States Minutes 19th July 2005

THE STATES assembled on Tuesday,

19th July 2005, at 9.30 a.m. under

the Presidency of Mr.  Michael Nelson de la Haye,

Greffier of the States.

All members were present with the exception of –

S e nator Wendy Kinnard – ill

S e nator Terence Augustine Le  Sueur – out of the Island S e nator Edward Philip Vibert – ill

S e nator Richard Joseph Shenton – ill

C e lia Joyce Scott   Warr en, Deputy of St.  Saviour–  ill.

Prayers read by the Acting Dean of Jersey.

Deputy Alan Breckon – welcome back after illness

The President, on behalf of all members, welcomed Deputy Alan Breckon of St.  Saviour back to the Assembly following a period of illness.

Matters presented

The following matters were presented to the States –

Parish Rates: the States' liability. R.C.56/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

General Reserve: grant of additional funds to 30th June 2005. R.C.57/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Units 1 and 2, L'Avenue Le  Bas, La  Rue des Pres Trading Estate: r-eassignment of P.104/2005. leases (P.104/2005) – comments. Com. Presented by the Economic Development Committee.

Units 1 and 2, L'Avenue Le  Bas, La  Rue des Pres Trading Estate: r-eassignment of P.104/2005. leases (P.104/2005) – comments. Com.(2) Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Shops (Sunday Trading) (Trial Arrangements) (Jersey) Regulations 200- P.108/2005. (P.108/2005): comments. Com. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Rural Economy Strategy (P.112/2005): comments. P.112/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.(2)

Rural Economy Strategy (P.112/2005): amendment (P.112/2005  Amd.) – P.112/2005. comments. Amd.Com. Presented by the Economic Development Committee.

Rural Economy Strategy (P.112/2005): amendment (P.112/2005  Amd.) – P.112/2005. comments. Amd.Com.(2) Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee.

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

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

Draft Animal Welfare (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.121/2005): comments. P.121/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.

Restriction on smoking in enclosed workplaces (P.126/2005): comments. P.126/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.

Provision of Extra Funding for Native Welfare (P.138/2005): comments. P.138/2005. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee. Com.

16 Clairvale Road, St.  Helier: Adult Mental Health Rehabilitation Unit – proposed P.144/2005. purchase (P.144/2005) – comments. Com. Presented by the Finance and Economics Committee.

Field 571, La  Rue du Puits Mahaut, Grouville : petition (P.147/2005) – comments. P.147/2005. Presented by the Environment and Public Services Committee. Com.

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

Matters lodged

The following matters were lodged "au Greffe" –

States Business Plan 2006-2010. P.151/2005. Presented by the Policy and Resources Committee.

Draft Amendment (No.  29) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey. P.152/2005. Presented by Deputy G.P. Southern of St.  Helier, and referred to the Privileges and

Procedures Committee.

Draft Harbour Charges (Jersey) Law 200-. P.153/2005. Presented by the Harbours and Airport Committee.

Development of a Cultural Strategy for the Island. P.154/2005. Presented by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee, and referred to the

Finance and Economics, the Environment and Public Services, and the Economic

Development Committees.

Development of a Cultural Strategy for the Island – P.172/2004 – withdrawn

THE STATES noted that, in accordance with Standing Order 22(3), the President of the Education, Sport and Culture Committee had instructed the Greffier of the States to withdraw the following matter, having lodged a revised proposition at the present meeting –

Development of a Cultural Strategy for the Island. P.172/2004. Lodged: 12th October 2004.

Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

Arrangement of public business for the next meeting on 13th September 2005

THE STATES confirmed that the following matters lodged "au Greffe" would be considered at the next meeting on 13th September 2005 –

Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No.  2) Law 200-. P.98/2005. Lodged: 24th May 2005.

Privileges and Procedures Committee.

Waterfront Enterprise Board: renewal of ten-year working limit. P.114/2005. Lodged: 21st June 2005.

Policy and Resources Committee.

Waterfront Enterprise Board: renewal of ten-year working limit (P.114/2005) – P.114/2005. comments. Com. Presented: 19th July 2005.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Waterfront Enterprise Board: renewal of ten-year working limit (P.114-2005) – P.114/2005. amendment. Amd. Lodged: 5th July 2005. (re-issue) Senator P.V.F. Le  Claire.

Waterfront Enterprise Board: renewal of ten-year working limit (P.114/2005) – P.114/2005. amendment (P.114/2005  Amd.) – comments. Amd.Com. Presented: 19th July 2005.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Warr en Farm, Noirmont, St.  Brelade. P.125/2005. Lodged: 22nd June 2005.

Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St.  Brelade.

Draft Public Finances (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.133/2005. Lodged: 28th June 2005.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No.  3) (Jersey) Law 200-. P.143/2005. Lodged: 5th July 2005.

Senator S. Syvret.

Draft Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005 (Appointed Day No.  1) Act 200-. P.148/2005 Lodged: 12th July 2005.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Draft Public Finances (Comptroller and Auditor General) (Jersey) Regulations P.149/2005 200-.

Lodged: 12th July 2005.

Finance and Economics Committee.

Comptroller and Auditor General: appointment. P.150/2005

Lodged: 12th July 2005.

Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St.  Brelade.

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

Policy and Resources Committee.

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.

Development of a Cultural Strategy for the Island. P.154/2005. Lodged: 19th July 2005.

Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

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

Lodged: 3rd May 2005.

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

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

Presented: 10th May 2005.

Environment and Public Services Committee.

Long term Incapacity Allowance (LTIA) – 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 –

"( a)  Will the President inform members of the numbers of Long Term Incapacity Allowance (LTIA)

applicants there were for the 2nd quarter of 2005 together with the numbers assessed and at what percentages of incapacity?

( b ) In his response to my question of 19th April 2005, the President stated that information should be

available by the end of June 2005 on the number of LTIA claimants in the 1st quarter 2005 who were actually in work. Will the President provide these figures for members along with the equivalent figures for the last quarter of 2004, and, if unable to do so, explain the reasons why?

( c ) Also in his response to my question of 19th April 2005, the President gave comparative 2003/2004

figures for claims for the last quarter of each year for Disablement, Invalidity and LTIA benefits. These show new or re-opened claims for Invalidity at 134 compared with LTIA at 137 for the final quarter 2004. Would the President explain to members why there should be so many such claims for Invalidity in this period when this benefit had been replaced by LTIA and would he confirm whether all new claimants for long-term benefits currently being processed are now on LTIA?"

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

" ( a)  In replying to the Deputy 's questions I must stress that all figures given in my answers represent a snapshot in time.

  I n the 2nd quarter of 2005, 109 LTIA applicants have been assessed by a medical board with the

following results –

Assessment 5% 10 / 20 / 30 / 40 / 50 / 60 / 70 / 80 / 90 / 100%

15% 25% 35% 45% 55% 65% 75% 85% 95% Number 5 10 11 14 8 24 10 5 7 4 11

( b ) Allowing for late claims and assessments there were 155 valid claims for LTIA made in the last quarter

of 2004. Of this cohort of people 35 per cent worked and paid contributions in the last quarter of 2004 and for this particular cohort the figure increased to 42 per cent in the first quarter of 2005. Under the old Invalidity Benefit system claimants could not work and receive benefit. More detailed analysis of this encouraging trend will take place as further data is collated over a reasonable period of time. There were a total of 136 claims for LTIA in the first quarter 2005 of which 26 per cent of claimants worked and paid contributions.

 ( c ) Under the terms of the transition from the old to new Incapacity Benefits approved by the States,

individuals with existing Invalidity Benefit claims on 1st October 2004, retained rights acquired under the old legislation. This meant that normal medical certification procedures continued to cater for late claims,  backdating  and  medical  boarding  reports  in  Jersey  and  from  abroad  after  the  change  in legislation. Invalidity claimants are still subject to review by medical boards and these reviews were included in the total given in my answer. I can confirm that new claims processed now would receive LTIA but there is still the possibility of retained rights' cases, albeit very rarely, appearing in the future."

Proposed tax reforms – question and answer

Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern of St.  Helier tabled the following written question of Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf , Vice-President of the Finance and Economics Committee –

" T  he statement made to Parliament by Dawn Primarolo, Paymaster General of the U.K. government as detailed in a local media release by the Finance and Economics Committee dated 6th July 2005, includes the words –

T h e p roposed introduction of a zero-ten rate in Jersey is a result of a program of modernisation of the

Jersey tax system designed to be in compliance with international standards, including those set up by the OECD and by the E.U. Code of Conduct for business taxation.'

( a ) Is the Committee satisfied that the words designed to be in compliance' are no different from the

President's media statement on the matter dated 6th July 2005, that my Committee has ensured that its proposals comply'?

( b ) The Paymaster General goes on to say The States of Jersey have kept H.M. Government informed of

developments in relation to the reform of its tax system'. Will the President inform members of the dates on  which  the  States  have  so  communicated  with  H.M.  Government  on  this  issue,  and  release  to members the content of these communications, and if not, the reasons why?

( c ) Will the President inform members whether the Committee has sought formal acceptance from the U.K.

and E.U. that its detailed proposals for tax reform including look through' provisions for company shareholders are compliant with articles B1, B2, B3, and B5 of the E.U. Code of Conduct on Business Taxation, and if not, the reasons why? and,

( d ) Would the President inform members when the Committee intends that the mechanisms for the zero-ten

proposals will be fully detailed and available not only to this Assembly, but to assessment by H.M. Government and other member states in the E.U.? If it is not intended to do this, would the President explain why?"

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

" ( a)  Yes the Committee is of the view that these two descriptions mean the same thing.

( b ) The dates on which the States of Jersey have communicated with the U.K. Government on this issue are

as follows –

1 0 t h M a y 2002

1 4 t h J u n e 2002

9 t h J u l y 2002

2 4 t h S e p tember 2002 1 5 t h O c tober 2002

4 t h D  e ce mber 2002 1 7 th June 2003

8 th March 2004

1 5 th April 2004

2 3 rd June 2004

8 th March 2005.

 T h ese communications with the U.K. Government either consisted of meetings between Jersey and U.K.

officials; meetings between Jersey political representatives accompanied by their officials and their equivalents in the U.K. or, in the case of 15th October 2002 communication, in the form of a letter from the then Senator Pierre Horsfall to Dawn Primarolo, U.K. Paymaster General. There has also been a written exchange of correspondence between the Government of the States of Guernsey and the U.K. Government in April 2004, where Jersey Government representatives were joined in both the drafting of the letter and in the representations made on a particular technical issue on the proposals to comply with the E.U. Code of Conduct on Business Taxation.

 T h e meeting on 14th June 2002, was between Senator Horsfall, accompanied by the then Chief Executive

of Policy and Resources, and the U.K. Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Tony Blair.

 A  part from the aforementioned letter of 15th October 2002, which has already been released to the States

Shadow Scrutiny Panel on GST, there will be no release of the content of any of these communications for the reasons already explained at item 6 of the letter dated 13th June 2005, from Senator Frank Walker President of the Policy and Resources Committee to the President of the Shadow Scrutiny Panel. This summarises the reasons why such communications are not for release and these reasons are further strengthened by additional discussions with the U.K. Government on the issue which has established that, from their view point, all of this material relates to communications between Governments in matters of national interest. As such, from a U.K. perspective it is exempt from disclosure under the U.K. Freedom of Information Act. U.K. Government Representatives have indicated that they would expect an equivalent standard and equivalent treatment in Jersey to apply.

( c ) The Committee will not seek formal acceptance from the U.K. and the E.U. that its detailed proposals for

tax reform are compliant with the quoted articles of the E.U. Code of Conduct on business taxation for several reasons. Chief amongst these are the following –

  J er s ey is a tax autonomous jurisdiction and for the purposes of tax is akin to a nation state. The

Island, therefore, sees no purpose or reason to seek the approval of either the E.U. or the U.K. in respect of any aspect of its system of taxation, other than voluntarily. In consequence, it also sees no reason why Jersey should be expected to seek line by line sign off, noting in addition that even E.U. member states themselves are not required to seek such sign off within the Code of Conduct process  on  a  formal  legal  basis.  If  we  were  to  take  such  a  course  ourselves  we  would  be diminishing our domestic autonomy at a time when we are seeking to increase our International personality.

T h e C o d e of Conduct on business taxation is a political process to which Jersey has joined itself voluntarily. It does not work on the principle of certification or a statement of legal compliance

either amongst the member states themselves or in its outreach application to third parties. As with much of the E.U. process, conclusions reached are matters of political judgement. The Island

takes the same approach in this respect. It should  be stressed again that the Island's interface with the Code

process is a voluntary matter without legal compulsion as Jersey is not a European Union Member State nor bound by E.U. processes whether legal or informal.

N  o tw  it h standing that Jersey's participation in this exercise is voluntary, the Committee is of the

view that the endorsement obtained from the E.U. and U.K. signals a firm acceptance from those bodies in respect of the Island's proposed tax changes and their effect relative to the Code criteria. The look through' provisions pertain to personal tax measures and are intended primarily to ensure that various tax avoidance possibilities which might in their absence otherwise be available to Jersey resident shareholders of Jersey companies can be minimised. As these proposals relate to personal tax measures they are the sole province of the nation state' and are therefore within Jersey's domestic competence, an approach which is universally adopted throughout the E.U. itself. For reference, this principle is enshrined in a document entitled A Communication from the Commission to the Council of the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee' dated 23rd May 2001 – with a separate sub-title of "Tax Policy in the European Union Priorities for the years ahead". In this document the following policy statement appears at Article 3.2.3 –

a s   p o i n te d out in section 2.3, personal income taxes fall in their entirety under the sole

responsibility of member states'.

I t  f o ll o w s that if the E.U. member states amongst themselves do not have the right to intervene in,

nor mandate the intervention of the European Commission in, each others' personal taxation measures then this inhibition, also extends to third parties outside the E.U. such as Jersey or fellow Crown Dependencies which have voluntarily joined themselves to the E.U. Code of Conduct process. On this basis the Committee takes the view that the look through' provisions element of our fiscal re-structuring proposals is not a matter which falls within those voluntary arrangements.

What may also be of interest is a recent European Court of Justice (ECJ) position. Europe's highest Court has recently ruled in favour of the Dutch Government in a landmark case concerning the free movement of capital. The ECJ said that the way the Dutch Government discriminated between residents and non-residents in its levying of a wealth tax did not breach European law. The decision, say tax experts, could mark another significant milestone in the approach taken by the ECJ towards national tax rules.

 T h e Committee sees no need for further formal contact with the E.U. on this issue beyond the contents of

the ECOFIN endorsement documented on 3rd June 2003, and in terms of its ongoing discussions with the U.K. Government. It should be noted that the latter also holds the chair of the E.U. Code of Conduct on Business Taxation Group.

( d ) Some detail regarding the proposed mechanisms for the implementation of the Zero / Ten proposals

agreed by the States already exists, either in the form of various Propositions put to the Assembly, notably P.106/2004 and P.44/2005, and various other documents in the public domain. The concrete legislative proposals will be bought to the States in 2007. The response in respect of any intention for there to be further assessment by the U.K. Government and its fellow member States in the E.U. in this respect is documented in c) above)."

Policing of persons entering the Island – question and answer

Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton of St. Helier tabled the following written question of Senator Wendy Kinnard, President of the Home Affairs Committee –

" W ould the President inform members –

( a ) whether the States of Jersey Police have the legal authority to stop, apprehend, refuse entry and deport if

necessary, offenders arriving in the Island who have criminal records from other jurisdictions in serious crimes including drug related crime, violence against women and children and other violence in general, and, if so, to what extent?

( b ) whether the States of Jersey Police have the legal authority to escort persons off the Island who are

apprehended and who have outstanding warrants issued by U.K., E.U. or Irish jurisdictions who are otherwise not collected by officials from those jurisdictions following notification?

(c )  whether the Committee will review, in liaison with other States Committees as appropriate, legal

provisions to control who may, and who may not, enter the Island legally and seek residence and employment? and,

( d ) whether the Committee will enter into discussions with the appropriate authorities on our sister Channel

Island, Guernsey, in relation to the implementation of law in connection with (c) above in order to explore how both Islands might work together?"

The President of the Home Affairs Committee tabled the following written answer –

" ( a) The States of Jersey Police have no powers to restrict entry to the Island to persons who are arriving from within the Common Travel Area on the grounds that they have a criminal record, or to refuse entry, or to arrest, detain, or impede the movement of any person on the grounds that they appear to be wanted for an offence in another jurisdiction, or are subject to any warrant or other court order requesting their arrest.

Im  m i g ration officers may refuse leave to enter to immigration offenders who arrive from abroad, (not the

Common Travel Area), and return them abroad. The Lieutenant Governor may order the deportation of a person, who is not a British National, on the recommendation of the Court, and having taken into account all relevant factors, including any previous criminal record.

( b ) The States of Jersey Police do not have the legal authority to escort persons off the Island who are

apprehended and who have outstanding warrants issued by U.K., E.U. or Irish jurisdictions who are otherwise not collected by officials from those jurisdictions, as they have no power to arrest persons wanted for offences in other jurisdictions. In the case of persons wanted on warrant in other jurisdictions there is still no power of arrest until that warrant is backed' in Jersey.

A s st a ted in the previous written answer to the Deputy 's question on 21st June 2005, legislation on the

backing' of English warrants in Jersey is specific in respect of those warrants that can be backed. (Indictable Offences Act 1848, s 13, as amended by the Courts Act 1971, Schedule 8).

W a r r a nts can normally be backed in Jersey in the following cases –

W  a r ra n t o f arrest of the accused on failure to appear before a Magistrate's Court.

W  a r ra n t o f commitment in default of payment of a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order

of a Magistrate's Court.

W  a r ra n t o f commitment in default of payment of a sum payable in forfeiture of recognizance.

W  a r ra n t o f arrest of a witness on failure to appear before a Magistrate's Court.

W  a r ra n t o f arrest issued by a court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy.

W a r r a nts cannot be backed in the under mentioned cases –

W  a r ra n t s o f arrest of the accused on failure to surrender to bail before a Magistrate's Court (with the

exception that one can normally be backed if the offence is indictable).

W  a r ra n t s o f arrest for breach of a probation or community service order.

W  a r ra n t o f arrest on the commission of a further offence by a person in whose case a probation order

or order of conditional discharge has been made.

L e g is l ation in respect of the backing of warrants (Republic of Ireland and Jersey) Order 1965 is again

specific –

W  h e r e a w  arrant for the arrest of a person accused or convicted of –

 a n i n d ic t ab l e o f fence;

 a n o f fe n c e p u n ishable on summary conviction within six months of imprisonment, and

 a n ap p l i ca t io n for endorsement of the warrant is made to the Bailiff by a police officer who

produces a warrant and swears on oath that he has reason to believe the person named or described therein to be within the Bailiwick.

H o w ev er, where a person is accused of an offence, not being an indictable offence but an offence which on summary conviction is punishable by six months' imprisonment, a warrant shall not be endorsed

unless the person has previously failed to answer to a summons, or has failed to appear in answer to bail.

( c ) The Migration policy, which was adopted by the States in June 2005, states at section 3(c) – E n su r i n g  t h e rights of free movement of people

A l l B r it is h c itizens and certain Commonwealth citizens have the right of abode in Jersey and are

free to live in and come and go into and from Jersey without let or hindrance, except as may be required under the Immigration Act or as otherwise may be lawfully imposed on any person. Also, all nationals of other E.E.A. Member States (E.U. member States plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein), do not need leave to enter or remain in Jersey – if they do so in circumstances in which they would be entitled to enter or remain in the U.K.

If a n e w   m  ig ration policy and regulation systems were to amount to control over these rights, it

would be inconsistent with the law, as presently in force. Control of immigration at the point of entry could not be introduced for British, certain Commonwealth and E.E.A. nationals without change to existing international law, which would be extremely difficult and would require the agreement of all affected parties.

In s h o rt , th e international legal position in which Jersey exists prohibits –

t h e in t r o d u ct i on of immigration or border controls in relation to U.K., EEA and certain

Commonwealth citizens;

 ta k i n g m  e a su r e s which would amount to control over the rights of such citizens to come and live

in the Island;

t h e Is l a n d f r o m treating U.K. citizens differently from citizens of other E.U. states and EEA

citizens – in relation to their rights to establish themselves in the Island, and;

t a k in g a c t io n s which might not be consistent with the U.K. Immigration Act as extended to

Jersey, Article  4 of Protocol 3 and European Court judgements relating thereto.

A n o t h er a im   of the proposals is to uphold these existing international commitments regarding the

rights of free movement of people.'

D u r i n g the debate on the Migration Policy, adopted by the States in June 2005, the President of the

Policy and Resources Committee undertook to review the international legal position with regard to people's right to freedom of entry and whether the States could tighten border controls. The President of the Policy and Resources Committee further undertook to investigate the position in Guernsey with particular reference to whether it would be possible and effective to require individuals seeking entry to state any criminal convictions on application, while maintaining the Island's international commitments. The Home Affairs Committee would welcome the opportunity to contribute to any such policy review and has stated in the Committee's draft Criminal Justice Policy, Developing Jersey's Criminal Justice Policy', June 2005, that the Committee will have regard to the outcome of the review undertaken by the Policy and Resources Committee prior to the lodging of the Policy for debate.

(d ) Again, during the debate on Migration Policy, the President of Policy and Resources Committee

indicated that he would be willing to raise the issue of border controls with the other British Islands. This issue will be raised at the forthcoming inter-Island conference to be held in the Isle of Man on 26th July 2005. Both the Presidents of the Policy and Resources and the Home Affairs Committees will be attendees at the conference."

Oral questions

1. D  ep utyJ.A. Hilton ofSt. Helier ofthePresidentoftheHousingCommittee:

" W o uld the President inform members whether the Committee has received any complaints from distressed residents of Jane Sandeman Court in connection with vandalism, particularly regarding cars parked in the basement garage and youths gathering in the stairwell/fire exit areas of the building at night and, if so, what action is the Committee taking?"

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

" T h e Committee has received several complaints from residents of Jane Sandeman Court, as it has done from residents of Jardin du Soleil, Convent Court, Ann Court, Keith Baal Gardens, Liberation Court, Hue Court and other estates in connection with vandalism to cars and with young people accessing the properties. Certainly, as far as I am aware, none of these complainants were distressed. The Deputy asks what action the Committee is taking. Well, the Committee works very closely with the police to mitigate the opportunities for young people to access housing property and, when funds allow us, we do place CCTV cameras and other security measures to mitigate the problem. As I say, Sir, Jane Sandeman Court has similar problems to many other estates and there is no reason given our limited funding to make a special case for Jane Sandeman Court when there are other estates suffering the same problems. My officers continue to try to work with the residents of all estates to effect solutions to problems."

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

" W il l the President confirm that I have been pursuing this matter on behalf of the residents of Jane Sandeman Court since last year, and can he give the residents of Jane Sandeman Court and other developments, particularly in St. Helier, who are suffering these problems a cast iron assurance that this matter will be addressed by his Committee as soon as possible, including coming back to the States requesting additional funding to address these very urgent problems? I understand that the Housing Department gave up a sum of money in the region of £625,000 as a result of the Fundamental Spending Review (FSR) in 2002 for 2003. So will the President comment on how much this has impacted on the ability of the Department to carry out their duty to those tenants who are paying rents as far as maintenance of the properties go and the policing of these properties?"

D e p u ty T.J. Le  Main:

" C a n  I just say, Sir, that the Deputy is overplaying the seriousness of the situation? Yes, there are some difficulties, but, as I explained and my officers explained at the last Social Strategy meeting with various Presidents, things are improving in many of the estates and the issues regarding some of these problems are constantly being addressed. We believe, Sir, that with the goodwill of residents and residents'

associations, many of our problems will diminish. Now, as far as the funding is concerned, it is all very well to

say that the Housing Committee have given up some of their funds. The Housing Committee, as part of the overall team in the States of Jersey, and as all the Committees, has had to play its part in reducing the amount of funding that was available to Committees. The Committee has played a part not only in that, but also in the reduction by 10 per cent of our staff and staff wage bill. The issue is quite clear. At the moment, led by Deputy Dorey and Deputy Reed, the Housing Committee will be coming forward with a mechanism which ought to in the future have adequate funding for much of what is required in the future."

1(b) D eputy J.B. Fox of St.  Helier:

" I  w o nder if the President would recognise that one of the problems in back streets and on some estates is the fact that there is a lack of amenity space for young people, especially green space? I would ask if he would take back to his Committee the suggestion that the little vacant plots of land, even if on a temporary basis, could be considered as little kick-around football areas for the kids, or as play areas, during the period that they are awaiting further development and encourage other property developers to do likewise? That might help the situation."

D e p u ty T.J. Le  Main:

" Y e s , Sir. It is certainly a high priority that play areas are provided everywhere now. In fact, we are working very closely with the Parish officials of St.  Saviour and particularly Deputy Le  Hérissier in th provision of further issues around places like Les Cinq Chenes and this does apply all round the Island and includes St.  Helier. Unfortunately, places like Jane Sandeman Court were missed out in the previous life of Deputy Fox, who was the adviser for security measures. I just wonder if Deputy Fox missed this one a little bit on his rounds."

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

" D o e s the President not agree that problems with vandalism and such like, and bad behaviour, are made worse by the absence of proper maintenance over such things as broken windows and broken locks all around increasingly dilapidated housing stock?"

D e p u ty T.J. Le  Main:

" N o ,  I don't agree, Sir. If that was the case, it would be the case. That is not the case with Housing property. There are no situations like that, apart from maybe an odd one. But generally the properties are well kept and maintained. The issue over many of these properties is they are being accessed by youngsters that have no right to be on the properties and do not live on the properties. We have a group of young people that tend to go round and congregate in certain areas, in certain places all round the Island. One minute they are in Gorey. They come from all parts of the Island. Another time, they are in parts of St. Helier. The great difficulty is the issue of people that don't live on the estates. Certainly the Housing Committee does take strict action against parents of children or youngsters that are causing aggravation."

1(d) S enator P.V.F. Le  Claire:

"D  o e s the President recognise that, in raising these questions and in raising these supplementary questions,

politicians are not merely out to castigate the Housing Committee? In fact, what they are trying to do is work in harmony with them to address these issues, which the Housing Committee knows only too well. Would he answer that question, confirming that he recognises that other politicians putting forward these questions are actually trying to work with the Housing Committee. Would he also – as he has agreed to come to look at the estate – be aware of the fact that, having visited it recently, I was given a copy of a letter in which the residents expressed their concerns in the following areas in relation to Jane Sandeman Court: Fences are broken and in need of repair; handrails are missing; gardens are beginning to deteriorate where ivy is advancing outside of the possible maintenance of the residents; smoking is occurring in a fire exit; children are using the open space as a thoroughfare; and elderly residents are being confronted by children who are swearing at them, making indeed the elderly residents of this estate quite upset.' Would the President undertake to recognise that, in questioning him this morning, we are not trying to confront him but merely solve the problems that face many of the residents of St. Helier?"

D e p u ty T.J. Le  Main:

" N o , Sir, I certainly don't believe that at all. In fact, this Housing President is a President that will work with all States members. I believe that every States member in this Assembly is a very strong ally of the Housing Committee and, whenever we do any work or any consultation or anything, I am the first one to contact the representatives of the districts and to keep them informed of what is going on. But many of the issues, as read out by Senator Le  Claire there, are police issues and there are issues of bad behaviour occurring on estates which the Housing Committee, whatever it is going to do, is not going to be able to alleviate the problems because these youngsters are coming in from outside estates. Whether you put the tightest security, there always seems to be ways and means that they are being accessed."

1(e) D eputy G.P. Southern :

" N o t withstanding the President's beliefs and his previous answer, does he not accept that it is becoming increasingly difficult for his tenants to access routine maintenance and even in some cases emergency maintenance nowadays?"

D e p u ty T.J. Le  Main:

" N o , Sir. I think that the issue is that we have had – the States as a whole have had – a difficult time in having the proper funding for any of the Committees. Several of the Committees, not only the Housing Committee, have certain difficulties in providing the services they did in the past. As I have explained, we have had a rôle to play by co-operating and working with all other Committees. We have had to take a drop in our funding, but the issue is that I have promised you – hopefully by the end of this year – that we, the Housing Committee, will be back with a Report and Proposition which should address future funding. I would rather hope that all members will give their whole-hearted support to the Housing Committee."

1(f) D  eputy J.A. Hilton:

" I  a m  comforted by the President just saying that he will come back to the House by the end of the year with plans on how he is going to confront this problem so that the people of Jane Sandeman Court who I have been  in contact  with  on almost  a  monthly basis  since  last  year about  the  vandalism and  the behaviour of youths drinking and doing all sorts of things down in the basement garage is addressed. So I thank him for his response in that matter and I hope the residents of Jane Sandeman Court can bear with us still for hopefully not more another 6 months before this problem is addressed."

D e p u ty T.J. Le  Main:

"M  y   only comment is to say that I have also met residents on the estate with officers and we are still today

looking at ways and means of trying to achieve this with a limited funding. We will do all we can for the residents of Jane Sandeman Court, as we will do all the other estates."

T h e  D  eputy of St. John:

S ir , c an I ask that Standing Order 14B be lifted, given that we have some 8 questions and 12 minutes was

spent on the first question?"

T h e  G  reffier:

D e p u ty Le  Hérissier gave notice of that proposition, but decided not to propose it, Deputy , so I do not

think it is appropriate, but I am sure we will get through."

2. T h  e Deputy of St.  John to the Presidentof Policy andResourcesCommittee:

" H a s the Committee already spent any funds previously allocated to the 2006 Census and, if so, why was this not reported to the States; and will the Committee agree to an audit of its spending in order to ensure that it all relates to the intended specific purpose?"

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

" S ir , no. The Committee has not spent any of the funds previously allocated for the 2006 Census. The much needed work on developing social and economic statistics has been undertaken thus far using existing Statistics Unit resources. The Deputy will be aware that all States Departments are subject to both internal and external audit, and my Committee would be happy to agree to an audit of its spending at any time."

2(a) T he Deputy of St.  John:

" C a n  the President explain then how come at the previous meeting he mentioned that the Statistics Unit in fact was being funded through the Census, or did I understand him incorrectly, which is quite possible, because sometimes he does talk very low?"

S e n a tor F.H. Walker :

" H e  d  id understand me incorrectly, but it has nothing to do with the way I speak and more to do with his level of comprehension. What I said in the debate was that if we were going to go on to develop much more meaningful statistical information on topics such as determinance of health, factors influencing travel, disability, public services, trade and investment, additional funding is needed. Had the States accepted the position following the statement I made on our proposal to move the next Census to 2011, then money allocated to the 2006 Census would have been spent on those very important pieces of information. As it now stands, we will not be able to provide those pieces of information and we will continue, sadly in many cases, to take decisions in the dark."