States Minutes 13th September 2005

THE STATES assembled on Tuesday, 13th September 2005 at 9.30 a.m. under

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

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 –

Se nator Jean Amy Le Maistre – out of the Island

Se nator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf – out of the Island

Se nator Edward Philip Vibert – ill

J ohn L  e Sueur Gallichan, Connétable of Trinity – out of the Island Phi  lip John Rondel, Deputy of St. John – out of the Island

Pe ter Nicholas Troy , Deputy of St. Brelade – ill

Prayers read by the Acting Dean of Jersey.

Senator Edward Philip Vibert – resignation

The Deputy Bailiff informed members of the resignation of Senator Edward Philip Vibert from the States due to ill health and, on behalf of members, expressed thanks for the service he had given in his capacity as a States member and wished him a speedy return to good health.

Deputy Jeremy Laurence Dorey of St.  Helier – absence from States meeting on 21st July 2005

THE STATES agreed to amend the absence of Deputy Jeremy Laurence Dorey of St. Helier, as recorded in the minutes of the States meeting for 21st July 2005, from ill to excused.

Subordinate legislation tabled

The following enactments were laid before the States, namely –

Children (Secure Accommodation) (Jersey) Order 2005. R&O 78/2005. Health and Social Services Committee.

Children (Voluntary Homes) (Jersey) Order 2005. R&O 79/2005. Health and Social Services Committee.

Children Rules 2005. R&O 80/2005. The Superior Number of the Royal Court.

Children (Parental Responsibility Agreement) Rules 2005. R&O 81/2005. The Superior Number of the Royal Court.

Children (Prescribed Classes of Applicant to vary Directions) Rules 2005. R&O 82/2005. The Superior Number of the Royal Court.

Matrimonial Causes Rules 2005. R&O 83/2005. The Superior Number of the Royal Court.

Battle of Britain Air Display (Jersey) Order 2005. R&O 84/2005.

Environment and Public Services Committee.

Education (Discretionary Grants) (Jersey) Order 2005. R&O 85/2005. Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

Fire Precautions (Fees) (Jersey) Order 2005. R&O 86/2005. Home Affairs Committee.

Road Racing (Hill Climbs and Sprint) (No. 3) (Jersey) Order 2005. R&O 87/2005. Home Affairs Committee.

Tourism (General Provisions) (Amendment No. 12) (Jersey) Order 2005. R&O 88/2005. Economic Development Committee.

Places of Refreshment (Registration) (Fees) (Jersey) Order 2005. R&O 89/2005. Economic Development Committee.

Lodging Houses (General Provisions) (Amendment No. 12) (Jersey) Order 2005. R&O 90/2005. Housing Committee.

Post Office (Foreign Post Provisions) (Jersey) Order 2005. R&O 91/2005. Committee for Postal Administration.

Road Racing (Motor Vehicle Rally) (Jersey) Order 2005. R&O 92/2005. Home Affairs Committee.

Extradition (Code of Practice for Identification) (Jersey) Order 2005. R&O 93/2005. Home Affairs Committee.

Extradition (Code of Practice for Treatment of Detained Persons) (Jersey) Order R&O 94/2005. 2005.

Home Affairs Committee.

Extradition (Code of Practice for Treatment of Property) (Jersey) Order 2005. R&O 95/2005. Home Affairs Committee.

Extradition (Time Limits) (Amendment) (Jersey) Order 2005. R&O 96/2005. Home Affairs Committee.

Jersey Overseas Aid Commission – Appointment of Chairman designate

THE STATES noted the following nomination for the appointment of the Chairman designate of the Jersey Overseas Aid Commission –

D e put  y Jacqueline Jeannette Huet of St. Helier was nominated by Deputy Terence John Le Main of

St. Helier.

There being no further nominations, the Deputy Bailiff accordingly declared that Deputy Jacqueline Jeannette Huet of St. Helier had been elected as Chairman designate of the Jersey Overseas Aid Commission.

Matters presented

The following matters were presented to the States –

Jersey Law Commission: Report for 2004. R.C.69/2005. Presented by the Legislation Committee.

Regulatory Reform: Report on the review findings. R.C.70/2005. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

States Members Remuneration Review Body: recommendations for 2006 –2008. R.C.71/2005. Presented by the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.98/2005): P.98/2005. Com. comments.

Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Warr en Farm, Noirmont, St. Brelade (P.125/2005): comments. P.125/2005. Presented by the Economic Development Committee. Com.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.143/2005): P.143/2005. comments. Com. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.143/2005): P.143/2005. comments. Com.(2) Presented by the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

States Business Plan 2006 – 2010 (P.151/2005): second amendment P.151/2005. (P.151/2005 Amd.(2)) – comments. Amd.(2) Com.(2) Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

States Business Plan 2006 – 2010 (P.151/2005): second amendment P.151/2005. (P.151/2005 Amd.(2)) – comments. Amd.(2) Com.(3) Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Sale of property: La Falaise, Fliquet, St. Martin (P.161/2005)– comments. P.161/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.

Draft Rates (Jersey) Law 200- (P.170/2005): comments. P.170/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.

Draft Licensing (Licence Fees) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.173/2005): comments. P.173/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.

The following matter was presented on 2nd August 2005 –

Committee of Inquiry into Tender Process and Award of Bus Services Contract: R.C.58/2005. Final Report.

Presented by the Committee of Inquiry into Tender Process and Award of Bus

Services Contract.

The following matters were presented on 9th August 2005 –

Lord Portsea Gift Fund: report and accounts for 2004. R.C.59/2005. Presented by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

Jèrriais: provision in Jersey Schools. R.C.60/2005. Presented by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Board: report and accounts for 2004. R.C.61/2005. Presented by the Home Affairs Committee.

Waterfront Enterprise Board: renewal of ten-year working limit (P.114/2005) – P.114/2005. comments. Com.(2) Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

The following matter was presented on 23rd August 2005 –

Development of a Cultural Strategy for the Island (P.154/2005): comments. P.154/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.

The following matters were presented on 30th August 2005 –

International Conventions and Agreements: Progress Report for period 1st October R.C.62/2005. 2004 to 31st March 2005.

Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Planning for Homes 2005. R.C.63/2005. Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

Committee of Inquiry into Tender Process and Award of Bus Services Contract: R.C.64/2005. response.

Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

Development of a Cultural Strategy for the Island (P.154/2005): comments. P.154/2005. Presented by the Economic Development Committee. Com.(2).

The following matters were presented on 6th September 2005 –

Jersey Dental Scheme: Annual Report for the year ended 31st December 2004. R.C.65/2005. Presented by the Employment and Social Security Committee.

Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service: Board members' report and financial R.C.66/2005. statements for 2004.

Presented by the Employment and Social Security Committee.

Ecology Fund: report for 2004. R.C.67/2005. Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

Members' Conduct: proposed disciplinary procedures. R.C.68/2005. Presented by the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

Proposed Goods and Services Tax: Shadow Scrutiny Panel Report. S.R.6/2005. Presented by Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour.

Waterfront Enterprise Board: renewal of ten-year working limit (P.114/2005): P.114/2005. amendment – (P.114/2005 Amd.) – comments. Amd.Com.(2) Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft Public Finances (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.133/2005) – comments. P.133/2005. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee. Com.

States Business Plan 2006 – 2010 (P.151/2005): amendment (P.151/2005 Amd.) – P.151/2005. comments. Amd.Com. Presented by the Economic Development Committee.

States Business Plan 2006 – 2010 (P.151/2005): amendment (P.151/2005 Amd.) – P.151/2005. comments. Amd.Com.(2) Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

States Business Plan 2006 – 2010 (P.151/2005): second amendment P.151/2005. (P.151/2005 Amd.(2)) – comments. Amd.(2)Com. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Development of a Cultural Strategy for the Island (P.154/2005): comments. P.154/2005. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee. Com.(3)

St. Helier Waterfront Development: height of buildings (P.158/2005) – comments. P.158/2005. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee. Com.

St. Helier Waterfront Development: directions to W.E.B. Ltd. (P.159/2005) – P.159/2005. comments. Com. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

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

THE STATES noted Acts of the Finance and Economics Committee dated 6th and 28th July, 11th and 25th August 2005, showing that, in pursuance of Standing Orders relating to certain transactions in land, the Committee had approved –

( a ) as recommended by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee, the entering into of a Deed of

Arrangement with D'Houet Limited, the owners of The Convent of the Faithful Companions of Jesus R.C. Primary School (FCJ), which enjoyed a right of way over the existing access road, so as to facilitate the requirement arising from the redevelopment of Phase 3 of Granville School to re-align the said access road, on the basis that the public would be responsible for both parties' reasonable legal fees arising from the transaction;

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

Rodrigues De Gouveia of the lease of premises at Nos. 86-89 Central Market, St. Helier (presently occupied by Mr. Giovanni Fassetta), on the same terms as the existing lease, to continue trading as a delicatessen, with effect from the signing of the relevant documentation;

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

Irene Minchinton, née Khoo, of the lease of premises at Nos. 101-102 Central Market, St. Helier (presently occupied by Mr. Pierre Le Miere, trading asGarlands'), on the same terms as the existing lease, to continue trading as a florist, with effect from the signing of the relevant documentation;

( d ) as recommended by the Environment and Public Services Committee, the assignment to Mrs. Ahmie

Kent, née Curammeng, of the lease of premises at No. 50 Central Market, St. Helier (presently occupied by Miss Marquerite Yvonne Allain), on the same terms as the existing lease, to continue trading in clothing with Mr. Alan Kent acting as guarantor to the lessee company, with effect from the signing of the relevant documentation;

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

Arrangement with Mr. Colin Richard Walker and Mrs. Margaret Walker , née Ratcliffe, owners of the property known as La Rocque Cottage, Grouville , in order to ratify the boundary with the adjacent Grouville Bay Promenade, on the basis of details contained in a report, dated 15th August 2002, prepared by the Director of Property Services, including that Mr. and Mrs. Walker would be responsible for both parties' reasonable legal fees and expenses arising from the transaction;

( f) as recommended by the Environment and Public Services Committee, the sale to Terence Doak Holdings

Limited of land (measuring approximately 485 square feet) situated immediately to the north of the property formerly known as "Sands" but now referred to as the "Discovery Bay Apartments", for a consideration of £865 in respect of the land to be conveyed together with the public's reasonable legal costs arising from the transaction, the sale to be subject to a restrictive covenant effectively preventing any further development of that area of land to be conveyed other than that allowed under Planning permission 1943X dated 24th August 1999, with the deed of sale also to clarify the westerly contractual boundary towards the adjacent public land;

( g ) as recommended by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee –

( i) the lease to Quest Holdings Limited, owners of Halcyon House, of part of Field No. 1243, West Hill,

St. Helier (measuring 1,320 square feet), to be utilised for 6 car parking spaces, for a period of 9 years from 1st January 2005, at an annual rent of£3,000 subject to three-yearly rent increases in line with review in accordance with the Jersey Retail Price Index, with Quest Holdings Limited to pay back-rent of £4,500 from 2002 – half at the commencement of the lease, with the remaining half over years 2 and 3 of the lease agreement (i.e. 1st January 2006 and 2007) – and also to be responsible for both parties' reasonable legal fees arising from the transaction (the public's fees being capped at £500 and the Department of Property Services fees of £350);

( i i) the entering into of a Deed of Arrangement with Quest Holdings Limited in order to clarify the boundaries and authorise certain encroachments towards the adjacent public land, in accordance

with a report dated 8th March 2005 prepared by the Head of Estates, Education, Sport and Culture Department;

( h ) as recommended by the Harbours and Airport Committee, the lease to British Airways Plc of an area of

land airside (known as Airport Letting L01) at the Airport, St. Peter, for a period of 9 years from 1st June 2005 at an initial annual rent of £875, subject to review on 1st June 2008 and 1st June 2011 in line with the Jersey Retail Price Index;

( i) as recommended by the Harbours and Airport Committee, the lease to Jersey European Airways (U.K.)

Limited of passenger lounge accommodation (known as Airport Letting B204) at the Airport, St. Peter, for a period of 6 years from 1st July 2005 at an initial annual rent of£22,666, subject to review on 1st July 2008;

( j) as recommended by the Environment and Public Services Committee, the lease to Two Way Properties

Limited of the first-floor office accommodation at Thorp House, Rouge Bouillon, St. Helier together with 2 associated car parking spaces, for a period of 17 months from 31st July 2005, at an annual rent of £17,935 payable quarterly in advance – Mr. David John Knight to act as guarantor for the lease – with no provision for rent review. Each party would be responsible for its own legal costs arising from the transaction;

( k ) as recommended by the Environment and Public Services Committee, the lease to Messrs. Clive Phillip

Le Brun Tomes and Anthony John Quinn of the second floor office accommodation at Thorp House, Rouge Bouillon, St. Helier together with 3 associated car parking spaces, for a period of 17 months from 25th July 2005, at an annual rent of £19,740 payable quarterly in advance, with no provision for rent review within the agreement. Each party would be responsible for its own legal costs arising from the transaction;

( l) as recommended by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee, the lease to the Jersey Astronomy Club

of an area of land (measuring approximately 500 square feet) including 2 large concrete slabs for the erection of a wooden clubhouse and a telescopic dome, at the Les Creux Millennium Country Park, St. Brelade, for a period of 9 years deemed to have commenced on 1st June 2002, at a commencing annual rent of £500, payable annually in advance with the exception of the first year for which there would be no charge, subject to rent review every 3 years in line with the Jersey Retail Price Index, on the basis that each party would be responsible for its own legal costs arising from the transaction;

Committee decision – 28th July 2005

( m )  as recommended by the Policy and Resources Committee, the sale to the Waterfront Enterprise Board

Limited (WEB) of the roads known as La Rue de l'Etau and La Rue de Carteret, St. Helier and the associated footpaths and landscaping (as shaded on Drawing No. P580 91 – "Lease of Land at Southern Waterfront Site (Site 6) St. Helier") for a consideration of £10, on the basis that the Committee would be responsible for both parties' legal fees arising from the transaction and that WEB would subsequently transfer ownership of the said land to the Parish of St. Helier upon completion of the Waterfront development;

11th August 2005

( n ) as recommended by the Health and Social Services Committee, the renewal of the lease from Mr. Jock

Campbell Russell and Mrs. Susan Joy Russell, née Wilford, of the two-bedroom property known as No. 3 Oakdale Cottages, La Rue des Buttes, St. John, for a period of 14 months from 1st May 2005 at annual rent of £15,840 subject to a rent review in 2006 in line with the Jersey Retail Price Index, on the basis that each party would be responsible for its own legal fees arising from the transaction;

( o ) as recommended by the Harbours and Airport Committee, the renewal of the lease to Mr. David Andrew

Chadd, Chairman of the States Airport Social Club, of accommodation known Airport Letting No. L39 for a period of 9 years from 1st June 2005, at an annual rent of£500;

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

Whatmore, trading as a Delicatessen, of the lease of premises at Nos. 9-10 Beresford Market, St. Helier (presently occupied by Mr. David Pipon, on behalf of St. Helier Food and Wine Company Limited – Mr. Whatmore to act as guarantor to the lessee company), on the same terms as the existing lease, to continue trading as a delicatessen, with effect from the signing of the relevant documentation;

( q ) as recommended by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee –

(i ) the lease from Mr. James Philip Mourant of an area of land (measuring 4.25 vergées) forming part of

Field No. 409A, St. Saviour, for use as an outdoor recreational space in conjunction with the extension and upgrading works to be undertaken to the adjacent Greenfields Centre to the south, for a period of 9 years from 1st January 2006, at an annual rent of£700 subject to rent reviews in line with the Jersey Retail Price Index at three-yearly intervals, on the basis that each party would be responsible for its own legal and professional fees arising from the transaction;

(i i ) t he payment to T. & R. Perchard Limited of compensation for the relinquishment of part of Fiel

No. 409a, La Grande Route de St. Martin, St. Saviour as a result of the lease by the public of 4.25 vergées of land, in the sum of£2,150 based on the loss of profit for agricultural purposes;

(i ii ) the entering into of a Deed of Arrangement with Mr. Philip John Le Sueur to formalise the visibility

splay required in connection with the refurbishment and extension of the Greenfields Centre at Field No. 413, La Grande Route de St. Martin, St. Saviour, whereby the landowner was to be obligated maintain the small area of land concerned so as not to permit any obstruction that would impede the visibility of vehicles seeking to egress from the Greenfields Centre to the north. No capital payment was to be made in respect of the proposed deed of Arrangement, although the public would be responsible for the payment of the landowner's reasonable legal fees incurred in entering into the contract;

( r) as recommended by the Harbours and Airport Committee, the lease of the undermentioned

accommodation in the old North Hangar at Jersey Airport to –

(i ) Je rsey European Airways (U.K.) Limited – an area of land (Letting No. B003A) for a period of one

year from 1st July 2005 at an annual rent of £4,882.50;

(i i) A viance U.K. Limited – accommodation (Letting No. B003D) for a period of one year from 1st July

2005 at an annual rent of £2,814.80;

(i ii ) V LM Limited – accommodation (Letting No. B003F) for a period of one year from 1st July 2005 at

an annual rent of £1,782.50;

(i v ) B ritish Airways Plc – an area of land (Letting No. B003G) for a period of one year from 1st July

2005 at an annual rent of £1,395.00;

(v ) Se rvisair (Jersey) Limited – an area of land (Letting No. B003B) for a period of one year from 1st

July 2005 at an annual rent of £2,092.50;

( s ) as recommended by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee, the lease to the Jersey Electricity

Company Limited of Electricity Substation No. 621 and Section Pillar No. 1510 situated at Les Creux, St. Brelade, for a period of 99 years from the passing of contract, at an annual rent of£1 payable in full upon commencement, and with each party being responsible for its own legal costs arising from the transaction;

( t ) as recommended by the Housing Committee, the sale to Allwood Holdings (Jersey) Limited of the

boundary wall at Le Clos des Fonds, Grouville (shown in green on Drawing No. 11/288/2), for consideration of £10 and a fair apportionment of all future costs and services associated with the repair and maintenance of the roads, pavements, services and drainage serving Le Clos des Fonds estate as currently established or as might be established in the future. For the avoidance of doubt it was noted that the wall was to be purchased in its entirety with the western face of the wall being considered as the far western extremity of the property in the ownership of Allwood Holdings (Jersey) Limited. Each party would be responsible for its own legal costs arising from the transaction;

( u ) as recommended by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee, the lease to The Sun Bowls Club

Jersey of the Sun Bowls Club Pavilion and surrounding land situated at the Overseas Trading Corporation site, First Tower, St. Helier, for a period of 9 years from 1st January 2005, at an annual rent of £4,493.23 payable quarterly in advance, subject to rent review every 3 years in line with the Jersey Retail Price Index, on the basis of the terms set out in a report, dated 15th June 2005, prepared by the Director of Property Services, and with each party to be responsible for its own legal costs arising from the transaction;

( v ) as recommended by the Finance and Economics Committee, the addendum to the lease to the Jersey

Electricity Company Limited of an Electricity Substation situated at the Island Site, St. Helier, for a period of 99 years from 1st January 1994, to provide that in developing the Island Site the Waterfront Enterprise Board Limited WEB) would take into account the present use of the demised premises as a principal  substation  and  would  take  all  reasonable  steps  in  the  design  and  construction  of  the development so as to minimise the effect on the Island Site. WEB would confirm that neither it or its tenants or sub-tenants would have any right to claim against the Jersey Electricity Company Limited in relation to the present proper use of the demised premises; and,

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

Arrangement  with  Mr. Peter  de  Carteret  Mourant  in  respect  of  Field  No. 614,  Ouaisné  Common, St. Brelade, to enable a water pipe to be laid in approximately 45 metres of land in public ownership situated within the south-eastern corner of the said field, the said water pipe to enable a maximum of 4 specific properties (La Ferme du Vaux Tocque, La Villa du Vaux Tocque, Le Pavillion and La Maison du Vaux Tocque) to have the benefit of branch supplies as opposed to existing borehole supply, for a consideration of £5,000 in addition to the payment of the Committee's professional fees of £1,500 to reflect the benefits of the rights granted, subject to consent from an adjacent landowner in connection with this matter.

Matters lodged

The following matters were lodged "au Greffe" –

Draft Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.162/2005): amendment. P.162/2005. Presented by Deputy J.L. Dorey of St. Helier. Amd.

Draft Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.162/2005): second amendments. P.162/2005. Presented by Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier. Amd.(2)

Draft Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.162/2005): third amendments. P.162/2005. Presented by the Privileges and Procedures Committee. Amd.(3)

Migration policy: political responsibility (P.168/2005) – amendment. P.168/2005. Presented by the Deputy of St. Ouen. Amd.

Strategic Travel and Transport Plan (P.174/2005): amendment. P.174/2005. Presented by Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour. Amd.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 4) Law 200- (P.193/2005): amendments. P.193/2005. Presented by Deputy J.L. Dorey of St. Helier. Amd.

Draft Administrative Decisions (Review) (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200 –. P.195/2005. Presented by the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

Draft Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 200-. P.196/2005. Presented by the Home Affairs Committee.

Draft Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.197/2005. Presented by the Home Affairs Committee.

The following matters were lodged on 2nd August 2005 –

Draft Sea Fisheries (Trawling, Netting and Dredging) (Amendment) (Jersey) P.157/2005. Regulations 200-.

Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

St. Helier Waterfront Development: height of buildings. P.158/2005. Presented by the Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour.

St. Helier Waterfront Development: directions to W.E.B. Ltd. P.159/2005.

Presented by Senator R.J. Shenton.

The following matters were lodged on 9th August 2005 –

States Business Plan 2006 – 2010 (P.151/2005): amendment. P.151/2005. Presented by Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour. Amd.

Draft Terrorism (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.160/2005. Presented by the Home Affairs Committee.

Sale of property: La Falaise, Fliquet, St. Martin. P.161/2005. Presented by the Housing Committee.

Draft Standing Orders of the States of Jersey. P.162/2005. Presented by the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

The following matters were lodged on 16th August 2005 –

Jersey Employment Tribunal: appointment of member. P.163/2005. Presented by the Employment and Social Security Committee.

Draft Petroleum (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.164/2005. Presented by the Home Affairs Committee.

Goods and Services Tax: exempt or zero rated items. P.165/2005. Presented by Senator S. Syvret, and referred to the Finance and Economics

Committee.

The following matters were lodged on 23rd August 2005 –

Development of Fostering and Adoption Services in Jersey. P.166/2005. Presented by Senator R.J. Shenton.

St. Helier Waterfront: telephone poll – Committee of Inquiry. P.167/2005. Presented by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement.

The following matters were lodged on 30th August 2005 –

States Business Plan 2006 – 2010 (P.151/2005): second amendment. P.151/2005. Presented by Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour. Amd.(2)

Migration policy: political responsibility. P.168/2005. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Millennium Town Park: establishment of a Trust. P.169/2005. Presented by Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour.

Draft Rates (Jersey) Law 200-. P.170/2005. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Jersey Financial Services Commission: appointment of Commissioners. P.171/2005. Presented by the Economic Development Committee.

Draft Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Amendment No. 5) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.172/2005. Presented by the Economic Development Committee.

Draft Licensing (Licence Fees) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.173/2005. Presented by the Economic Development Committee.

Strategic Travel and Transport Plan. P.174/2005.

The following matters were lodged on 6th September 2005 –

Draft Housing (Amendment No. 12) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.175/2005. Presented by the Housing Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 (Appointed Day) Act 200-. P.176/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Corporate Finance Exemption) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.177/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Credit Reference Agency) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.178/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Fair Processing) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.179/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (International Co-operation) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.180/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Notification) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.181/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Sensitive Personal Data) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.182/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Subject Access Exemptions) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.183/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Subject Access Miscellaneous) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.184/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Subject Access Modification – Education) (Jersey) P.185/2005. Regulations 200-.

Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Subject Access Modification – Health) (Jersey) Regulations P.186/2005. 200-.

Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Subject Access Modification – Social Work) (Jersey) P.187/2005. Regulations 200-.

Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Transfer in Substantial Public Interest) (Jersey) Regulations P.188/2005. 200-.

Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (New Members) P.189/2005. (Amendment No. 10) (Jersey) Regulations 200-.

Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft Public Employees (Retirement) (Additional Contributions – Amendments) P.190/2005. (Jersey) Regulations 200-.

Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

La Récolte des Fruits, St. Martin: removal of agricultural occupancy restriction. P.191/2005. Presented by Senator R.J. Shenton.

Ecology Fund: appointment of Chairman and Trustees. P.192/2005.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 4) Law 200-. P.193/2005. Presented by Senator S. Syvret, and referred to the Privileges and Procedures

Committee.

Driver and Vehicle Standards: proposed transfer to transport and technical services. P.194/2005. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Arrangement of public business for the present meeting

THE STATES granted leave to the Deputy of Grouville to defer consideration of the following matter set down for consideration at the present meeting until a later date –

Field 571, La Rue du Puits Mahaut, Grouville : petition. P.147/2005. Lodged : 12th July 2005.

Deputy of Grouville .

Field 571, La Rue du Puits Mahaut, Grouville : petition (P.147/2005) – P.147/2005. comments. Com. Presented : 19th July 2005.

Environment and Public Services Committee.

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

St. Helier Waterfront Development: directions to W.E.B. Ltd. P.159/2005. Lodged: 2nd August 2005.

Senator R.J. Shenton.

St. Helier Waterfront Development: directions to W.E.B. Ltd. (P.159/2005) – P.159/2005. comments. Com. Presented: 6th September 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

THE STATES adopted a proposition of the President of the Finance and Economics Committee that the following matter lodged "au Greffe" be taken as the first item of public business at the present meeting –

States Business Plan 2006-2010. P.151/2005. Lodged: 19th July 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

States Business Plan 2006 – 2010 (P.151/2005): amendment. P.151/2005. Lodged: 9th August 2005. Amd. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour.

States Business Plan 2006 – 2010 (P.151/2005): amendment (P.151/2005 Amd.) – P.151/2005. comments. Amd.Com. Presented: 6th September 2005.

Economic Development Committee.

States Business Plan 2006 – 2010 (P.151/2005): amendment (P.151/2005 Amd.) – P.151/2005. comments. Amd.Com.(2) Presented: 6th September 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

States Business Plan 2006 – 2010 (P.151/2005): second amendment. P.151/2005. Lodged: 30th August 2005. Amd.(2) Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour.

States Business Plan 2006 – 2010 (P.151/2005): second amendment P.151/2005. (P.151/2005 Amd.(2)) – comments. Amd.(2)Com. Presented: 6th September 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Members present voted as follows –

POUR: 32 CONTRE: 13 ABSTAIN: 0

Senator L. Norman Senator F.H. Walker Senator W. Kinnard Senator T.A. Le Sueur Senator P.F. Routier Senator M.E. Vibert Connétable of St. Martin Connétable of St. Saviour Connétable of St. Brelade

Connétable of St. Peter Connétable of St. Lawrence Connétable of Grouville Connétable of St. John

Deputy of Trinity

Deputy J.J. Huet (H)

Deputy T.J. Le Main (H) Deputy M.F. Dubras (L) Deputy J.L. Dorey (H)

Deputy F.G. Voisin (L)

Deputy L.J. Farnham (S) Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S) Deputy J.B. Fox (H)

Deputy J.A. Bernstein (B) Deputy S.C. Ferguson (B) Deputy of St. Mary

Deputy of St. Ouen

Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (H) Deputy M.A. Taylor (C) Deputy of Grouville

Deputy of St. Peter

Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)

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

Senator P.V.F. Le Claire Senator R.J. Shenton Connétable of St. Mary Connétable of St. Clement Connétable of St. Helier Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S) Deputy A. Breckon (S) Deputy of St. Martin

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C) Deputy  C.J.   Scott Warr en (S)

Deputy J-A. Bridge (H) Deputy J.A. Martin (H) Deputy G.P. Southern (H)

Arrangement of public business for the next meeting on 27th September 2005

THE STATES confirmed that the following matters lodged "au Greffe" would be considered at the next meeting on 27th September 2005 –

Speeding fines: allocation of funds to Parishes. P.156/2005. Lodged: 20th July 2005.

Deputy of St. Martin.

Draft Sea Fisheries (Trawling, Netting and Dredging) (Amendment) (Jersey) P.157/2005. Regulations 200-.

Lodged: 2nd August 2005.

Environment and Public Services Committee.

St. Helier Waterfront Development: height of buildings. P.158/2005. Lodged: 2nd August 2005.

Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour.

St. Helier Waterfront Development: height of buildings (P.158/2005) – comments. P.158/2005. Presented: 6th September 2005. Com. Policy and Resources Committee.

Sale of property: La Falaise, Fliquet, St. Martin. P.161/2005. Lodged: 9th August 2005.

Housing Committee.

Sale of property: La Falaise, Fliquet, St. Martin (P.161/2005)– comments. P.161/2005. Presented: 13th September 2005. Com. Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Standing Orders of the States of Jersey. P.162/2005. Lodged: 9th August 2005.

Privileges and Procedures Committee.

Draft Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.162/2005): amendment. P.162/2005. Lodged: 13th September 2005. Amd. Deputy J.L. Dorey of St. Helier.

Jersey Employment Tribunal: appointment of member. P.163/2005. Lodged: 16th August 2005.

Employment and Social Security Committee.

Draft Petroleum (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.164/2005. Lodged: 16th August 2005.

Home Affairs Committee.

Development of Fostering and Adoption Services in Jersey. P.166/2005. Lodged: 23rd August 2005.

Senator R.J. Shenton.

St. Helier Waterfront: telephone poll – Committee of Inquiry. P.167/2005. Lodged: 23rd August 2005.

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

Migration policy: political responsibility. P.168/2005. Lodged: 30th August 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Migration policy: political responsibility (P.168/2005) – amendment. P.168/2005. Lodged: 13th September 2005. Amd. Deputy of St. Ouen.

Millennium Town Park: establishment of a Trust. P.169/2005. Lodged: 30th August 2005.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour.

Draft Rates (Jersey) Law 200-. P.170/2005. Lodged: 30th August 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Jersey Financial Services Commission: appointment of Commissioners. P.171/2005. Lodged: 30th August 2005.

Economic Development Committee.

Draft Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Amendment No. 5) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.172/2005. Lodged: 30th August 2005.

Economic Development Committee.

Draft Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Amendment No. 5) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.172/2005): P.172/2005. comments. Com. Presented: 13th September 2005.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Licensing (Licence Fees) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.173/2005. Lodged: 30th August 2005.

Economic Development Committee.

Draft Licensing (Licence Fees) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.173/2005): comments. P.173/2005. Presented: 13th September 2005. Com. Finance and Economics Committee.

Strategic Travel and Transport Plan. P.174/2005. Lodged: 30th August 2005.

Environment and Public Services Committee.

Draft Housing (Amendment No. 12) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.175/2005. Lodged: 6th September 2005.

Housing Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 (Appointed Day) Act 200-. P.176/2005. Lodged: 6th September 2005.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Corporate Finance Exemption) (Jersey) Regulations P.177/2005. 200-.

Lodged: 6th September 2005.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Credit Reference Agency) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.178/2005. Lodged: 6th September 2005.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Fair Processing) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.179/2005. Lodged: 6th September 2005.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (International Co-operation) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.180/2005. Lodged: 6th September 2005.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Notification) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.181/2005. Lodged: 6th September 2005.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Sensitive Personal Data) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.182/2005. Lodged: 6th September 2005.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Subject Access Exemptions) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. P.183/2005. Lodged: 6th September 2005.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Subject Access Miscellaneous) (Jersey) Regulations P.184/2005. 200-.

Lodged: 6th September 2005.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Subject Access Modification – Education) (Jersey) P.185/2005. Regulations 200-.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Subject Access Modification – Health) (Jersey) Regulations P.186/2005. 200-.

Lodged: 6th September 2005.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Subject Access Modification – Social Work) (Jersey) P.187/2005. Regulations 200-.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Data Protection (Transfer in Substantial Public Interest) (Jersey) Regulations P.188/2005. 200-.

Lodged: 6th September 2005.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (New Members) P.189/2005. (Amendment No. 10) (Jersey) Regulations 200-.

Lodged: 6th September 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft Public Employees (Retirement) (Additional Contributions – Amendments) P.190/2005. (Jersey) Regulations 200-.

Lodged: 6th September 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

La Récolte des Fruits, St. Martin: removal of agricultural occupancy restriction. P.191/2005. Lodged: 6th September 2005.

Senator R.J. Shenton.

Ecology Fund: appointment of Chairman and Trustees. P.192/2005. Lodged: 6th September 2005.

Environment and Public Services Committee.

Draft Shops (Regulation of Opening and Deliveries) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.78/2005) – withdrawn

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

Draft Shops (Regulation of Opening and Deliveries) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.78/2005. Lodged: 19th April 2005.

Legislation Committee.

Draft Amendment (No. 28) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.122/2005) – 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 –

Draft Amendment (No. 28) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey. P.122/2005. Lodged: 21st June 2005.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier.

Draft Amendment (No. 29) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.152/2005) – 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 –

Draft Amendment (No. 29) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey. P.152/2005. Lodged: 19th July 2005.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier.

Pre-planning application advice – question and answer

The Deputy of St. John tabled the following written question of Deputy Jeremy Laurence Dorey of St. Helier Vice-President of the Environment and Public Services Committee –

" W ould the Vice-President inform members whether applicants are having to wait up to a period of six weeks to receive pre-planning advice, and, if so, how this impacts on the time taken for applications submitted through the planning process particularly given that a charging system for all planning applications was introduced to improve service levels to the public?"

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

" I am advised that, although the majority are dealt with in four weeks,replies to requests for pre-application advice can take up to six weeks, or even longer, for complicated cases. This is because planning staff give a higher priority to fulfilling the statutory function of dealing with applications, for which service applicants are paying fees, than to pre-application advice, which is a non-statutory service which generates no fee income.

T he impact of this on applications is positive and is reflected in improved performance in application

turnaround.

For example, in 2002, only 58% of applications were decided in 8 weeks compared with 73% of applications

in 2004. The percentage dealt with in 13 weeks similarly increased from 77% to 90%. In the same period the average number of days for an application decision dropped from 76 to 46.

I t is the Committee's view that the public is better served by giving higher priority to timely decision-making

on applications, rather than to requests for preliminary advice, many of which do not lead to applications."

Preparation of the Cultural Strategy, the allocation of the Committee's cash limit, and business planning objectives – question and answer

Deputy Maurice François Dubras of St. Lawrence tabled the following question of Senator Michael Edward Vibert , President of the Education, Sport and Culture Committee –

" ( a) How much has the preparation of the Cultural Strategy (P.154/2005 and P.172/2004) cost taxpayers to- date in each of the last 5 years?

( b ) Which consultants/advisors to the Committee and its predecessor(s), including reports to the Finance and

Economics Committee, were the primary contributors together with their remuneration over 5 years and what has been the estimated cost and manpower allocation of departmental employees to this end during the same period?

( c ) What percentage of Committee cash limits is allocated in each of the next 3 years to activities related to

culture', as opposed to sport and leisure, as opposed to education services and how does this compare with the equivalent percentages for 2004 actual and 2005 estimated?

( d ) In Appendix 1 (item) of the States Business Plan 2006-2010 (P.151/2005) no specific objective(s) related

to sport and leisure are listed. Are they incorporated within Objective 9? If not, what strategy and/or strategic plan covers that facet of Island culture and when was it last published?"

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

" ( a) The Cultural Strategy, (P.172/2004), and the subsequent redraft, (P.154/2005), were produced by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee following a period of research and consultation undertaken by a U.K. firm of consultants, (Leisure Futures plc.), specialists in advising government departments and local authorities on cultural development.

T he research undertaken by Leisure Futures plc. took account of an earlier report on Cultural

Development, (the Burns Owen Report), commissioned by the Finance and Economics Committee in May 2000. For details as to the cost of that report I would refer Deputy Dubras to the President of the Finance and Economics Committee.

T he c os ts incurred by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee in producing its Cultural Strategy were incurred over a two-year period 2003 and 2004. Including fees and expenses, they amounted to £17,360.71. A further £2,100.00 cost was incurred in 2004 in fees to a local accountant to provide more

detail with regard to some aspects of the Leisure Futures plc. report. A further report on the costs of the

Strategy was commissioned recently, it is expected that the cost of this report will be in the region of £2,000.

( b ) The primary advisers to the Committee as described above were Leisure Futures plc. Their fees and

expenses amounted to £17,360.71.

T he E ducation, Sport and Culture Committee's Strategy was prepared by myself, Deputy Carolyn Labey

and Deputy Julian Bernstein along with officers of the Department using existing staff resources. No additional resources were utilised in this process and no record of staff time on this particular project was recorded. In total, therefore the cost incurred by the Committee in developing its strategy to date is £19,460.71 comprising the fees and expenses to Leisure Futures plc. and the local accountant as described above.

( c ) With regard to the proportion of the Education, Sport and Culture Committee budget allocated to

activities within its sphere of responsibilities, for 2006, 3.4% of the Committee's net cash limit has been allocated to culture' and 4.2 per cent to sport and leisure.

T he e qui valent percentages for 2004 (actual) are 3.9% and 4.5% and for 2005 (budgeted) 3.4% and 4%

respectively.

It w il l be for the new Ministry to agree the allocation of its 2007 and 2008 cash limits across all service

areas within its remit.

W it h r egard to the split in the Committee's budget between Culture' and Education', the explanation is

somewhat more complicated as there are overlaps. A significant amount of the general spend' on education could also be described as an investment in culture. The Instrumental Music Service would be a good example of educational investment which has cultural outcomes, likewise the proportion of investment in Higher Education through student grants allocated to artistic or cultural study. It could also be argued that the teaching of history, art, music, citizenship, craft and design and religious education has a cultural impact. Given this caveat, however, the proportion of the Committee's spending on education as opposed to sport or culture will amount to the balance of 92.4% in 2006 compared to 91.6% of the 2004 actual spend and 92.6% of the 2005 net budget.

( d ) The Sport and Leisure division objectives are not incorporated in objective 9 of the States Business Plan

2006-2010. In December 2001 the former Sport, Leisure and Recreation Committee adopted a Five Year Strategic Plan 2002 –2006 which was presented to the States as a Rapport et Correspondance (R.C.) in 2002. This strategy has informed the subsequent Business Plans of the Sport, Leisure and Recreation Department and also the Education, Sport and Culture Department."

Utilisation of its leased properties – question and answer

Deputy Maurice François Dubras of St. Lawrence tabled the following question of Senator Stuart Syvret, President of the Health and Social Services Committee –

" W ill the President provide today for perusal a complete list of properties leased by the Committee in each of the last five years, showing the annual cost to the taxpayer for rental and maintenance and the percentage utilization factor' of each (for continuing staff and/or locums to be accommodated) to demonstrate how well the department has utilised such accommodation? Where utilisation is below 80%, will the President please give an explanation?"

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

" The Health and Social Services Committee presently leases 27 flats and houses for the purpose of

accommodating its essential staff who are either on short-term contracts, have just arrived in the Island and yet to find somewhere in the private sector, have less than a year of their contract to run, or are providing a locum service for a consultant who is on leave or is absent due to illness.

T he types of staff accommodated in these leased properties include Locums, Registrar's, Staff Grades,

Associated Specialists, Staff Nurses, Senior Social Worker, Radiographer, Occupational Therapist, Child Care Officer, Head of Governance and a Chaplain.

T he terms and conditions of employment for the above in some cases require the Committee to provide rent

free accommodation while others pay a maximum of 25% of their taxable income up to a maximum subsidy of

£6,000 per annum.

D ue to the high cost of leasing property in Jersey, the Health and Social Services Committee constantly

reviews the number of properties it leases. However, it has proven essential to maintain between 8 or 10 family houses to accommodate the locum consultants required to maintain essential services throughout the year. As a result of these reviews, since the beginning of 2005, the Committee has terminated the leases of 7 properties and taken on the lease of one property.

A lternative arrangements to housing locum consultants has been considered; however, it has been found

impossible to acquire family accommodation, often at short notice, in the height of the summer season and during the school holidays which is when the majority of locum covers are required.

O f the 7 properties used for accommodation locums this year, the total cost has been –

A nnua l Rental cost £ 122,056.00

E s ti m a ted Maintenance Cost £ 1,388.00

E s ti m a ted Income - £ 19, 357.00

£ 104,087.00  

T he  income is achieved by using the houses for short-term use by contract staff between locum visits. As a

result, the 7 locum houses will cost the Committee £104,087.00 or an average of £14,870.00 per property per year. To house locums in a hotel, (assuming 2 adults and 2 children), would cost approximately £190.00 per night or £1,330 per week. Using this benchmark it is cheaper to lease a house at an average cost of £14,870.00 per year than pay for hotel accommodation if the house is used more than 11 weeks per year which equates to occupancy of 21% or more.

E nc  losed with the response are tables listing all the properties leased by Health and Social Services over the

last 5 years along with a summary sheet providing rental costs, maintenance costs and income received. It is anticipated the out turn cost in 2005 will be £253,373.00.

W hen the occupancy rates are low for the properties normally used for permanent staff, the reasons are caused

by a number of factors such as –

1. resignation from post;
2. purchase of own property;
3. move to a property leased in own name;
4. notice given on termination of lease.

W hen a member of staff moves out of a Committee leased property earlier than expected, the property would

be offered to any new member of staff coming to the Island to take up a post. If no further use of a leased property is required the Committee will seek the help of Property Services to negotiate an early termination of the lease.

O ther factors affecting the occupancy levels have been the relaxation of the housing laws allowing single

people  to  lease  two-bedroom  accommodation,  falling  rental  in  the  private  sector  and  more  affordable accommodation coming on the market.

I t i s anticipated that a further 8 to 10 leases will be terminated in 2006."

Summary of Leased Properties 2000 – 2005 July YTD

Net Cost £128,646 £174,386 £233,482 £240,697 £311,759 £253,373

* 2005 Maintenance figures estimate based on July YTD amounts

* 2005 Income figures forecasted to year end

Airport parking charges for commercial transport providers – question and answer

The Deputy of St. John tabled the following written question of Senator Leonard Norman, President of the Harbours and Airport Committee –

" W ould the President inform members –

( a ) why the Committee has introduced Airport parking charges for some commercial transport providers,

such as coach companies but not to others such as Connex, private hire or taxis, rather than introduce a level playing field for all?

( b ) why the Committee chose to revoke card passes to coach companies during August (2005) rather than at

a time out of the main tourist season when negotiations might cause less impact on the travelling public? and,

( c ) whether the Committee will review the matter and put in place a level playing field for all commercial

users at the Airport?"

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

" ( a) Charges for all users of the short and long-term car parks were introduced in 2003 subsequent to the States approving projet P.198/2002. Any coach, bus, private hire vehicle, taxi or private vehicle using these facilities, subject to very minor exceptions, is liable for this charge. Therefore, the level playing now exists, whereas before 2003 it did not.

T he C ommittee would wish to make a modest charge for the facilities provided and maintained for the

taxis and cabs at Jersey Airport but feels at this time unable to do so because the technology is not yet available at a cost-effective price and a surcharge is already made on taxis as approved by the Home Affairs Committee.

I t i s not the Committee's intention to charge the public bus service.

( b ) No card passes were revoked during August 2005 nor at any other time. ( c ) The Committee will continue to keep the matter under review."

La Falaise, St. Martin – questions and answer

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

" 1. During question time on 19th July 2005, the President informed members that the full cost of the clean up operation at La Falaise, St. Martin had not been fully quantified but it was in excess of£7,000. A breakdown of the contents of the 22 skips taken from the premises was given. Would the President inform members –

( a ) whether the cost has now been quantified and, if so, give full details?

( b ) whether the job was put out to tender, who carried out the work, and whether the work was regularly

monitored/supervised by the Department?

( c ) when the work commence and when it was finished?

( d ) in respect of the skips, the cost per skip charged to the Committee? and,

( e ) whether a number of trees were cut down and removed at the time, and, if so, what the cost of this work

was and whether it was included in the sum of £10,000?

2. W ould the President give the dates upon which any complaints about La Falaise were received by the Committee, the dates when attempts, if any, were made to address the alleged complaints, what action was taken and why these actions were unsuccessful as indicated in answer to questions on 19th July 2005?
3. W ould the President inform members –

( a ) of the dates of any exchanges of correspondence between the Housing Committee and the Environment

and Public Services Committee in respect of the alleged state of the property? and,

( b ) in respect of any exchanges of correspondence, was the Environment and Public Services Committee

formally requested to take action at La Falaise, and, if so, when?

4. W ould the President inform members of the dates upon which the tenant was asked to remove any rubbish from the premises and indicate whether these requests, if any, were in a verbal or written form?
5. W ould the President inform members whether the Committee will be recovering all costs associated with cleaning the property, and, if so, the date on which that decision was made by the Committee?"

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

" A s the matter is between an ex-tenant and the Housing Committee, the Departmental Officers are still collating information on work carried out at the property and this matter could end up in litigation. I am not prepared to answer any questions from any member at this time in regard to La Falaise or the previous occupant, in case it prejudices the Committee in any action or otherwise that it may take."

Overseas Aid: Grant Aid – question and answer

The Deputy of St. John tabled the following question of Deputy Jacqueline Jeannette Huet of St. Helier, President of the Overseas Aid Committee –

" W ould the President inform members whether the Committee has made a grant to the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust and, if so, would she explain the rationale for this and how this aligns with the use of funds for humanitarian aid.

The President of the Overseas Aid Committee tabled the following written answer –

" Y es, in 2005 the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust successfully applied to the Jersey Overseas Aid Committee for two grants for projects located in Madagascar.

T he Jersey Overseas Aid Committee's strategy is driven by a clear mission. It is committed to joining with

others in reducing poverty in poorer countries by making a sustained contribution, which is proportional to Jersey's means, by continuing to contribute to basic health care, medical care, effective education, safe drinking water and food security, projects to assist self sufficiency, emergency and humanitarian needs and working towards the elimination of child labour and abuse. The Jersey Overseas Aid Committee pursues this by working closely with the private and voluntary sectors, ensuring the consistency of policies affecting poorer countries, encouraging and supporting recognised local bodies engaged in overseas aid and by using resources efficiently and effectively.

T he first proposal from the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust was for the implementation of rural

development in Baly Bay. The funding request was £24,600. The Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust has been working in Baly Bay since the late 1980's to support the conservation of the endangered ploughshare tortoise only found in this area of Madagascar, where 80% of the population live in small isolated villages. There is a lack of access to basic healthcare and clean water, school infrastructure is very limited and around 80% of the population is illiterate. Rural livelihoods are based on subsistence agriculture and small scale fishing using traditional techniques. The people rely greatly on surrounding natural resources, for example wood for cooking and construction, medicinal plants and tubers.

T he Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust sought funding from the Jersey Overseas Aid Committee to provide

training and support to 11 community associations to manage their resources sustainably and implement their own development projects. Resource management was to be undertaken in collaboration with the national park authority and included firebreaks, planting of trees, defining and harvesting implementation levels of wood and raffia. Community development projects were to include the rehabilitation of 5 schools, the provision of 5 wells, the training and associate expenses on literacy and basic healthcare and hygiene for 5 community centres, solar-powered cold storage facilities to improve conservation of fish and improve revenues to fishermen and the provision of vegetable and fruit gardens and training for 5 community centres.

It was anticipated that the proposed activities would reinforce sustainable resource management and

conservation of natural habitats that would help ensure the long-term protection and sustainability of Baly Bay

National Park and the endangered biodiversity within it. This would help ensure continued provision of valuable natural resources to the rural people of Baly Bay (3,000 people) and bring future development potential, for example from eco-tourism. Working with the community associations would also strengthen their capacity to develop and manage their own development projects, in particular direct contributions will be made to effective primary (500 children) and adult literacy (250 people) education, safe drinking wate (1,200 people), basic healthcare and hygiene (500 people trained) and sel-fsufficiency (250 women to manage vegetable and fruit gardens for improved nutrition and for sale to increase household income; 100 households to improve income by selling better-preserved fish).

T hi s project was approved on the basis that it provided basic health care, effective education, safe drinking

water and food security and the assistance towards self-sufficiency.

T he second proposal from the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust was for school rehabilitation, safe drinking

water and sustainable natural resource management in the Alaotra region in central eastern Madagascar. The funding request was £25,100. Alaotra is the most important rice production zone in Madagascar, has one of the most important inland fisheries and is also an important refuge for water birds and the Alaotra gentle lemur, only found in this area. Lake Alaotra is the largest lake in Madagascar and with the surrounding marshes and rice fields constitutes a wetland area of 1,000km2 and sustains around 500,000 people many of

whom rely directly on natural resources such as fish and marsh products for construction, cooking fuels and handicrafts. Most villages have schools but they are in disrepair and inadequate for the large numbers of children. Lack of clean drinking water causes basic health problems. Wetlands are threatened by over-fishing, siltation from erosion, invasive exotic plants and marsh degradation from burning and cutting. Fewer, smaller fish are being caught and rice production has fallen. The Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust has been working with the communities there since 1996 and the Jersey Overseas Aid Committee was asked to provide training and support to 7 community associations to continue with their programmes to manage their resources sustainably and to implement their own development projects.

R esource management activities would be undertaken in collaboration with the Water and Forests and

Fisheries Services and would include marsh restoration, clearance of invasive plants, implementation of the fishing convention and management plans (limit mesh sizes, respect a closed season and to stop burning marshes). Community based projects included the rehabilitation of 5 schools, improved access to safe drinking water including wells and a distribution system to pipe water from clean sources.

I t is anticipated that this project will reinforce sustainable management and conservation of natural habitats

that will help ensure the long-term sustainability of Alaotra wetland and protection of the biodiversity within it. This will help ensure continued provision of valuable natural resources to people in at least the 7 target villages (27,000 people). Working with the community associations and commune federations will strengthen their capacity to develop and manage their own development projects in particular direct contributions will be made to effective primary education (2,000) children and safe drinking water (10,000) people.

T hi s project was approved on the basis that it provided basic health care, effective education, safe drinking

water and food security and the assistance towards self-sufficiency."

Sewerage pumping stations in the east of the Island – question and answer

Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains of St. Clement tabled the following question of Deputy Jeremy Laurence Dorey of St. Helier, Vice-President of the Environment and Public Services Committee –

" W ould the President –

( a ) inform members whether the Committee monitors sewerage pumping stations on the east of the Island

and, if so, would he advise if any of stations located between Fauvic and Le Marais, in particular, have had any high odour levels recorded?

( b ) advise what action, if any, the Committee intends to take to resolve any identified problems with these

particular stations, given the close proximity of, for example, the Jambart and Le Hocq pumping stations to nearby hotels and restaurants? and,

( c ) give an assurance that development in the Jambart area, including the new estate, will not exacerbate any

identified problems?"

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

" (a) All of the public pumping stations administered by the Committee are monitored using telemetry 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. This monitoring enables any problems at the pumping stations, such as a pump failure or high level alarm, to be identified and corrected quickly. In addition, the pumping stations are routinely visited twice a week by the Department's pumping station operatives, who check and record the operating performance of the facility. Any odour problems would be identified during the twice-weekly routine visits, as such problems cannot be detected automatically by the telemetry system.

O dour problems have been identified at certain times of the year in the vicinity of the major east coast

pumping stations at Le Bourg, Pontac and Le Hocq. These odour problems tend to occur during long dry periods in the summer months, when ambient temperatures are high and flows in the sewers are low.

( b ) The Department is undertaking trials using various types of bacteriological dosing systems at Le Bourg

pumping station in an attempt to prevent the formation of the odours at source. These systems use bacteria to prevent odours normally produced if the sewage becomes septic, a problem most likely to occur during hot dry periods during the summer. The results of the trials, the latest of which uses a bacteriological dosing system successfully employed in Guernsey, should be known by the autumn.

In a ddi tion to these trials, the existing odour control systems at Le Bourg and Le Hocq pumping stations

which are reaching the end of their effective life, are to be replaced with Biofilter odour control systems, similar to the units already installed at Pontac pumping station and the sludge holding tanks at the sewage treatment works. The Biofilter system has been proven to operate very effectively, and is far more efficient than the older type of odour control systems currently in use at the stations.

It ha s also been identified that, despite regular attention, the seals on the multiple covers over the main

working sumps at Le Bourg, Pontac and Le Hocq stations are failing to consistently provide an air tight seal as originally intended, and hence allowing odours to emanate from the pumping station building itself from time to time. In order to resolve this problem, the covers at these three stations are to be replaced with purpose made air tight units.

I t is a nticipated that the replacement odour control systems and new covers will all be delivered and

installed by late November this year.

( c ) I can confirm that Pontac pumping station, which is located in Jambart Lane, can deal with the additional

flows from the new development in the Jambart Lane area, and that this development will not exacerbate the odour problem at this station. If anything, the additional flow will tend to reduce the potential for odour problems, which traditionally occur during the summer months, by increasing the flow through this pumping station during times of dry weather."

Environment and Public Service Committee's report entitled "Planning for Homes 2005", housing development sites and the Island Plan, and the affordability of first time buyer homes – question and answer

Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains of St. Clement tabled the following question of Deputy Jeremy Laurence Dorey, Vice-President of the Environment and Public Services Committee –

" W ould the Vice-President inform members –

( a ) whether details and extracts from the document Planning for Homes 2005' (R.C.63/2005) were made

available to the media some days prior to States members receiving a copy, in accordance with usual practice, and, if so, the reasons why?

( b ) of the details of the sites included in the completed parallel feasibility studies on other potential future

housing sites' carried out by the Committee in tandem with the Housing Committee appearing on page 4 of R.C.63/2005, and whether these sites are additional to those included in H2, H3 and H4 of the Island Plan?

( c ) how many homes on the Island Plan H2 sites have been completed to-date, whether all 11 H2 sites will be

developed and, if not, which ones will remain undeveloped?

( d ) whether any shortfall in the non-development of any of the 11 H2 sites is to be made up from the

development of H3 and H4 sites and, if so, the magnitude of the shortfall and which sites are being considered?

( e ) whether the Committee has considered the impact of planning gains' and the 45/55 split between first

time buyer and social rented homes on the affordability of first time buyer homes, and, if so, what measures, if any, the Committee will take to address the matter?"

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

"( a) The Environment and Public Services and the Housing Committees, at a joint meeting on 18th August 2005, agreed the document Planning for Homes 2005'. It appeared as an A' item on the Committees' agenda and thus the matter was in the public domain. For that reason, the 2 Presidents issued a joint press release, embargoed to 23rd August 2005, and attached a copy of the report to provide background data for the media. The R.C. was published on 30th August 2005.

( b ) It has been common practice to undertake feasibility studies on sites which are being considered as

possibilities for Category A housing purposes, prior to any related public consultation exercises, selection procedures and subsequent decisions to recommend site rezoning.

Fe a s ibi lity studies have been undertaken for all the H3 and H4 sites identified in the Island Plan as

requiring public consultation. That is H3 sites 1-16 and H4 sites 15-21.

In a ddi tion, the following sites have been subject to feasibility studies – (i ) St rathmore Nurseries (Field 561 and 562), St. Mary;

(i i) L and west of the Parish Hall , Rue du Pont, St. Mary;

(i ii ) A corn Enterprises, States Farm, Trinity ; and,

(i v ) Fi elds 516, 517 and 518, Patier Road, St. Saviour.

It i s s t ill the intention that all the Island Plan H2 sites will be developed in due course. The status of the

sites was set out in Appendix 8 of the latest Planning for Homes report.

( c ) No homes on the sites have been completed to-date.

Four s ites are currently under construction and should be complete by the end of 2006. The completion of

homes on one of these sites is imminent;

( i) another site has permission and will commence shortly;

( ii ) five sites are at various stages in the planning process and should be complete before the end of 2009

(namely the end of the period for the current identified housing requirements); and,

( i ii) only one site has not seen any significant progress. Site H2-10 is a small Field at Rue de Haut,

St. Lawrence. A draft development brief has been prepared and the owner has appointed an agent, but the Planning Department has not received any serious approaches from developers.

( d ) It is not currently envisaged that there will be any significant shortfall in the provision of Category A

homes arising from the non development of any of the 11 H2 sites'.

T he  evidence from the latest Planning for Homes report suggests that the supply of Category A homes

will comfortably match identified potential requirements for the period up to the end of 2009, with the exception of sheltered homes. However, this situation will continue to be kept under regular review.

A t this time, there would appear little necessity to bring forward additional land, including H3 and H4 sites for Category A housing purposes, with the exception of sites for sheltered homes and sites where an overriding case can be made to achieve much needed community benefits. No decisions have yet been

made on the sites most suitable for these purposes. The Committee will have regard to its feasibility

studies, before proposing sites for public consultation purposes, prior to deciding which should be recommended

to the States for rezoning.

( e ) The former Planning Environment Committee and the States considered the potential impact of planning

gains' and the 45/55% tenure split on the affordability of first-time buyer homes when formulating and debating the Island Plan. This is why the H2 sites in the Plan were zoned on the clear understanding that the tenure split must be met and that development permission should comply with the requirements of an approved development brief. It is also why conditions on each permission require any future sales of first-time buyer homes to be back into the first-time buyer sector, thus having the beneficial effects of maintaining a stock of first-time buyer homes and reducing the need to rezone additional land for this category of housing.

A s a consequence, owners and developers have known from an early stage what the States' and the

Committee's expectations are for each site, the potential constraints and the matters which are likely to be the subject of Planning Obligations.

T he aim has been to ensure that negotiations between land owners and prospective developers are

properly informed of these matters, which should then be reflected in the land values. In effect, the land owner has had to accept a reduced price to cover the lower value of social rented housing, as well as any extra cost associated with planning obligations.

U ltimately, of course, the sale price of first-time buyer homes is determined by what those in the first-

time buyer's market can afford. The developers have set their prices at this level and there is no evidence to suggest that the prices have been materially affected or have become less affordable as a result of the above measures.

I t can be seen from the Action Plan' set out at the front of the latest Planning for Homes report that the

Environment and Public Services and Housing Committees intend to give further consideration to how the difficulties of single-earner households (and other aspiring home owners with low incomes) entering the owner-occupied housing sector can be overcome.

T he re have always been those who cannot quite afford the entry price level. Clearly, continued supply of

more designated first-time buyer homes will help bring more into home ownership, but new first-time buyers also come into the market every week, by reason of age, qualification, or other changes of circumstance. As the affordability level only moves up or down relatively slowly, to make a significant difference and bring more lower income households into home ownership it is likely that shared equity' or discount schemes would have to be introduced. Clearly, the potential effectiveness of such schemes and the costs which are likely to be associated with them will require careful investigation."

Matters relating to an air crash in October 2004 – question and answer

The Deputy of St. John tabled the following question of Senator Leonard Norman, President of the Harbours and Airport Committee –

" W ould the President inform members –

( a ) of the measures taken, if any, to clean up any contamination arising from harmful substances found in fire

fighting foam used as a result of an air crash in October 2004?

( b ) whether any domestic water supplies have been contaminated as a result of this incident and, if so,

whether any affected residents are able to apply to the Committee to have a potable water supply at no cost to the respective householder? and,

( c ) whether the Committee has offered any other form of assistance to any respective householders?" The President of the Harbours and Airport Committee tabled the following written answer –

" ( a) After the crash the Airport Fire Service withdrew and the clean up operation was directed by the Environmental Protection Investigations Officer of the Planning and Environment Department. I am advised that contaminated soil was removed from site to La Collette under supervision of the Water Resources Section.

( b ) As a result of this incident I am not aware of any domestic water supply having been contaminated. ( c ) Not as a result of this incident."

Look-through' provisions – 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 –

" W ould the President inform members –

( a ) whether the look-through' provisions proposed under zero/ten will resemble the Profits Distribution

Charge in the Isle of Man?

( b ) of the measures that are proposed for this tax to ensure that it is treated by the E.U. as personal and not

company taxation?

( c ) how individual tax-payers will declare and confirm any liability to tax under look-through' and how this

will be administered? and,

( d ) how many other jurisdictions use similar look-through' provisions?"

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

" ( a) The proposed look through' provisions are different to the Profits Distribution Charge in the Isle of Man in some respects although they do have a similar rationale, namely, to protect tax revenues on the introduction of the zero/ten corporate reforms. The former will assess all corporate profits and income arising on the Jersey individuals who wholly or partly beneficially own a company. The latter will tax Manx residents on 60% of the corporate trading profits, and on 100% of the income arising in investment holding companies, by means of a deemed distribution or distributable profits charge. Further detailed information on the Isle of Man charge is contained in the consultation document issued by the Isle of Man Income Tax Division on 18th January 2005.

( b ) The look through' provisions will be a charge to taxation on Jersey resident individuals and will be a

personal tax measure. Further detailed information on this personal tax measure is available in the written answer tabled on 19th July 2005 and in the oral answer given on 19th July 2005, both answers being in response to questions asked by the Deputy .

( c ) Every taxpayer has an obligation to declare income and profits brought into charge by the Income Tax

(Jersey) Law on his or her personal Income Tax Return. The provisions relating to look through' will place such an obligation on all Jersey taxpayers. It will be administered by staff currently working at the Income Tax Office. Further detailed information on how the look though' provisions will be administered is contained in P.44/2005.

( d ) Territories generally aim to ensure that the tax rates for individuals and for companies are not too

dissimilar. If there is a disparity between the two tax rates then there is a need to find some mechanism to offset tax planning arrangements aimed at reducing the overall liability. The mechanism to be adopted will vary from one territory to another, but at the present time both Guernsey and the Isle of Man are considering some form of look through'. Similarly, in the United Kingdom when there was previously a disparity between personal and corporate tax rates, there were close company' provisions, similar to look through', to ensure that tax liabilities were not circumvented. Other countries may impute a deemed profit distribution from private companies in cases where the personal tax rate is higher than the corporate rate. As the trend generally is to reduce both the corporate and personal rates of tax to similar levels, most countries will not need such look through' provisions. The same is true in those jurisdictions where personal tax rates are below the corporate rate, since there is then an incentive to distribute profits. Ultimately, if general corporate tax rates move towards zero, there will be a tendency to rely more and more on indirect taxation measures. Caribbean territories are good examples of this."

New LTIA scheme – 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 –

" T he President has stated that it would not be appropriate to review the working of the new LTIA scheme before it has been in place for a year. Will the President confirm whether such a review will be conducted to include –

( a ) the numbers on the scheme?

( b ) the proportions on percentage awards?

( c ) the numbers in work?

( d ) the total sums paid under this allowance in comparison with the schemes replaced by LTIA? a nd, i f so, inform members when he will bring this review to the Assembly?"

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

" T he review that I stated would take place after one year was an investigation into the new Incapacity Benefit scheme not just one part of it namely the Long Term Incapacity Allowance. Any review must look at numbers but as I have answered the Deputy on many occasions, comparisons over short periods must be made with caution particularly against a system that has been in place for many years.

T he review is scheduled to begin early next year. The simple reason for this is that the new system will have

completed its first full year at the end of September 2005. Some of the data necessary for the review will be extracted from contribution data for the 3rd Quarter of 2005 which will not be available until January 2006, as contributions are collected in arrears. I would hope that the review will be available within three months of completing the data extraction.

A s the Deputy is aware, the new Incapacity System is about recognising that illness is not a static situation and

that the benefit system should not be a barrier to returning to work. So the objective is to review the new Incapacity System in order to establish whether it meets with the policy intent as agreed by the States, namely –

( i) to provide immediate support for people with short-term, limiting illness; ( ii ) to enable people with long-term health conditions to return to work;

( ii i) to be less intrusive, particularly in cases of very severe illness where the person is unlikely to return to

work; and,

( iv ) to prevent abuse of the system.

T he review will gather evidence on numbers and types of award/s and include the associated guidelines,

procedures, processes, support mechanisms and identify any areas where the role of the key stakeholders and communications can be improved.

I t s  hould also take account of other countries recent relevant experience and research in this field. G i ven the timescale, it will be presented to the new Minister and not the Committee.

If any changes are recommended, I have no doubt that the new Minister will want to consider the

recommendations and report to the States in the normal way."

Support for those on low incomes affected by GST– 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 –

" I n response to a question asked on 10th May 2005, regarding the reduction of support for those on low incomes affected by GST from an estimated £9-£13.5 million to£2 million, the President stated that the differing figures were based on a completely different set of parameters'. Would the President give details of the change in parameters and show how they were used to produce the difference in figures and, furthermore, explain the rationale for the change?"

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

" T he Finance and Economics Committee has never proposed a figure of £9-£13.5 million for additional Income Support to help to protect those on lower incomes from the effects of a Goods and Services Tax (GST). The Committee has, therefore, not reduced the proposed level of Income Support from £9- £13.5 million to£2 million, neither has it changed the parameters for the level of additional Income Support funding. The Committee's first, and only, proposal for Income Support was for £2 million in the Fiscal Strategy (P.44/2005) approved by the States on 13th July 2005.

A s I stated in my answer on 10th May 2005, £2 million will enable all those who receive benefit under the

proposed Income Support scheme to be fully insulated from the effect of a three per cent GST. This will be approximately 7,500 households and will comprise all sectors on low incomes, including pensioners, the disabled and single parents. The Finance and Economics Committee firmly believes that this is a realistic figure derived from detailed modelling exercises using data from the Employment and Social Security Department.

I f the Assembly were of the view that more households than those who would receive Income Support should

be protected from the effects of GST then this could be done. However, States members should be reminded that to do this would require a higher rate of GST than that of three per cent in order to raise the required tax yield, to meet the projected shortfall in tax revenues and to pay for the additional benefits.

A s an example, research by Oxera in 2002 showed that if all of those taxpayers liable to income tax, but who

did not pay any income tax due to Jersey's generous levels of income tax allowances and exemptions were to be compensated from the effects of GST, then this would cost between £10-£15 million. (Those are perhaps the figures to which the Deputy is referring). However, members should be aware that there are households with incomes of £70-80,000 per annum which are not paying income tax because of those allowances.

H ow much it would cost the States, (and hence the taxpayers of Jersey), to protect certain groups from the

impact of GST depends crucially on what groups the States decides to protect; the bigger the group, and the bigger their current income, the higher the cost; the higher the cost, the more tax that those not protected would have to pay. There is no escaping this relationship. The essential point to note is that the more people who are protected over and above those currently in receipt of Income Support, the greater the rate of GST and the burden borne by everybody else.

T he Committee firmly believes that those in receipt of Income Support under the proposed revised scheme

should, quite rightly, be protected from the effects of GST. The scheme will achieve this through the indexation of the basket of items that make up the expenditure required for a decent standard of living in Jersey. That is why the Committee has made assurances that it will find additional money required to underwrite the Income Support scheme when GST is introduced."

Funding the Parish welfare/LTIA benefit – 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 –

" W  ould the President inform members –

( a ) whether the Committee has considered funding any shortfall experienced in the level of Parish welfare

caused by the increase in claims arising from those receiving percentage awards under the new LTIA scheme?

( b ) if so, will this funding be met from taxation revenues? and,

( c ) what sums, if any, will be required to address this financial burden now and over the coming decade

under the proposed income support scheme?"

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

"( a) The Finance and Economics Committee has not received any requests for funding a potential shortfall in the level of Parish welfare caused by a possible increase in claims arising from those receiving percentage awards under the new LTIA scheme. The Committee has, therefore, not considered this issue.

( b ) Not applicable.

( c ) LTIA is only a part of the new incapacity benefit system which will be reviewed in April 2006. It is,

therefore, not possible at this stage to comment on financial implications until after this review has taken place."

Oral questions

THE STATES adopted a proposition of Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier of St. Saviour that Standing Order 14B (1), relating to the time limit for giving oral answers, be suspended in order to allow all listed oral questions to be asked.

Members present voted as follows –

POUR: 28 CONTRE: 16 ABSTAIN: 0

Senator F.H. Walker

Senator P.V.F. Le Claire Senator R.J. Shenton Connétable of St. Martin Connétable of St. Mary Connétable of St. Peter Connétable of St. Clement Deputy of Trinity

Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S) Deputy A. Breckon (S)

Deputy J.J. Huet (H)

Deputy of St. Martin

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C) Deputy J.L. Dorey (H)

Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en (S) Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S) Deputy J.B. Fox (H)

Deputy J-A. Bridge (H)

Deputy J.A. Martin (H)

Deputy G.P. Southern (H) Deputy J.A. Bernstein (B) Deputy S.C. Ferguson (B) 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)

Senator L. Norman

Senator T.A. Le Sueur Senator P.F. Routier Senator M.E. Vibert Connétable of St. Saviour Connétable of St. Brelade Connétable of St. Helier Connétable of St. Lawrence Connétable of Grouville Connétable of St. John Deputy T.J. Le Main (H) Deputy M.F. Dubras (L) Deputy F.G. Voisin (L) Deputy L.J. Farnham (S) Deputy of St. Mary

Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (H)

1. Se nat or P.V.F. Le Claire of the President of the Policy and Resources Committee:

" H a s the Committee considered any conflict of interest involved with a marketing company representing both the interests of the Waterfront Enterprise Board and one of the Waterfront development companies and, if so, what is the Committee's position on this matter?"

Se nat or F.H. Walker (President of the Policy and Resources Committee):

"T he Committee does not consider that there is any conflict of interest involved with a marketing company being employed to provide communications advice to both the Waterfront Enterprise Board (WEB) and

one of its development partners. Strictly speaking, it is not a marketing company; it is a public relations

company. There is quite a significant difference. This advice has been provided on a consultancy basis and it does

not have any bearing on the commercial relationship between the Waterfront Enterprise Board and its development partner, nor on the Waterfront Enterprise Board's policy making or its plans for the future of the Waterfront. I should point out that a distinction should be made between this sort of consultancy advice and advice on legal or commercial matters. In these circumstances, and in line with generally accepted best practice, separate legal and commercial advisers are employed."

1(a) Se  nator P.V.F. Le Claire:

"I n put ting this question, when I spoke to the managing director of the company that is in question, she was

quite upset when I referred to her company as a public relations company. She did actually make the statement that it was a marketing company. How does the President continue with that approach given the fact that this company has actually put out 2 questions for inducements for completed questionnaires in the community of the Portuguese and Polish arenas with an overall cap of £10,000? How does the President not see that a company involved in handling financial transactions or suggesting marketing of a financial nature and also in strategic marketing for one of the developers does not bring that company into conflict?"

Se nat or F.H. Walker :

" I  thi nk the whole point here is that this is public relations and communications. I repeat the view of my Committee that there is no conflict. I think also the point that the Senator has missed is that, totally in accord with decisions of this House, the Waterfront Enterprise Board is working with private developers in partnership to deliver the best solution for Jersey's Waterfront. I merely repeat that there is no conflict?"

1(b) Se  nator R.J. Shenton:

"I   w onde  r, as the Waterfront does interest me, although it doesn't interest many members according to the

Evening Post cartoonist, perhaps we could have the names of the companies operating at the Waterfront on public relations or marketing exercises in order that we can determine the amount being spent in that area? Perhaps someone would provide us with that information later."

Se nat or F.H. Walker :

"Y e s , Sir, I do not believe that that is in any way a problem. It is in fact pretty much public information."

2. D e puty G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement of the President of the Environment and Public Services Committee:

"D id the Committee take into consideration the need to retain on site toilets for staff use when it approved

the change of use of the Broad Street toilets and, if not, the reasons why; and what involvement, if any, did the Committee have in the consideration of suitable toilets to replace those lost by the change of use application?"

D e put  y J.L. Dorey of St. Helier (Vice-President of the Environment and Public Services Committee –

rapporteur):

" W he n this planning application was considered in February, the Committee didn't specifically consider the need to retain or provide toilets for staff at this site. The planning application was for change to use to either a retail unit or a café. As far as the café use or potential café use was concerned, this was treated by the Committee like many other kiosk uses around the Island, for instance beach concessions which don't have their own toilets which are generally located close to public toilets. The Health Protection Department was consulted by my Department and it made 2 recommendations, neither of them relating to the provision of toilets. Also, at the time of determining the application, members of the Committee were aware of the intention to convert the women's toilets in Conway Street into gents and ladies toilets and this was also referred to and discussed at the time that the application was determined."

2(a) D eputy G.C.L. Baudains:

"R e la ting to the second part of the Vice-President's answer, was the Committee aware, when it sanctioned

the change of the Broad Street toilets, that the replacement facility in Conway Street would be far from satisfactory? For instance, as the Vice-President is aware, there is now a security issue for ladies using the Conway Street toilet, and gentlemen have to climb stairs, obviously meaning that those who can't have to walk as far as the Weighbridge. I would like to know, Sir, why these issues weren't addressed before the change of use was sanctioned and what does he intend doing to rectify the matter? Will he, for instance, make sure that the ground floor disabled access is available to all people?"

D e put  y J.L. Dorey:

" T he  supplementary seems to be raising something of a new question. If the questioner is asking was the Committee aware in February of what the situation would be 6 months later, then, quite clearly, we weren't. He is raising issues about security and access which I am quite happy to look into, but they weren't raised in his original question and I have had no time to prepare for them."

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

" D oe s the Vice-President have any explanation for the apparent lack of ability of his Committee to communicate clearly with the Constable of St. Helier, who at a Parish meeting was sayingWe have checked this out and there is no need for a staff toilet in the Broad Street Café'?"

D e put  y J.L. Dorey:

" C om munication with all parties could obviously be improved and, having looked through the case notes on this one, I think our communications both ways with the Health Department and our communications both ways with the Parish of St. Helier could have been better. I ascribe no blame in that, but it is clear that the message did not in all cases always get through perfectly. People are human and they don't necessarily always communicate 100% perfectly."

2(c) Se  nator R.J. Shenton:

"I w oul d like to raise the issue with the Vice-President about the consideration of those people who have to

use public toilets. I took it upon myself to visit the male toilets after receiving representation from people, not necessarily physically handicapped but handicapped because they were of a certain age – younger than myself, but still of a certain age – and because of heart conditions and so on they found it difficult to go up those stairs. I did go up those stairs. I use the lift in the States Chamber. Quite honestly, it is a terrible ordeal and, apart from wanting to use the toilets, you would also need an oxygen mask by the time you got to the head of the stairs. I think a lack of regard has been given by the Committee."

T he D eputy Bailiff :

"A nd your question, Senator, is?

Se nat or R.J. Shenton:

" A nd my question is do they always disregard matters which affect the public of this Island when they go ahead with their schemes, which is perhaps cosmetic but not entirely in-keeping with a caring society?"

D e put  y J.L. Dorey:

" T he answer obviously is no, we do not routinely disregard public opinion. We try to make the most sensible decisions we can make. It is clear from the supplementaries that both Deputy Baudains and Senator Shenton have the advantage over me, in that they have been approached with concerns about these facilities. No approach has been made to me or, as far as I am aware, to the Department or to the President. I do undertake that I will follow up these complaints now that I have heard them, but I can't anticipate complaints before I hear them."

2(d) Se  nator R.J. Shenton:

"W ha t can you do? What can you do about it? I don't think you can do a lot."

D e put  y J.L. Dorey:

" I a m not sure what answer Senator Shenton wants there. He wants something done and he is telling me that I can't do anything. I will do my level best to address the concerns that he has raised."

2(e) D eputy L.J. Farnham of St. Saviour:

" G i ve n the fact that toilets in new catering facilities are not only best practice and highly desirable but should be a must, could the Vice-President confirm if it is actually a legal obligation? I presume it is not a legal obligation for Planning, otherwise they wouldn't have passed it, but, to the best of his knowledge, is it a legal obligation from a health point of view? I presume that it is not, otherwise Planning still wouldn't have passed it."

D e put  y J.L. Dorey:

" I a m not sure I understand the question. The advice that we received from Health related entirely to two issues, chlorination of water in the fountain and the food hygiene issues under the Food Hygiene Order. No mention was made of this particular issue at the time that we sought advice."

2(f) D  e puty J.B. Fox of St. Helier:

"W oul d the Vice-President advise the House, from what we have heard today, if Planning, when they made

its decision to allow the change of use, did not require the health protection requirements to be part of the planning decision, does that mean that the health protection requirements do not prevent the premises from being opened with the new intended café at this time, or is there a requirement from Health that has not been adhered to in the planning process and is this something that needs to be rectified in the planning process?"

D e put  y J.L. Dorey:

"I thought I answered that question when I attempted to answer the previous supplementary. Planning quite

correctly did seek advice on the issue of this proposed change of use from the Health Protection Department. We received advice. It did not relate to toilets."

2(g) D eputy J.B. Fox:

"T ha t is not the question. I am asking, as a result of the information that came out today, does the planning

permit, because they didn't have or take up the appropriate advice or whatever it is, does that mean that the café can now open as it has a planning permit?"

D e put  y J.L. Dorey:

"N o, Health still have absolute jurisdiction on this issue. This ceased to be a Planning issue. We have given

planning permission. Health are now saying, and have been saying for some time, that there is a requirement for toilets there. It really isn't within our jurisdiction."

Se nat or S. Syvret:

" If  i t may help members, I can undertake to distribute later today or tomorrow to members an explanation of this issue from a Health and Social Services' perspective. The fact is that the Committee took absolutely clear advice when the matter came to a head from its Health Protection Officers and, indeed, from the Acting Medical Officer of Health. But the reason why Health Protection didn't write to the Environment and Public Services Department saying Oh by the way, you must put a staff toilet in there' is because it was simply taken as an obvious requirement in a new catering facility. You may as well ask the Health Protection Department to examine every application to build a house and write to the Planning Department saying Oh, by the way, you have got to have a toilet.' "

2(h) D eputy J.B. Fox:

"I jus t want to press this a bit further because it seems strange to me, from the 3-odd years that I had on the

Planning Applications Sub-Committee, that if you have something that is a legal requirement, it is the same as licensing or anything, you get the statutory advice from the statutory authorities and, as part of that advice, you take that on board and then you make a decision in planning issues when you get it. Clearly something has broken down here and I am not receiving, in my view, a satisfactory answer from that question or these questions this time. Maybe I am asking them wrongly, but, to me, it is common sense. You can't give –---"

T he D eputy Bailiff :

"W ha t is your question, Deputy ?"

D e put y J.B. Fox: "T ha nk you, yes."

D e put  y J.L. Dorey:

" I w i ll take that as a question. The fact is that the Department did precisely what it should do. It sought advice from the relevant authority on this issue. I have been at pains not to ascribe blame in this whole saga, but however obvious the issue of toilets may have been to the Health Protection Department, it was not absolutely obvious to everybody who might have considered this issue. It would have been helpful if we had received representations from the Health Protection Department on this aspect. We didn't."

3. D e put y J.A. Hilton of St. Helier of the President of the Policy and Resources Committee:

"D ur ing the debate on the Migration Policy in June 2005 (P.25/2005), the President, prompted by concerns

raised in that debate, pledged to review the international legal position with regard to people's right to freedom of entry and whether the States could tighten border controls to refuse entry to people with serious criminal records. Will the President advise members what progress, if any, has been made in this regard?"

Se nat or F.H. Walker (President of the Policy and Resources Committee):

" T he legal advice given by the Attorney General remains unchanged. In summary, it is not feasible within the existing legal and constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom, which provides for a common travel area for the U.K. and Crown dependencies to impose border controls on British nationals travelling to Jersey. We have obtained more information from both Guernsey and the Isle of Man. In fact, I met recently in the Isle of Man with the Chief Ministers of both islands, and they confirmed that their entry controls are effectively no tighter than Jersey's and there is little prospect of that position changing. However, I have given an undertaking that, when details of a population registration system are developed, consideration will be given to including information about serious criminal convictions for all new registrations."

3(a) Se  nator P.V.F. Le Claire:

" W oul d the President agree with me that the border controls are the same for Jersey as they are for Guernsey, but Guernsey at this time requires people to fill in forms in relation to housing that if they do have a criminal record and they do not declare that or if that is taken into consideration, they can be and are being dealt with in Guernsey by being told that they cannot enter to remain to leave? Although they may enter, they cannot remain to leave."

Se nat or F.H. Walker :

" N o,  Sir, I can't confirm that. Guernsey and the Isle of Man do include a question when there is an application to establish a residence in the Island on serious criminal convictions, but no record checks are made and, in effect, there is no ability to confirm whether or not the information they are given is correct and they have no ability, and nor do we, to prevent such people entering their islands. All we can do is abide by legal advice and abide by the constitutional position, like it or like it not."

3(b) D eputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier:

" I t hi nk I heard correctly. I heard the President use the word British' population. What about other nationalities? Is it different for other nationalities or is that all nationalities? He only said British and we have got many more nationalities than British in Jersey."

Se nat or F.H. Walker :

" A s I think was made clear in the original debate, the same rules apply to nationals of other European Economic Area (EEA) Member States, which is the European Union (E.U.) Member States plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. The same rules have to apply."

3(c) D eputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:

" T he President said he will look into this question more when the Immigration Register and the need to register is formulated. Obviously it is about asking the question. If people have to present at the Immigration Department, which will be employment and housing to live and work in Jersey, surely it is simple? Once they are here, I know we can't prevent them being here. We may not be able to remove them, but if we asked the right questions and we do the police checks, it will enable them to stop working or maybe living in a certain residence and that will at least persuade many people not to come in the first place if you are asking the right questions or at least they can't stay because it will enable them not to work. Has this been considered under the new Immigration Policy?"

Se nat or F.H. Walker :

" A s I think I mentioned in my answer, the question is being considered. Our ability to act on the answer, because we can't get a police check under the law and we cannot impose, as is clear, border restrictions, asking the question is one thing and the ability to act on the answer is something completely different. I have every sympathy with the thrust of the questions here, but, of course, we must abide by the law."

3(d) D eputy J.A. Hilton:

" T he President has just said that he cannot act under the law. We can ask the question, but, at the current time, we cannot act under the law with regard to a criminal record check. Surely it is a question of your Committee coming back to the States and asking for a change to the law so that we can act upon that information?"

Se nat or F.H. Walker :

" I w i sh it was that simple – and I really do wish it was that simple – but we are not talking here about Jersey law only, we are talking about the Immigration Act in the U.K. It would require a change to their own legislation, which we are advised they would be highly unlikely to consider on a request from Jersey because it is bound up with European Union legislation as well. It is a very complex process, and it is governed, as I have said, by the legislation of other countries and also by our constitutional position with

the U.K. So just for clarity, it is not possible to resolve this merely by changing the law in Jersey."

3(e) Se  nator P.V.F. Le Claire:

" W oul  d the President undertake, if I was to circulate unequivocal evidence that the States of Guernsey require criminal records and if convictions are not declared they are not able to enter Guernsey, they are not able to remain in their residences and they are not able to obtain or get the work; if I circulate that to all members today, will the President once and for all acknowledge the fact that they do do this in Guernsey and it is a mechanism that they use, not necessarily the law that has to be changed? Having distributed that evidence, would the President not agree to undertake to look at this more openly? I believe that we are being misled, Sir."

Se nat or F.H. Walker :

" I t hi nk I have already said that we will indeed give consideration to including the question, but we are advised by the Chief Minister of both Guernsey and the Isle of Man and their senior officials that they do not have the ability, particularly with human rights considerations, to bar entry in the way in which the Senator is suggesting. If it was possible, then I would give an undertaking that we would be pursuing this in Jersey. Sadly, it is not possible."

3(f) D e puty C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:

"I t ha s been in the media that the U.K., in the light of the very serious recent events in the U.K., is looking

at tightening up on immigration controls. Will that, do you think, in any way lead to changes that could be beneficial to Jersey?"

Se nat or F.H. Walker :

" In a nswer to the question let me be clear. The Policy and Resources Committee is not in any shape or form reluctant to introduce more stringent checks and controls. We would support their introduction. If there is any way that that is possible following a change in U.K. policy or U.K. legislation, then we will most vigorously pursue it."

3(g) D eputy J.J. Huet:

" I a m sure somebody will tell me if I have got the wrong end of the stick, but if somebody wants to work or be a manager of a general public house, I believe they have to sign a form to say that there is no objection to us looking up a police record or to the authorities looking up a police record. I fail to see that if somebody is walking in our door, whether it be at the airport or at the sea port, that if we said when we gave them the form to fill in Do you object to us checking if you have a police record?', if we can do it for somebody working in a public house and working with children also, I believe, why on earth can't we do it if they have agreed to it? It is not beyond the bounds of possibility."

Se nat or F.H. Walker :

" T ha t is a legal matter to which I can't supply an answer. All my Committee can do is to work to and respond to the legal advice we are given. The legal advice is absolutely clear and unequivocal in this case."

3(g) D eputy J.A. Hilton:

"J us t going back to a previous answer, if we accept that we can't stop people coming in under the Common

Travel Policy at the port of entry so they come in, we accept that because the constitutional position is too difficult, can we not be responsible? Surely it comes under local regulations – well, it does – who we house and who we give jobs to? I am not saying that we stop people at the port of entry. They come in, but surely it is up to the people of Jersey to decide who we actually house and who we give jobs to? Surely, in that process, those questions can be asked? I spoke to a young lady at Housing yesterday and she was telling me about how under the Lodging House Registration they have to apply for a caretaker and they carry out a criminal record check. She made that point to me. So why can't we apply that same thing to the Housing Regulations and to the Working Regulations?"

Se nat or F.H. Walker :

" I c an't answer the question because it is the legal advice that my Committee has received. I do acknowledge fully the concerns of Deputy Hilton and indeed a large number of other members. I think perhaps the best thing that the Policy and Resources Committee can do in this context is to arrange a seminar for members with the Attorney General so that there can be a full discussion on the legal advice position and we can possibly move forward on that basis. I will today undertake to arrange such a seminar."

D e put y T.J. Le Main of St. Helier:

"Y ou will find that the Housing Committee under its Lodging Houses Law will ask a person who wants to

be registered as a manager whether they can access their criminal record with their permission. Failure to do so and the Housing Committee would not register or accept their nomination."

3(h) D eputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:

"C le a rly this announcement this morning of a seminar is very good, but can I make a plea and a suggestion

to Policy and Resources, which is to get a few people like me that have knowledge to shortcut the circuit by giving some of the answers. Can we have a little steering group to get it set up so that we don't end up with this huge white elephant of impossibilities that could develop and try to bring it into a rational thing, because it is not just law it is procedure, etc., etc.?"

Se nat or F.H. Walker :

" I a m grateful to the Deputy for what I construe as being an offer, and I can confirm that everyone with relevant experience from a past life will be invited to help."

4. D e put y J.A. Hilton of St. Helier of the President of the Home Affairs Committee:

" W oul d the President inform members how many Community Police Officers are currently engaged in community policing across the Island; of these officers, how many are currently engaged on restricted duties or deployed elsewhere; how many officers are currently employed in the Licensing Unit; and what steps, if any, the Committee intends to take to review matters?"

Se nat or W. Kinnard (President of the Home Affairs Committee):

" T he re are 7 positions within the Community Safety Branch for Community Police Officers. Six of these positions are filled and one position is currently vacant, as the officer who has been occupying the position is on restricted duties due to a medical condition. The Licensing Unit is, and has been for some time, made up of 2 posts, both of which are filled. These are not Community Police Officers as such, although they came under the community policing umbrella in terms of police structure and management. There are 4 police officers also working from the St. Brelade substation. Whilst these officers, again, are not strictly Community Police Officers, they do concentrate on the policing commitment to the western Parishes in particular. All in all, Sir, 11 officers are allocated to policing the community in particular locations, and the Home Affairs Committee has no plans to review the community policing situation."

4(a) D eputy J.A. Hilton:

" M y understanding when I came into the States was that St. Helier in particular had 5 Community Polic Officers, and at that time also the Licensing Unit had 4 to 6 serving police officers. I would like to ask the President, in an answer to a question that was given to me in March 2005 in relation to the Licensing Unit, the Policing Plan of 2005 was referred to, and they gave the operational priority in 2005 as licensed premises. The underpinning action plan included specific objectives to address under age drinking and target premises. What I would like to ask the President is how does she reconcile carrying that out with reduced numbers in the Community Police and also in the Licensing Unit with only 2 officers?"

Se nat or W. Kinnard:

" A s I mentioned, I don't believe that there really is any reduced policing in terms of community. As I mentioned, there are 11 officers who are allocated to particular locations. Also, we have introduced a number of new initiatives by targeting particular trouble hot-spots and inter-agency responses, particularly where we have different officers from Housing, the Community Police and Honorary Police working together in a problem-solving approach. Much of this has been introduced, together with new powers given to the police, for example, to confiscate alcohol from young people. I think also, Sir, members must be absolutely aware that we cannot be all things to all people. We have actually had to suffer a number of cuts through the Financial Services Review process. Indeed, we are no ordinary police force. We have to deliver functions others don't, such as the threat from terrorism and financial crime. Basically, Sir, what I am saying is that, from an operational point of view, the imperatives change from day to day; sometimes indeed from hour to hour. I do believe that the most effective deployment of police officers on the ground really is a matter for the Police Chief and I do not have concerns as such with the existing 11 officers, as I say, who are committed to policing communities in different locations."

4(b) D eputy L.J. Farnham of St. Saviour:

"A t the risk of being called old fashioned, I would have thought that, with a force with 200 officers, we had 200 plus Community Policemen. I was brought up to respect the policeman, the local bobby. I still do, I

may add. I would ask that really, given the success of the Community Police and the licensing initiatives, (a) what is the difference between a normal policeman and a community policeman, and (b) if there is a

significant difference, does the Committee think that 7 and 2 in the licensing Unit, given the success of the

initiatives, is really enough?"

Se nat or W. Kinnard:

" I do  believe that our police report as to the success of the States of Jersey Police in targeting crime and actually clearing up crime speaks for itself. I think it has been excellent in recent years. Of course, yes, all policemen are there and available for the community, but, as I have mentioned, we are an extremely complex police force, having to fulfil a number of functions which aren't just about bobbies on the beat. We do know that it isn't always the most effective way of dealing with crime. Other particular types of crime, financial crime, are not necessarily found through bobbies actually walking the beat. So policing today is a very complex matter. But, in terms of community policing, what is the Community Police Officer? They, of course, work in a much more problem-solving approach with the community to deal with those issues which may not even actually become criminal matters. Hopefully they will be able to nip those matters in the bud before they do become criminal activities, so low-level anti-social behaviour and those sorts of matters can be dealt with and nipped in the bud before it becomes a real cause for concern. They have particular skills, of course, for working with the community and I think that they do do an excellent job, but clearly we are a very complex police force in a complex time where crime itself is becoming more complex, and I think that we must recognise that, from an operational point of view, day to day we must use our resources, limited though they are, as effectively as we possibly can."

4(c) D eputy J.A. Hilton:

"I n li ght of statistics produced that 40 per cent of crime is committed by under 18 year olds and, due to the

demographic bulge between 2002 and 2006, the police have already predicted that there is going to be an 11% increase in crime committed by that age group, am I to take it from the President that St. Helier is only going to be left with – because the President tells us that there are seven posts and one is currently vacant, but I know that included in that number of 6 are community police officers for around the Island – am I to take it then that the people of St. Helier are going to be left with only two Community Police Officers in light of a rising crime rate?"

Se nat or W. Kinnard:

"N o, Si  r, it is not the case that St. Helier will be only left with 2 police officers. It is again depending on the

operational imperatives. Members will remember that in recent times we have had particular problems in St. Brelade, so we have allocated 4 police officers to the substation there. Indeed, mentioning the demographic bulge, yes, we have been expecting a rise in youth crime, but I don't think we can exactly blame all of the increasing crime actually on growing criminality among the young. It is true that the States of Jersey Police have become much more effective in targeting those persistent offenders and actually getting to seek them out and indeed prosecute them and they have been much more effective in this process than they have been hitherto. So statistics have to be read very carefully. Yes, the demographic bulge sets us challenges in terms of the young, but also we must be aware that part of those high statistics are indeed due to the increased effectiveness of our own police force."

4(d) Se  nator R.J. Shenton:

"Si r , I know you ruled, but could I ask a question in an attempt to help?"

T he  D  eputy Bailiff :

"I a m always suspicious when members say that."

Se nat or R.J. Shenton:

" I know  , but I really am. There are 2 trouble spots, it seems to me, in the Island. One is the Weighbridge definitely, and I have always been most surprised that we haven't used the Tourism Offices to station either honorary or professional officers there at weekends. It wouldn't cost us anything and it would be a presence on the trouble spot. The other one is the little kiosk at La Mare, which has been broken into for the second time in 4 months. There is always trouble in the toilets nearby with young people. Why on earth can't CCTV cameras be used, particularly at weekends, in locations where we know there are problems?"

Se nat or W. Kinnard:

"O f  c ourse we cannot be everywhere all of the time. Obviously, if we know that there are particular trouble spots, then the States of Jersey Police will work to address that, but of course it is the case with all of these

things that young people will tend to move on to another location. I think it is an interesting suggestion made about the Tourism Offices. In fact, it is one that I might take up with the Deputy concerned with tourism and certainly discuss it with my own States of Jersey Police Force. As to the issue of CCTV, of

course, again, they are expensive. They have to be maintained and you have to make sure that they are most

effective. That is why many of them are concentrated in the town area. As to whether it would be cost effective to have one in an area or location like La Mare rather than actually having some form of target policing to deal with specific problems is something that the Committee would have to weigh up very carefully indeed. But certainly these are all issues that we are looking at all the time because we are suffering like all Committees with stretched resources and we have got to be as effective and efficient as we possibly can with the resources that we have."

D e put y L.J. Farnham :

"A nd T  ourism would be pleased to help, Sir."

5. T he Deputy of St. Martin of the President of the Finance and Economics Committee:

" H a s the Committee undertaken any research into exempting charges for consultations with General Practitioners and the issuing of medical prescriptions from the proposed Goods and Services Tax and, if so, what is the likely reduction in tax revenue as a result of this and by how much is it necessary to increase the proposed 3 per cent level of this tax to make up this reduction?"

Se nat or T.A. Le Sueur (President of the Finance and Economics Committee):

" Y e s , Sir, my Committee has. The cost of medical prescriptions will not increase as a result of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), so there is no reason to exempt them. This is because the increase in the cost of prescription drugs is subject to the tax and will fall entirely on the Employment and Social Security Health Insurance Fund. As regards charges for consultations with general practitioners, this is a bit more complicated since, by the time the Goods and Services Tax comes into effect there will be a new Income Support system up and running. That scheme may well cover the cost of general practitioner consultations for the less well off, but effectively any money paid as a result of the Goods and Services Tax on most visits will simply be matched by a similar cost to the Income Support scheme. Accordingly, whilst excluding the costs of general practitioner consultations from the Goods and Services Tax would not significantly affect the yield from the tax, the benefit from doing this would go primarily to those on middle and higher incomes. The total tax revenue foregone has not been precisely calculated since the general principle has been that be as few exceptions as possible, but I can advise in broad terms that the loss of revenue would be well under a million pounds a year. On that basis, there would be no requirement to alter the level of the Goods and Services Tax since that sum is within the general margin of error. But if the States really wants to further assist those on relatively low incomes, perhaps those with chronic ailments, it will be more effective to target financial support to these groups rather than remove the Goods and Services Tax from everyone's bills, including those on higher incomes."

5(a) T he Deputy of St. Martin:

" I tha nk the President for his answer, but would he agree that there is still a lot of work to be done before actually any figures can be produced to the States?"

Se nat or T.A. Le Sueur: "Y e s ."

5(b) D eputy G.P. Southern :

" D oe s the President not agree that, in the light of his answer, his Goods and Services Tax should be described as a tax on the ill?"

Se nat or T.A. Le Sueur:

" N o, Sir. I have already indicated that this matter is still, as the Deputy of St. Martin says, subject to a lot more investigation and it may well be that we shall look at this in a more selective way, but it needs to be done in conjunction with how we deal generally with people with either low incomes or chronic ailments and not in isolation."

5(c) D eputy G.P. Southern :

"I s t he President then minded to introduce one of the very few exceptions on these items?"

Se nat or T.A. Le Sueur:

"I thi nk, Sir, that will really depend on the balance that members themselves want to strike between a need

to keep a simple system and the need maybe to have certain exceptions for social situations. This will be up for members to debate when I bring forward the detailed legislation in respect of the Goods and Services Tax. I will certainly keep an open mind in respect of medical consultations."

5(d) Se  nator S. Syvret:

" D oe s the President of Finance and Economics accept the classical economic definition of regressiveness, which is that regressiveness is measured as a proportion of expenditure? Therefore, if people are expending all of their income they are suffering great regression, a greater proportion of regression on their taxation régime than are people on higher incomes, because they actually spend less and, indeed, save a much greater proportion of their incomes?"