewed every 5 years. That lease agreement now awaits States approval having been already approved by the Environment and Public Services Committee and the Finance and Economics Committee. (Property Services is working on the basis that the likely rental value is £8 per square foot for the workshop and £11,000 p.a. for each of the flats, dependant on what is actually given planning approval by the Committee).

S ince 2000 when the tender was awarded to Premier Service Marine Engineering a number of the

unsuccessful applicants have continued to show an interest in the property. The Gorey Improvement Group believes that this asset should be used in the best interests of the community.

T h e Environment and Public Services Committee reaffirmed in July of this year that it is of the opinion that as a public asset the land should be used to obtain best value for the public and not just the local

community.

If  planning  approval  by  the  Environment  and  Public  Services  Committee  is  forthcoming  and  the

development of the site remains viable to the Premier Service Marine Engineering, the lease agreement will then be completed.

I t was necessary for the Environment and Public Services Committee to be involved with the decision

making process throughout the whole negotiation because of the sensitive nature of the site, its potential uses, and the number of interested parties. This in turn added additional time to the negotiating process.

I n summary, the constraints put on the site by the Planning Office meant that the original concept put

forward by Premier Service Marine Engineering had to be modified, namely a smaller building at a higher cost, thereby leaving the company little funding for the rental of the site. However, it would achieve the planning requirements in a very prominent site without the need for public funding, but with the public retaining  the  reversionary  interest  therein.  These  were  considered  important  factors  due  to  the  site proximity to Gorey Castle.

T her  e were 6 sets of written correspondence between the Property Services and Premier Service Marine

Engineering between 2001 and October 2004, together with correspondence with other parties. Numerous verbal communications also took place during that period between Premier Services Marine Engineering, their architects, planning officers and Property Services officers."

Funding of a proposed vodka distillery – question and answer (Tape No. 965)

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 inform members of the full breakdown of money given to the Jersey Potato Export Marketing Board by way of subsidies/grants to move forward on any Vodka Distillery, and provide full details of how this money was spent, including wages paid to any staff and visits abroad to vodka distilleries?"

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

" T he Vodka project was awarded a grant of £105,000 in December 2002 from the Marketing Support Scheme. Invoices were submitted for payment and the grant was paid out as follows –

  Travel, subsistence and hotel accommodation

M. Anderson

  M .Cotillard

A. Currie

  Consultancy Fees including expenses paid

  Hart ingtons. Food and Drink Industry Consultants

  D.H. Ward Ltd. Distillery Consultancy Services

  Little Consultancy. Market Research         Direct Input Association. Market Research

  Financial Services   Alex Picot

  Legal expenses

  Vibert s. Advice on prospectus

£ £ 120.75 4,142.68

266.20 4,529.63

35,939.36

11,767.79

18,702.98

4,787.28 7,1197.41 18,000.00 18,000.00 2,428.00 24,28.00

  Miscellaneous expenses

  Treasurer of the States. Planning application fee 6,860.00  Jersey Evening Post Advertisement 160.95

  J Kemp. Design Fee 870.00

  Expenses re presentation. Room and equipment hire 170.00

  M Drean Ltd. Agricultural contractor. Harvesting trial grain crop 320.00

  Treasurer of the States. Laboratory Fees 298.00

  Foreshaw Ltd. Internet name 40.00

  Office expenses. Postage, stationery etc. 126.01 8,844.96 TOTAL 105,000.00

I n a  ddition to the grant from the Marketing Support Scheme, the Jersey Potato Export Marketing Board

has provided administrative support to the project, estimated at £15,000."

Port Control cover – question and answer (Tape No. 965)

Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains of St. Clement tabled the following written question of Senator Leonard Norman, President of the Harbours and Airport Committee –

" ( a)  Following the closure of the Corbière radio station and proposal to reduce Port Control cover so that between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. only one operator will be on station, will the President inform members how  these  changes  meet  MCA  guidelines,  which  require  a  minimum  of  3 persons  manning  a coastguard station at all times?

(b) Would the President confirm that the sole operator will

(i ) hav  e virtually no visual contact with operations;

(i i) at times have to handle VHF and telephone calls simultaneously; (i ii ) not  be available when getting a snack or going to the toilet; and,

(i v ) be  unable to call out the lifeboat in an emergency, but have to telephone the Duty Officer to do

so?

( c ) How do the changes equate to the significant increased levels of safety' and follow U.K. guidelines

as best practise', as the President recently described in answers to my previous question?"

The President of the Harbours and Airport Committee tabled the following written answer –

" ( a)  The closure of Corbière was in the sense of location only. The operation of the station has moved location into the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre (MRSC) at Maritime House. This centre is run under the requirements of the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue 1979, as amended, from which MCA guidelines are based.

T he  precise objectives of any coastguard or Vessel Traffic Service station flows from the Formal Risk

Assessment that was described in my answer to the recent previous question. The guidelines indicate that such assessment depends on the particular circumstances in the sea area concerned and the volume and character of maritime traffic. They also indicate the need to take into account the capability of expertise and technology available.

U .K. Coastguard guidelines define the minimum staffing level being defined as the level that is

capable of supporting the normal level of incident activity within the margin of safety'. Supporting our analysis that single manning is adequate during night-time hours, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Search and Rescue (SAR) Manual states that stations such as Jersey, as a Rescue sub-centre typically have fewer responsibilities and capabilities than their associated Rescue Co- Ordination Centres, and that their requirements in personnel, equipment and accommodations are usually smaller;. The local Health and Safety Inspectorate has also assessed our proposals as being satisfactory in regard to these concerns (for shift patterns, lone working etc).

I n  fact, there is no change from the single manning that always existed at Corbière. However, in

bringing operators closer to the hub of operations at St. Helier, we have removed some of the risks that had

been previously assessed.

( b ) Between 2200 hrs and 0600 hrs.

( i) I cannot confirm this since, it is not correct. The view extends at least from Les Minquiers to

Noirmont, with both stations having an adequate view of the harbour and its approaches.

I n addition, we have augmented the ability to monitor operational security and safety visually by

increasing our internal suite of CCTV cameras to a total of 22 around the harbour, offering these operators as detailed a view as required into most areas.

I t must be pointed out, however, that the coastguard function is not required to maintain a visual

watch. It is potentially compromising the safe operation of the radio and other communications systems should a visual watch be required.

( ii ) Yes, and this has always been the situation. However, whilst simultaneous VHF and telephone

calls are possible, they are statistically unlikely in these hours. An upgrade in the communications systems has also been made to ensure that this is as simple as possible, with priority being to calls given as necessary.

( i ii) The kitchen and toilet are now adjacent to the Operations room in the MRSC, a distinct

improvement from the previous arrangement which involved a flight of stairs. Both have been fitted with extension loudspeakers to ensure appropriate availability at all times.

( iv ) The MRSC has full control of the RNLI pager system. The Duty Harbour Master is both the

RNLI Deputy Launching Authority and the SAR Mission Co-ordinator. Under Royal National Lifeboat Institution procedures, the only persons able to launch the Lifeboat are the Lifeboat Operations Manager' or the Deputy Launching Authorities'.

I c an confirm therefore that it is essential that the Duty Harbour Master is contacted in order to launch

the Lifeboat. This remains an unchanged procedure.

( c ) I am pleased to inform the States the following significant improvements to safety as examples, which

all follow U.K. guidelines. These guidelines are not prescriptive, but rather offer best practice through a risk based approach.

1. The Coastguard Radio Operator and the Duty Harbour Master now work in the same room, enabling close working during SAR missions and normal harbour operations. This removes the need for telephone communications between Officer and Mission Co-ordinator, and achieves a time saving in the order of 80% on each message. The overall increase in safety, with the team working together cannot be underestimated, with reduced chances of mixed messages, contributory team decision making, common systems and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), enhancing the previous arrangements.

3. Each Officer will be trained to International or National levels of competency for these functional areas. This not only sets a standard of competency for recruitment and meets the U.K. guidelines, but also allows the department and officers to be confident in meeting the standards expected. This is a significant increase in safety from a previously unregulated role.
   1. Increased training and competencies also increases safety awareness in all respects, and the presence of the Marine Officers in the MRSC contribute to safety in all Port operations, where they were before limited to one area of operation.
4. Lone working issues have been minimised even further through the location of officers in a central location, with other 24-hour harbour services (e.g. security) being able to monitor the safety of marine officers with significantly greater effect.
   1. Working arrangements are now meeting local Health and Safety Inspectorate assessed levels, especially in regard to shift working.

6. With the reduction in demand on the 2 original services of Jersey Radio and Port Control over the last 5 years, sustained periods of inactivity were being experienced during the night-time hours. Combining the 2 functions will allow a greater focus on a combined role within assessed levels of work, increasing safe operations in all respects.
7. Local shipping and mariners will all be operating within the infrastructure of these increased safety standards, and professionalism. All vessels, as well as the local community, rely on the service for the coastguard function to enable an appropriate response to maritime incidents and emergencies, and the Vessel Navigational Information Service to ensure that essential information becomes available in time for on-board navigational decision making. This fosters a greater likelihood of preventing incidents and increased levels of professional response to incidents when they do occur.

T he s ervices contribute to safety of life at sea, safety and efficiency of navigation and protection of

the marine environment, adjacent shore areas and worksites from possible adverse effects of maritime traffic. This enables us to meet our duty more effectively to ensure the safe and efficient use of the harbour by those who have the right to use its facilities and navigate our waters. Exercise of this function depends on communication with users and is typically located where port communications from vessels are handled. Thus, the increase in effective communications which we have achieved increases the quality of service offered in all respects.

I n summary, I am pleased to offer these significant improvements in safety, which happily contribute

towards the States' objectives of increased efficiencies at the same time."

Certain roads and footpaths – questions and answers (Tape No. 965)

The Deputy of St. Martin tabled the following questions of Deputy Terence John Le Main of St. Helier President of the Housing Committee –

" 1 . On 29th July 1980, the States approved the Housing Committee's proposition Maufant Village, St. Martin/St. Saviour: transfer of ownership of roads and footpaths (P.97/1980')in order to transfer the ownership of certain roads and footpaths in Maufant Village to the Parishes of St. Martin and St. Saviour.

W oul d the President –

(a ) expl ain why the transfer did not take effect? (b ) e xpl ain who was responsible for the failure?

(c ) advi se members whether he will be issuing an apology to the Maufant residents?

2. G iven that the Housing Committee still has ownership of the roads and footpaths but the residents remain responsible for the cost of any maintenance carried out, would the President –

( a) inf orm members whether the Housing Committee has ever established a system to collect an

annual sum of money from each of the 151 Village households to pay for any repairs that may need to be carried out?

(b ) gi ve an explanation for the failure if a system was not established;

( c) e xplain why the Housing Committee has failed to maintain the roads and footpaths in good

condition?

3. T he Housing Committee has recently put the reinstatement of the roads and footpaths out to tender. Would the President advise members –

(a ) of the number of tenders received?

(b ) t he d etails of the work to be carried for which the residents are responsible? (c ) t he details of the highest tender and details of the lowest tender?

(d ) w hen the work will commence?

(e ) i f the Committee will be seeking payment from the many residents who have occupied property

and contributed to the wear and tear of the roads and footpaths in the Village since 1980 but no longer live there?"

The President of the Housing Committee tabled the following written answers –

"1. (a) T he Housing Committee is unable to ascertain why the transfer of administration of the roads and pavements to the respective Parishes did not take place some 24 years ago. However, the current proposal for the transfer of the roads and pavements is very different from the proposal of 24 years ago. That proposal would merely have changed the ownership of some of the areas in question but would still have left residents responsible for a financial contribution towards the upkeep.

(b ) A s it is not known why the transfer did not take place no person or body can be held responsible.

( c) N o. This Housing Committee has nothing to apologise for. It continues to act in the best

interests of the public of this Island, which includes the residents of Maufant Village.

2. ( a) T here is no need for a system. The contract of sale sets out the owner's responsibility and the Committee has the right to collect the expenditure on maintenance if it is incurred.

(b ) T his does not apply.

( c ) The roads and footpaths are generally in good condition given their age. The Housing

Committee has expended monies on Maufant Village over a 25-year period.

3. ( a) T wo tenders have been received for road and footpath resurfacing. Only the Jersey Electricity Company Limited (JEC) can carry out refurbishment to street lighting. As yet, no tender has been requested for proposed drainage works.

(b ) R esurfacing of roads and pavements, repairs to drains and replacement of street lighting.

(c ) T he highest tender for the road and footpath work was £233,780.00 and the lowest £219,612.77.

The JEC quote was £27,028.82.

( d ) The work will not commence until agreement has been reached over funding. It is the

Committee's intention that any necessary works be funded from the windfall payment due should access rights to Field 690A be granted across roads in Maufant estate. The Parish Connétable s have expressed support in principle for this proposal and for the transfer of ownership of roads, footpaths and communal landscaped areas to the parishes on completion of works. If this is achieved the obligation of Maufant residents to pay for repairs and maintenance of communal areas will be lifted and any future costs will be borne by the parishes.

( e) T here is no reason why past owners of properties at Maufant would be recharged. On each

occasion on which a property has been transferred the obligation to meet the cost of repair runs with the contract. It is up to each purchaser to weigh up the liability in terms of potential cost of any repairs at the time of purchase."

The Quarry, Gorey Pier – question and answer (Tape No. 965)

The Deputy of St. John tabled the following written question of Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur, President

of the Finance and Economics Committee –

" I n the Notification of Standing Order Decisions for 14th October 2004, it was stated that an assignment of a lease for a 99-year period was entered into with Premier Services Marine Engineering Limited for The Quarry, Gorey Pier, Gorey Pier Road. Would the President advise members of the basis of the Finance and Economics Committee's support of the proposed lease if no figures were shown?"

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

"The Finance and Economics Committee's support for the lease was made exercising powers delegated to the Committee through Standing Orders Relating to Certain Transactions in Land; under which the Committee's powers have been delegated to the Treasurer of the States.

T he Treasurer of the States supported the proposed transaction on the basis of professional advice and

information from the Department of Property Services. That advice was as follows –

t he commencing rental will not exceed the current Standing Orders approved limits; and

the rent al which the States is entitled to receive will obtain best value for the Public given that there

are a number of limitations to the site, including: parking and turning circle restrictions, limited access, the site layout, restrictions on massing, density and construction materials used in the redevelopment.

T he Department of Property Services determined that the most appropriate means by which to calculate a

rental value for the site was a formula-based approach linked to the market value of the rentals received by the lessee over the term of the lease. It is for that reason the Standing Order Notification contains no specific figure in respect of the annual rental payable to the States. I can however advise that it will commence at 4% of the estimated annual rental value of the completed development, and subsequently rise to 6%, subject to quinquennial review."

Oral questions

1. S en ator E.P. Vibert to the President of the Finance and Economics Committee:

" Wi ll the President confirm that the Committee has agreed, in principle, that in order to comply with human rights legislation, the Committee intends to extend tax relief on post-1997 agreements in respect of maintenance payments for children to parents who have not married, and state when he intends to bring such a measure to the Assembly?"

S en ator T.A. Le Sueur (President of the Finance and Economics Committee):

"N ot  only has my Committee agreed this in principle, but the States, last December, agreed when passing

the Income Tax (Amendment No. 23) Law that this should be brought into effect. So it is now in place and it was agreed last December."

2. T h e Deputy of St. John to the President of the Finance and Economics Committee:

"( a ) Would the President confirm whether cheque No. 169387 to the value of£6,860 was issued by the

Treasurer of the States to pay for Planning Application No. PP2004/2180 for a vodka distillery?

(b ) I s the Committee satisfied that following the establishment of a private limited company, sufficient

safeguards are in place to ensure that any public funds given to the proposed Distillery will not benefit private shareholders of the company?"

S en ator T.A. Le Sueur (President of the Finance and Economics Committee):

" I  can   confirm that cheque No. 169387 was issued in respect of a planning application for a vodka

distillery. The provision of grants by any States Committee is guided by the Treasury Code of Direction No. 26 (Obtaining Value for Money from Grants'). This Code sets out the best practice in evaluating, monitoring and accepting grant applications. It also stipulates that grants of over £100,000 that were made outside of a States' approved scheme shall require the prior approval of the Finance and Economics Committee. The Committee is satisfied that there are adequate safeguards in place to ensure that grant funding should provide value for money to the States at the discretion of the awarding

Committee. It is for the relevant Committee to decide on the suitability of such grant aid, and it would not be

appropriate to prevent grant funding from benefiting the directly related party of any given scheme as, by their nature, grants are often awarded for this purpose. It would only benefit the private shareholders in the sense that they do not have to use the company's funds for such purposes, but that is the nature of a grant.

T h e Finance and Economics Committee leaves to the judgment of the awarding Committee whether the

granting of public funds to a commercial scheme represents the best possible value for those public funds."

2(a) Deputy J.J. Huet:

" C ou  ld I ask, Sir, how much have these vodka factory people put into this so far, or is it, like the

Le Chaire Gardens, that only the States puts in?"

 S en ator T.A. Le Sueur:

 "I  have  no idea how much has been subscribed by those shareholders."

2(b) The Deputy of St. John:

"I n evaluating the scheme, was the President aware that a private limited company would be set up and,

therefore, what benefits will there be, given that at a public meeting last week, at which States Members and invited guests attended at Fort Regent, a private company has been set up and Members and the public were told that in fact not necessarily will the agricultural industry themselves be shareholders of this scheme? Is that the right way of granting money to an industry and in fact the money is going outside of the industry?"

S en ator T.A. Le Sueur:

" It   is not my Committee which evaluates any scheme or any use of grant aid. It is for the Committee administering it to evaluate for themselves whether this is an appropriate use. My Committee's obligation is to make sure that any such grants comply with Treasury Code of Direction No. 26. I am sure that in this case there was substantial information to ensure that it did comply with that code."

2(c) Senator P.V.F. Le Claire:

" C an   the President tell us of any other cheques which have been written by the Treasury in respect of planning applications within Jersey in the past? Can he also inform the Assembly whether or not, for example, if I wanted to set up a crisp manufacturing company, I would be able to apply for such a grant and receive a cheque from the Treasury?"

S en ator T.A. Le Sueur:

"I   a m not aware without prior notice of any other cheques which may have been issued, but it would not

be surprising if some had over the course of time. Should the Deputy or any other person wish to apply for a grant for such purposes, they should apply to the appropriate Committee."

S en ator P.V.F. Le Claire:

" I am sorry, Sir. I did not understand the answer. Did the President say that he has not got any

knowledge of any prior cheques being issued in respect of planning applications?"

 S en ator T.A. Le Sueur:

 "Y es  ; and I would require notice of that question. It may be, but I do not see that it is relevant."

2(d) Deputy F.G. Voisin:

" Is   the President aware that this grant was made in compliance with the Marketing Support Scheme of the Agricultural and Fisheries Committee? That scheme was part of the policy report approved by this Assembly in 2002? Is the President aware of that?"

S en ator T.A. Le Sueur:

" I a m, indeed, Sir. For that reason, I am satisfied that this payment did comply with the Code of

Directions."

2(e) Connétable G.W. Fisher of St. Lawrence:

" C oul  d the President elaborate as to the reason given for the grant? In other words, what was it to be used for?"

 S en ator T.A. Le Sueur:

 "I  do not  know if the Connétable is referring to the cheque itself or to the total grant."

 C on nétable G.W. Fisher of St. Lawrence:

 "F or  clarification, Sir, I am talking about the total grant."

S en ator T.A. Le Sueur:

" T he   total grant, Sir, was used at the discretion of the administering Committee in the pursuance of the marketing objectives of the potato side of the agricultural industry."

2(f) The Deputy of St. John:

" Wi ll the President confirm that over and above the £105,000 grant, additional public money has been spent in relation to the administration and support of the project, and that is estimated at £15,000 plus? Also, will he confirm that an Environmental Impact Study (EIA) study has been undertaken by Planning and Environment, and who has paid for that EIA study?"

S en ator T.A. Le Sueur:

"T hes  e are matters which are not directly the responsibility of my Committee. Whilst I am quite prepared

to believe the Deputy of St. John, I have no evidence one way or the other."

3. D ep uty G.P. Southern to the President of the Housing Committee:

" F ol lowing the introduction of Long-Term Incapacity Allowance (LTIA) to replace both Disability and Invalidity benefits, the Social Security Committee has made it clear that the allowance is compensation for loss of faculty' and not income replacement. Will the President outline how his Committee will treat LTIA under the changes to income disregard for rental subsidy introduced in P.74/2003 Public and Private Sector Housing Rental Subsidy Schemes'?"

 D ep uty T.J. Le Main (President of the Housing Committee): "C an I  ask that the Vice-President attends to those questions?"

T h e D  eputy of Trinity (Vice-President of the Housing Committee – rapporteur):

"T he   Housing Committee will treat Long-Term Incapacity Allowance in the same way as Invalidity and

Disability Benefit. This means that, in accordance with the changes agreed by the States in P.74, at present one-third of the income is regarded for rent subsidy assessment purposes. From April 2005 this will be increased to two-thirds and from April 2006 the full amount will be taken into account.

S hor t-Term Incapacity Allowance replaces both Sickness and Injury benefits with one common benefit.

At the end of 52 weeks a claimant on short-term benefit will be assessed by a doctor to determine whether the Long-Term Incapacity Allowance is to be paid and to what degree. If the assessment is less than 100%, the applicant may work with the Long-Term Incapacity Allowance topping up his income. The Housing Committee's approach is consistent in regarding both Short-Term and Long-Term Incapacity Allowance in the same way.

D epu ty Southern quotes the Employment and Social Security leaflet which describes Long-Term Incapacity Allowance as: Compensation for loss of faculty', but this does not mean that it is not income. There is no good reason why it should not be considered as contributing towards meeting housing costs."

3(a) Deputy G.P. Southern :

"D oes  the Rapporteur not accept his words and argument, when he was proposing P.74, in particular, and

I quote him: These particular benefits' – Invalidity and Disability – are income replacement benefits in the same way as Sickness Benefit and Pensions.' Later on he says: These 2 benefits are definitely income replacement because they cannot work.' Does he recognise that under Long-Term Incapacity Benefit recipients are encouraged to return to work and can work and, therefore, this is not income replacement but loss of faculty?"

T h e D  eputy of Trinity :

" N o,  I do not follow that argument. The information given when this was debated was technically

correct. That was the position as it was regarded. We see, however, that there is no difference with this. If an individual cannot work or can only work part-time, then the allowance he gets is, in effect, to compensate for that. The Social Security Committee itself cannot pay what some might call unemployment allowance. They have no provision for that. So they are giving this allowance in this

respect. I think that it is clear and that is the Housing Committee's view."

3(b) Deputy G.P. Southern :

" D oes  the Rapporteur not accept that his Committee's interpretation of Long-Term Incapacity Benefit' and Social Security's interpretation of Long-Term Incapacity Benefit' are fundamentally opposite to each other? When is his Committee going to meet with the Social Security Committee and decide what the actual case is?"

T h e D  eputy of Trinity :

"N o, S  ir. I do not think I do. I think one follows the other. I think this will all come out in the wash when

the Income Support Scheme, which Social Security is working on, comes into effect, which will bring in the housing benefits at the same time. I think that is the only proper way to deal with this. Therefore, you will have an overall picture. It is the only way forward, Sir."

4. S en ator E.P Vibert to the President of the Finance and Economics Committee:

" W oul  d the President explain to members why he believes that a trio of Committees joining forces will be successful in finding a solution to Jersey's high inflation rate and why, if such a course of action is now being embarked on, it was not done several years ago, when inflation was then described as Jersey's public enemy number one?"

S en ator T.A. Le Sueur (President of the Finance and Economics Committee):

" T he   3 Committees have joined together because the public expects the States to act in a co-ordinated and united way in addressing inflation. This is the continuation of a process which commenced in 1999 when the Finance and Economics Committee of that day commissioned a report on inflation by the economist, Mr. Mike Parr. That report contained a number of recommendations which were discussed and agreed not just by the 3 Committees but by the States as a whole. These have since been implemented, including setting an explicit target for Retail Price Index excluding mortgage interest payments and interest on States loans (RPI-X), improving our collection of statistical data, setting-up the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority and implementing a competition Law and reducing the growth in States spending.

H ow ever, as Mr. Parr said in his report and as I have been saying consistently for the past 2 years, ther

are no quick fixes on inflation. Even once tough policy decisions have been made, it takes time for those inflationary pressures to subside. It is the underlying rate of inflation which is so important. There are clearly signs that this, indeed, is now reducing with RPI-X moving downwards for the sixth consecutive quarter."

4(a) Senator E.P. Vibert :

"I   am  not alone amongst my colleagues at the back, here. I am at a loss to recall which Committees are

involved in this. Maybe the President in his answer to my question could let us know.

B ear ing in mind the high cost of housing is one of the most impacting costs on the Island, will the