States Minutes 10th May 2005

THE STATES assembled on Tuesday, 10th May 2005 at 9.30 a.m. under

the Presidency of the Deputy Bailiff , Michael Cameron St.  John Birt, Esquire.

All members were present with the exception of –

G e rard Clifford Lemmens Baudains, Deputy of St. Clement – ill C e lia Joyce Scott Warr en, Deputy of St. Saviour– ill.

Prayers

Tribute to the late Jurat Lester Vivian Bailhache , former member of the States

The Deputy Bailiff paid tribute to the late Jurat Lester Vivian Bailhache , former Deputy of St Clement. The States observed one minute's silence as a mark of respect.

H.R.H. The Princess Royal – visit

The Deputy Bailiff advised the States that Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal would be visiting the Island on 18th and 19th July 2005 in order to visit Jersey Hospice Care and the Durrell Wildlife Preservation Trust as their patron, and to attend the Jersey Workplace Challenge dinner as President of the Save the Children Fund.

Liberation 60 celebrations

The Deputy Bailiff advised the States that Her Majesty The Queen and His Royal Highness Prince Philip were departing that day following the Liberation  60 celebrations, which had been a resounding success. On behalf of the Bailiff he paid tribute to Senator Jean Amy Le  Maistre, Chairman of the Liberation 60 Sub-Committee and all those who had worked so hard to make the event a success.

Herr Roland Buerkle, Burgermeister of Bad Wurzach – welcome

The Deputy Bailiff , on behalf of all members, welcomed Herr Roland Buerkle, Burgermeister of Bad Wurzach, who was present in the gallery, having attended the Liberation  60 celebrations.

Senator R.J. Shenton – welcome back after illness.

The Deputy Bailiff , on behalf of members, welcomed Senator Richard Joseph Shenton O.B.E. back to the Assembly following a period of illness.

Subordinate legislation tabled

The following enactments were laid before the States, namely –

Employment (Fixed Term Contracts) (Jersey) Order 2005. R&O 34/2005. Employment and Social Security Committee.

Teachers' Superannuation (General Provisions) (Amendment No.  2) (Jersey) Order R&O 35/2005. 2005.

Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

Electronic Communications (Amendment) (Jersey) Order 2005. R&O 36/2005. Economic Development Committee.

Matters presented

The following matters were presented to the States –

Draft Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 200- (P.19/2005): third amendments P.19/2005. Amd. (P.19/2005  Amd.(3)) – comments. (3)Com. Presented by the Employment and Social Security Committee.

Fiscal Strategy (P.44/2005): second amendment (P.44/2005  Amd.(2)) – comments. P.44/2005. Amd. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. (2)Com.

Fiscal Strategy (P.44/2005): third amendments (P.44/2005  Amd.(3)) – comments. P.44/2005. Amd. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. (3)Com.

Machinery of Government: relationship between the Parishes and the Executive P.66/2005. Com. (P.66/2005) – comments.

Presented by the Connétable of St.  Martin.

Caledonia Close, Pier Road, St.  Helier: sale of property (P.74/2005) – comments. P.74/2005. Com. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Day Surgery Unit Extension and Accident and Emergency Extension Phase  1: P.79/2005. approval of drawings (P.79/2005) – comments. Com. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Income Tax: additional liability (P.81/2005) – comments. P.81/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.

Social Security Fund: removal of earnings limit (P.82/2005) – comments. P.82/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.

Social Security Fund: removal of earnings limit (P.82/2005) – comments. P.82/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.(2)

Social Security Fund: removal of earnings limit (P.82/2005) – comments. P.82/2005. Com. Presented by the Economic Development Committee. (3)

Draft Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 (Appointed Day) Act 200- (P.88/2005): P.88/2005. Com. comments.

Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Island Plan 2002: amendment to policy H8 (Housing Development within the P.90/2005. Built-up Area) (P.90/2005) – comments. Com. Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

The following matters were presented on 26th April 2005 –

Responding to Drug Use (S.R.1/2004): response of the Health and Social Services S.R.1/2004. and Home Affairs Committees. Res. Presented by the Health and Social Services Committee.

Draft Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 200- (P.19/2005): addendum. P.19/2005. Presented by the Employment and Social Security Committee. Add.

Machinery of Government: relationship between the Parishes and the Executive P.66/2005. (P.66/2005 Amd.) amendment – comment. Amd.Com. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

The following matters were presented on 3rd May 2005 –

Financial Report and Accounts 2004.

Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority: annual report 2004. Presented by the Economic Development Committee.

THE STATES ordered that the said reports be printed and distributed. Matters noted – land transactions

THE STATES noted an Act of the Finance and Economics Committee dated 3rd May 2005, showing that, in pursuance of Standing Orders relating to certain transactions in land, the Committee had approved –

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

Arrangement with Vue de la Corbière avec Responsabilité Limitée, owners of the flats known as "Seagrove Apartments", which flats gained access to La Rue de la Corbière, St.  Brelade via a section of roadway in public ownership (Drawing No.  425 D1 refers). The company would pay to the public th sum of £2,840 for the grant of enhanced access rights to the abovementioned flats, and would also be responsible for both parties' legal fees incurred in drafting, approving and passing the contract before the Royal Court;

( b ) as recommended by the Environment and Public Services Committee, the purchase from JCN Trading

(Jersey) Limited of a small parcel of land (measuring approximately 50  square feet) at Field No.  789 (playing field), Wellington Road, St.  Saviour, to be incorporated into the pavement along Wellington Road, for a consideration of £10, on the basis that the company would be responsible for setting-back the wall to be re-built and for making good the pavement, all at its own cost, with each party to be responsible for its own legal costs in the preparation and passing of the contract before the Royal Court.

Matters lodged

The following matters were lodged "au Greffe" –

Island Plan 2002: changes to Built-up Area boundary (P.77/2005) – third P.77/2005. Amd. amendments. (3) Presented by Deputy J.A. Hilton of St.  Helier.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendment) Law 200- (P.83/2005): amendment. P.83/2005. Amd. Presented by Senator S. Syvret.

La  Pouquelaye School, Le  Hurel, St.  Helier: transfer of administration. P.94/2005. Presented by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

Solid Waste Strategy. P.95/2005. Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

New Urban Square in Broad Street: relocation of taxi rank. P.96/2005. Presented by the Connétable of St.  Helier and referred to the Environment and

Public Services Committee.

The following matters were lodged on 26th April 2005 –

Draft Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 200- (P.19/2005): second amendments. P.19/2005. Amd. Presented by the Employment and Social Security Committee. (2)

Draft Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 200- (P.19/2005): third amendments. P.19/2005. Amd. Presented by Deputy G.P. Southern of St.  Helier. (3)

Draft States of Jersey (Amendment) Law 200-. P.83/2005. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) (Exemption) (Amendment P.84/2005. No.  2) (Jersey) Regulations 200-.

Presented by the Employment and Social Security Committee.

Draft Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) (General) (Amendment No.  2) P.85/2005. (Jersey) Regulations 200-.

Presented by the Employment and Social Security Committee.

Income Support System. P.86/2005. Presented by the Employment and Social Security Committee.

Draft Employment (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.87/2005. Presented by the Employment and Social Security Committee.

Draft Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 (Appointed Day) Act 200-. P.88/2005. Presented by the Employment and Social Security Committee.

Commission Amicale: appointment of President and Chairman. P.89/2005. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

The following matters were lodged on 3rd May 2005 –

Island Plan 2002: changes to Built-up Area boundary (P.77/2005) – amendments. P.77/2005. Amd. Presented by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St.  Clement.

Island Plan 2002: changes to Built-up Area boundary (P.77/2005) – second P.77/2005. Amd. amendments. (2). Presented by Senator L. Norman.

Island Plan 2002: amendment to policy H8 (Housing Development within the P.90/2005. Built-up Area).

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

School admissions policy: review. P.91/2005. Presented by the Deputy of St.  John and referred to the Education, Sport and

Culture Committee for a report.

Draft Licensing (No.  16) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.92/2005. Presented by the Economic Development Committee.

States of Jersey Property Holdings: establishment. P.93/2005. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 200 – (P.19/2005): amendments – withdrawn

THE  STATES  noted  that,  in  accordance  with  Standing  Order  22(3),   Deputy  Geoffrey  Peter   Southern  of St.  Helier had instructed the Greffier of the States to withdraw the following matter, having lodged"au Greffe" a revised projet on 26th April 2005 –

Draft Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 200- (P.19/2005): amendments. P.19/2005. Lodged: 1st March 2005. Amd. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendment) Law 200- P.26/2005 – withdrawn

THE STATES noted that, in accordance with Standing Order 22(3), the President of the Policy and Resources Committee had instructed the Greffier of the States to withdraw the following matter, the Committee having lodged "au Greffe" a revised projet on 26th April 2005 –

Draft States of Jersey (Amendment) Law 200-. P.26/2005. Lodged: 8th February 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Island Plan 2002: amendment to Policy H8 (Housing Development within the Built-up Area) – P.69/2005 – withdrawn

THE STATES noted that, in accordance with Standing Order 22(3), Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains of St.  Clement had instructed the Greffier of the States to withdraw the following matter, having lodged "au Greffe" a revised projet on 3rd May 2005 –

Island Plan 2002: amendment to policy H8 (Housing Development within the P.69/2005. Built-up Area).

Lodged: 5th April 2005.

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

Arrangement of public business for the present meeting

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

Draft Employment (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.87/2005. Lodged: 26th April 2005.

Employment and Social Security Committee.

Draft Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 (Appointed Day) Act 200-. P.88/2005. Lodged: 26th April 2005.

Employment and Social Security Committee.

Commission Amicale: appointment of President and Chairman. P.89/2005. Lodged: 26th April 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Arrangement of public business for the next meeting on 24th May 2005

THE STATES confirmed that the following matters lodged "au Greffe" would be considered at the next meeting on 24th May 2005, and in the following order –

New Urban Square in Broad Street: relocation of taxi rank. P.96/2005. Lodged: 10th May 2005.

Connétable of St. Helier.

Draft States of Jersey (Transfer of Functions from Committees to Ministers) P.55/2005. (Jersey) Regulations 200-.

Lodged: 22nd March 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendments and Construction Provisions No.  1) (Jersey) P.56/2005. Regulations 200-.

Lodged: 22nd March 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendments and Construction Provisions No.  2) (Jersey) P.57/2005. Regulations 200-.

Lodged: 22nd March 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendments and Construction Provisions No.  4) (Jersey) P.58/2005. Regulations 200-.

Lodged: 22nd March 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendments and Construction Provisions No.  5) (Jersey) P.59/2005. Regulations 200-.

Lodged: 22nd March 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendments and Construction Provisions No.  6) (Jersey) P.60/2005. Regulations 200-.

Lodged: 22nd March 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendments and Construction Provisions No.  7) (Jersey) P.61/2005. Regulations 200-.

Lodged: 22nd March 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendments and Construction Provisions No.  8) (Jersey) P.62/2005. Regulations 200-.

Lodged: 22nd March 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendments and Construction Provisions No.  9) (Jersey) P.63/2005. Regulations 200-.

Lodged: 22nd March 2005. Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendments and Construction Provisions No.  10) (Jersey) P.64/2005. Regulations 200-.

Lodged: 22nd March 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendments and Construction Provisions No.  11) (Jersey) P.65/2005. Regulations 200-.

Lodged: 22nd March 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Privileges and Procedures Committee: revised terms of reference. P.75/2005. Lodged: 19th April 2005.

Privileges and Procedures Committee.

Jersey Law Commission: appointment of Commissioners. P.76/2005. Lodged: 19th April 2005.

Legislation Committee.

Day Surgery Unit Extension and Accident and Emergency Extension Phase  1: P.79/2005. approval of drawings.

Lodged: 19th April 2005.

Health and Social Services Committee.

Day Surgery Unit Extension and Accident and Emergency Extension Phase  1: P.79/2005. Com. approval of drawings (P.79/2005) – comments.

Presented: 10th May 2005.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Criminal Justice (Mandatory Minimum Periods of Actual Imprisonment) P.80/2005. (Jersey) Law 200-.

Lodged: 19th April 2005.

Home Affairs Committee.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendment) Law 200-. P.83/2005. Lodged: 26th April 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft Licensing (No.  16) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.92/2005. Lodged: 3rd May 2005.

Economic Development Committee.

Passengers carried to and from the Elizabeth Terminal – question and answer

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

" W  ould the President identify the number of passengers carried to and from the Elizabeth Terminal by bus during the last 12 months, and at what cost?"

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

" I nformation provided by Connex reveals that 2,731 passengers boarded the bus on Route  19 at Elizabeth

Terminal. It is not possible to determine the numbers who got off the bus at that stop as the ticketing system does

not identify where a passenger alights – it simply records which fare band the passenger wishes to travel to. There is no cost to the taxpayer of this stop as it is part of the existing network – similarly, there was no increase in cost when the changes to the Route 19 were implemented.

A  lthough this equates to about only 7  people per day, this is the sole public transport link between the

Waterfront complex and the town and will, inevitably, become more popular as development progresses. Furthermore, I believe the Committee would be severely and properly criticised if it were to suggest that this link would no longer run. The Deputy is also reminded that one of the main reasons for providing this route was to allow children living on the Waterfront to access La  Pouquelaye and Haute Vallée schools. With more residents moving into the area, this will also be likely to increase ridership."

Public sector workforce numbers – question and answer

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

" W ould the President –

( a ) explain why the public sector authorised workforce has increased by 89 for the year ending December

2004, at a time when the private sector is decreasing?

( b ) confirm whether this increase is consistent with the Five Year Vision for the Public Sector, approved by

the States in May 2004, and, if so, how?

( c ) confirm when the Committee intends reducing the authorised public sector headcount limit?" The President of the Finance and Economics Committee tabled the following written answer –

" ( a) One has to be very careful to understand the terminology used in presenting the annual manpower statistics. It is certainly true that the authorised public sector workforce has increased by 89 for the year ending December 2004, and R.C.20/2005 clearly shows that the growth has been primarily in the fields of education and health, two core social services where manpower plans had been approved over an extended period.

H o w  e ver, whilst the Deputy asks about the number of authorised posts, by far the more illuminating

statistics that fall from the Public Sector Manpower Report for December 2004, are in respect of the actual number of employees.

A s a t D ecember 2004 the data apparently shows there to be 21 more employees than at December 2003.

However, after allowing for the Met Office staff transferred from the Airport to Environment and Public Services during that year, the underlying figures show an actual fall in headcount over 2004, albeit only one. (Trading Committees are not included in the Manpower Report.)

T h i s f all was despite the actual staffing for the Education, Sport and Culture and Health and Social

Services Committees increasing by 72, for reasons I have already explained. It therefore follows that there must have been a corresponding reduction in other areas.

( b ) The fall in actual employees and authorised headcount cap, outside of the frontline service growth

awarded by the States, reflects the efficiencies which Departments are having to achieve as a result of the tight spending controls overall.

T h o s e tight spending controls demand that more is done with the same or less resources, which is entirely

consistent with the Five Year Vision for the Public Sector approved by the States in May 2004, which requires efficiency savings of £20 million per annum by 2009. That cash saving will inevitably result in

manpower savings over the period.

T h o s e significant efficiencies and the associated reduction in headcount will occur over the five years to

2009, the first year of which is 2005. Although it pre-dates the five year plan, the 2004 figures represent a worthwhile preliminary move towards a better, simpler and cheaper public service, and shows firm commitment by all Committees involved.

( c ) The Committee fully expects that as a result of the Five Year Vision for the Public Sector and a reduced

funding  allocation  there  will  be  cuts  to  both  the  authorised manpower  levels  and  actual  numbers employed this year.

W  h il s t the analysis of authorised posts is not very meaningful, the important statistic being the actual

number of staff employed, there have been instances where Committees have hung on to unfilled posts, and I will be approaching all Committees to ensure that unnecessary vacant posts are returned."

Derelict H4 site, St. Clement – question and answer

Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains of St.  Clement tabled the following written question ofSenator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf , President of the Environment and Public Services Committee –

" G iven the possible danger to children from, for example, broken glass, unused fuel containers, and a disused reservoir using the derelict, privately owned H4 site No. 15 in the Island Plan (Samarès Nurseries, St. Clement) for recreation and in view of its close proximity to large housing estates at Le Squez and Le Marais in particular, would the President inform members whether the Committee has any powers to restrict access or make safe this site and, if so, will it be exercised in this case?"

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

" F ollowing concerns expressed by Senator P.V.F.  Le  Claire, and Deputies J.A.  Martin and C.J.   Scott   Warr an officer of the Planning Department attended a meeting at the site with the 2  Deputies and the owners on 5th April 2005.

T h e glasshouses have been out of use for some time, and I am advised that children  are gaining access to the

site and throwing stones at  a glasshouse from the bank of the reservoir. The  potentially dangerous  situatio that has arisen at Samarès Nurseries is primarily the responsibility of the owner and requires  improved  sit security and notices warning of danger. The owner of the site has been advised that it is in his own interests to secure the site.

T  he Committee has no powers to restrict access to a private site or to make such a site safe. The Island

Planning Law 1964, at Article 13, confers powers on the Committee to serve notice on an owner of land where the amenities of any part of the Island are seriously injured by the condition of any land', requiring that such steps for abating the injury' are taken.

I t cannot be said that the amenities of this part of the Island are seriously injured by the condition of the land,

and thus Article  13 does not apply."

Medical costs incurred by LTIA recipients – question and answer

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

" H as any research has been carried out by the Committee into the medical costs incurred by recipients of Long Term Incapacity Allowance (LTIA) or the previous Invalidity benefit, and, if so, what does it reveal?"

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

" T here has not been any specific research on the medical costs of people on benefit, other than HIE. The variety and nature of illness would suggest that medical costs would vary between beneficiaries and even between beneficiaries with the same medical condition. A similar feature was found within the research performed by the Centre for Research into Social Policy into disability which Deputy Southern has received.

O  f more practical value to claimants of LTIA is the removal of the requirement for medical certification. This

means that visits to the doctor and the expense incurred to satisfy Social Security procedures have been reduced markedly. Coupled with procedures for repeat prescribing which mean that a person can obtain one original and three repeat prescriptions at one time, the medical costs are dependant on the advice of the GP as to frequency of visits rather than the needs of the Employment and Social Security Department.

M  embers might also like to be reminded of the financial assistance given to claimants and businesses to adapt

working environments to help people stay or return to employment with an illness. The old system of benefits did not allow people to work and receive benefit and so was a barrier to work.

I n the past the Department has undertaken research into the ailments that appear on medical certificates and

these have been published on the website. Unfortunately, until this year this could not be linked to GP visits but with GP surgery computerisation, and with the implementation of the new computer system, this will be possible in the future, once sufficient data has been collected."

Possible new art gallery on the Waterfront – question and answer

The Deputy of St.  John tabled the following written question of Senator Michael Edward   Vibert , President of the Education, Sport and Culture Committee –

" I n July 2004, the Education, Sport and Culture Committee received a presentation on a possible new art gallery on the Waterfront to be funded by a benefactor.

W  ould the President inform members what progress, if any, has been made in moving this forward, and if so,

would he advise –

( a ) whether the building work has been estimated, together with the annual running costs, and if so, how

much and from where these funds will be sourced?

( b ) of the proposed location and size of the site?"

The President of the Education, Sport and Culture Committee tabled the following written answer –

"(a) On 28th July 2004, the Education, Sport and Culture Committee met with representatives of the Waterfront

Enterprise Board, the Jersey Arts Trust, and a company of architects to consider an oral and visual presentation on a proposed Art Gallery to be situated on a development site on the Waterfront.

T h e Committee was informed that a benefactor had been identified who might be prepared to offer a sum of

approximately £9 million for the capital development of an Art Gallery in the Island. Whilst this sum represented one of the largest donations in British cultural history, the Committee was informed that the development costs would be in the region of £7.5 million leaving only£1.5 million for running costs. It was estimated, however, that running costs would be in the region of £600,000 per year.

T h e Committee commented that the issue of running costs threatened the development unless further funds

could be identified once the initial investment had run out.

(b) Following further discussion at the meeting, the Committee recognised the Art Gallery's potential to become an iconic exhibition centre and cultural facility and it agreed that it would champion the scheme as much as

possible in light of its responsibility for culture but that the current economic climate would limit its ability to

offer financial support. The Committee, therefore, agreed to await the publication of a detailed business plan before it could identify how assistance could be offered.

S u bsequent to that meeting the Committee has been informed by the Jersey Arts Trust that the offer of

support from the benefactor did not materialise, and, in consequence the Committee has had no further involvement in this matter."

Payment of salaries in error within the Health and Social Services Department –question and answer

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

" A  s an error was made in the payment of salaries within the Health and Social Services Department, would the President inform members of the following –

( a ) the full amount of the error?

( b ) whether there are any payments outstanding, and, if so, how much?

( c ) whether the Committee has responded to assist any staff who have encountered difficulties with their

banking arrangements as a result of the error?

( d ) give details of the five highest individual payments made to staff?

( e ) what safeguards, if any, are in place for the future?

( f) what action, if any, has been taken against the payroll staff concerned?"

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

" T he recent wages overpayments to 500 weekly paid Health and Social Services staff has received much media attention.

A  lthough the circumstances which gave rise to this overpayment are rather complex it is appropriate that

some background be provided to members in order to avoid confusion and provide reassurance regarding the systems and processes in place.

T h e States run a number of payrolls, one of which is for weekly paid Health and Social Services staff, many

of whom are paid directly into their bank account via BACS. Pay details are entered into this payroll to calculate the pay amounts and contributions in respect of pension, social security etc.; these amounts are automatically compared to established parameters to ensure that the details input are reasonable'. This process ensures that any exceptionally large or small amounts are highlighted and reported. This payroll data is used to update the financial system. The payroll data also automatically produces a file for the BACS payments, which is subsequently handled completely independently from the payroll system.

I n the case of the recent error the payroll data was input correctly and checked for reasonableness', the

financial system was then correctly updated. The BACS file was created correctly by the payroll system but, regrettably, the transmission of the file to BACS contained an error which led to the overpayment.

M  embers should be reassured that both the payroll and financial systems contain various automated processes

which highlight unusual transactions. The error originates from a failure to apply established processes in the handling of the BACS interface.

I n answer to the specific questions raised –

1. the correct amountof the payroll was £165,781.38, due to the error this was multiplied by 100 and passed to the banksin the sum of approximately £16.6 million. The difference between the 2 amounts i £16,412,356.62;
2. 9 repayment authorisations havebeenreceived from all staff, noneremainoutstanding;
3. offers of assistance have been madeto those affected by the error; all issues raised havebeendealt with;
4. it would be inappropriate to report individualpayments in detail, however, the highest paymentmade was approximately£120,000,thenext highest payments were in the rangeof£105,000to£90,000,there were 6 payments in this range;
5. the BACS interface, which caused the errors has been thoroughly reviewedbyexternalauditors and the processes and controlshavebeen reinforced to preventanyre-occurrenceof the error;
6. as outlinedabove,theerror did not arise from a payroll error, but from a BACS error, it did not involve payroll staff. Investigative arrangements are being progressed which, if necessary, will be followed by disciplinary proceduresagainst the staff involved.

This unfortunate incident has demonstrated the consequences which can arise when the robust systems, processes and controls upon, which the States prides itself, are compromised. Fortunately such incidents are rare.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank staff at Health and Social Services, Treasury and Human Resources for all their efforts to address this incident and praise them for the professional and prompt manner in which they did so."

Protection of sea fisheries officers – question and answer

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

" F ollowing the recent incident in which Guernsey Sea Fisheries Officers were taken to France aboard a French fishing vessel, would the President inform members what safeguards, if any, exist for Jersey's Sea Fisheries Officers in the event of an incident at sea and whether these officers are armed, and, if not, is the Committee to review this as an option?"

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

" T he most common incident that faces Fishery Officers is that of the master of a detained vessel refusing to comply with the instructions to take his vessel to a port as instructed by the Fishery Officer and heading for another port with the Officer onboard. In such circumstances the best immediate protection available to a Jersey Fishery Officer, in addition to his skills at avoiding confrontation, is the trust and understanding that has developed from the long-term relationship between fishermen and the authorities of Jersey. Any person obstructing a Jersey Fishery Officer is also liable on conviction to a severe fine.

I n a serious incident Jersey Fishery Officers are able to call for assistance from the States of Jersey Police, the

Royal Navy's Fishery Protection Squadron and from French enforcement officers based at Cherbourg.

I n common with their U.K. and Guernsey counterparts, Jersey Fishery Officers are not armed and there is no

intention to review that position."

Education arrangements for children of 1(1)(j) approved residents and returning local persons – question

and answer

The Deputy of St.  John tabled the following written question of Senator Michael Edward   Vibert , President of th Education, Sport and Culture Committee –

" W ould the President advise members what arrangements, if any, are in place within the education system to accommodate children of approved 1(1)(j) housing consent employees who arrive in the Island at short notice, and what system, if any, is in place to accommodate children of local people returning to the Island who need to be placed in full-time education?"

The President of the Education, Spurt and Culture Committee tabled the following written answer –

" T he Committee's admissions policy and procedures makes provision for families who arrive in the Island at short notice'. The policy does not discriminate between the children of parents who are allocated 1(1)(j) consents and local' parents who are returning to the Island.

W  ithin the non fee paying sector, places are allocated according to availability subject to the Committee's

policy for maximum class size. For children of primary school age, places are offered at the school which serves the catchment area within which the family will live. If no places are available within the relevant year groups, places would be offered at an alternative primary school which is closest to or convenient to the family home and where places are available.

F o r children of secondary school age, places are allocated on a similar basis to primary schools.  However,

parents of children who are to enter Year  10 or above are advised that they may make application to Hautlieu School, admission to which is determined by ability.

P a rents may also make application to the fee paying provided schools, (Victoria College, Jersey College for

Girls and their respective preparatory schools). Admission to these schools is dependent upon both the availability of places and the pupils meeting the criteria for entry."

Economic Growth Plan on the Economic Development Committee – question and answer –

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

"F ollowing the States adoption of P.38/2005, Economic Growth Plan' of the Economic Development

Committee, will the President inform members where the £2.7 million required to fund the Plan will be sourced?"

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

" T he Finance and Economics Committee, in its comment to the report and proposition P.38/2005, has stated that the on-going costs for the Economic Growth Plan will have to be found from within existing resources, and will ensure that this is built into future resource allocation processes.

I t has already been agreed by Presidents, in the 2006-2008 resource allocation process, that £400,000 is to be

provided for a further grant to Jersey Finance Limited. This will reduce the overall estimate of additional funding required for the Economic Growth Plan which will need to be considered in the Resource Allocation Process from 2007 onwards.

O  ver the initial period the Committee will identify and make available adequate pump priming funding to

enable preliminary investment to occur as a matter of priority. The Committee has identified funds from the 2004 Carry Forward process, which can be allocated to the Economic Growth Plan, and is currently in communication with the relevant Committees to secure that funding."

Funding of post-19 education in the resource period 2006 to 2008 – question and answer

Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern of St. Helier tabled the following written question of Senator Michael Edward Vibert , President of the Education, Sport and Culture Committee –

"W ould the President provide members with full details of the proposed post-19 educational provision

included as a growth item with funding of £1.3 million for the resource period 2006 to 2008?"

The President of the Education, Sport and Culture Committee tabled the following written answer –

" T he figures quoted in the Jersey Evening Post on 27th April 2005, for growth in States Committees' budgets for the period 2006 to 2008 are proposals following a recent meeting of Committee Presidents. The proposals are based on impacts and risks identified by officers and have not yet been considered, or accepted, by Committees.

The £1.3 million relates to full and part time post 19 courses and represents the shortfall between the current funding and projections for 2006. In order to fund existing provision, the Education, Sport and Culture Committee is already making up part of the current shortfall from within its 2005 cash limit.

T he Committee has not yet discussed its proposed 2006 – 2008 cash limits, nor the allocation of its 2006

budget, and until such time it would be inappropriate for me to comment on how the proposed net changes in funding for 2006 – 2008 will be allocated to meet the Committee's priorities for Education, Sport and Culture."

Oral questions

1. D  ep utyJ.L.Dorey of St.  Helierof the President of the Policy andResourcesCommittee:

" I s t he  Committee  satisfied  that  adequate  arrangements  are  in  place  for  the  accurate  and  objective recording of decisions under ministerial government?"

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

" Y e s , Sir. The Policy and Resources Committee is satisfied that adequate arrangements are in place. Working jointly with the Privileges and Procedures Committee, my Committee has developed a framework for the recording of decisions in the ministerial system. Each decision will be recorded in a standard format containing all the key information, including the reasons for a decision, the details of the decision and any actions required. The record of decisions will be prepared by individual States departments for signature by the minister who is legally responsible for such decisions and will then be forwarded on to the States Greffe. The Greffe will continue to play an important rôle in the record keeping process, firstly by checking the records to ensure their completeness and, secondly, by acting as a central repository of records for both the executive and the scrutiny functions. The States Greffe will also prepare the record of the meetings of the Council of Ministers. Some members will already be aware that we are conducting a trial of the new arrangements involving the Education, Sport and Culture Committee, and this is providing an opportunity to test out the framework and make any final adjustments before the new system comes into place. I would be pleased to provide members with full details of the new arrangements and will arrange for this information to be circulated."

1(a) D eputy J.L. Dorey:

" I h ave to say I'm a little surprised at the President's and the Committee's satisfaction with the arrangements, even given that they are currently under trial. But if I could press the President for a little more detail, having read the Policy and Resources Committee report and seen the draft template. What will happen in future terms to a précis of discussions leading to a decision? At the moment, a Committee Clerk obviously supplies a précis of any discussions round the table, but there doesn't seem to be space for that. What if there is an argument? There is no space on the template. Can the President confirm that

there is no place on the template for argument? There is no provision on the template for a situation where a

minister might disagree with either his officers or his assistant ministers. Can the President confirm that? And can he say whether he is actually entirely satisfied with the notion of two different points? One is that the involvement of an experienced Committee clerk is deemed appropriate for minuting the proceedings of the Council of Ministers, but in some way not appropriate for decisions made by individual ministers/departments; and, secondly, is he totally satisfied that it is appropriate in future for the decisions to be recorded by the people with most at stake, the officers who have produced the report which went to the minister in the first place? Is that what he would class as independent recording of a decision?"

S e n a tor F.H. Walker :

" I  th i nk there were a number of questions there. I think, firstly, of course, in a ministerial system the type of debate and opportunity for disagreement that exists in a Committee will of course be very different because the structure will be very different and the individual minister, as approved by the States, is legally responsible for the decision taken by his or her department. I think the Deputy , however, has a point  when  he  talks  about  discussions or possible disagreement  with assistant ministers.  I have  no problem (and I am sure my Committee would have no problem) in refining the system so that such debates could in some way be logged, but the important thing is that the minister is legally responsible for the decision and the decision has to be recorded in an approved format. It has to be registered at the Greffe, and the plan is that it would then be posted on the States' website within 3 working days so that everyone will have pretty well immediate access to the decision, but at the end of the day, the minister is legally responsible. I think that answers the point really about the departmental involvement. At the end of the day, the minister will take a decision based on the advice he or she receives. They will either accept that advice or not, but the minister is legally accountable and legally responsible and it is therefore for the minister to sign off the decision."

1(b) D eputy G.P. Southern of St.  Helier:

" I  g e t the impression that the President is suggesting that the level of debate and the amount of debate and argument will be less under this ministerial system than in a Committee system. Can he confirm that that is actually what he is saying?"

S e n a tor F.H. Walker :

" It  d e pends on the matter at hand. It may well be, and of course in many cases it will be, that the minister will take his or her own decision within the parameters that ministers are allowed to work as approved by this House. Should there be a major matter, particularly which may lead to disagreement with fellow ministers, then of course it has to be referred to the Council of Ministers and an officer of the Greffe will, as they do with Committees today, be present at all Council of Ministers' meetings and will create and prepare and obviously publish a full log of those meetings, subject to exactly the same provisions as we have today with Committees with no exemptions."