In the light of the recent Court Case involving the then Acting Magistrate, what proposals is the Chief Minister considering to ensure that matters are dealt with more expeditiously in the future, and does he propose to review the issue of full remuneration while any Court case is resolved ?

Answer

Dealing with difficult cases such as those recently encountered with the Magistrate Designate is not straightforward. An individual must be innocent until proven guilty. In the case of a Justice this is further complicated by the need for separation of powers between judiciary and legislature.

The issues arising are being considered and my proposals will follow best practice elsewhere and be the subject of consultation.

2.2 DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING CONSULTATION REGARDING THE HARBOUR CYCLE TRACK SCHEME:

Question

Further to answers the Minister gave on 15th January 2013 regarding the harbour cycle track scheme, would he identify when the Marine Traders Federation were consulted, given that the latter have no record of such consultation?

Answer

The Director of Transport and Acting Senior Engineer met with a representative of the Jersey Marine Traders Federation on Friday 12th August 2012 at 14.30hrs at TTS’s South Hill Offices.

Question

Will the Minister inform members how many of the 1,442 job opportunities, including 90 non-locally qualified created by the 172 licences for undertakings from inward investment in Jersey in the period 2008 to 2012 announced in his Media Release of 14th January 2013, have actually been filled, broken down by year and by sector?

Will he further state how many of these licences granted, and how many of these jobs created, were in the finance sector and subject to tax at the 10% rate by year? Will he further state how much company tax these companies actually paid by year?

Will he also state for those companies in the oil, gas and mining sectors who are not directly involved in extraction in Jersey, what activities they actually undertake in the Island to justify their presence and registration in the Island?

Answer

Will the Minister inform members how many of the 1,442 “job opportunities”, including 90 non-locally qualified created by the 172 licences for undertakings from inward investment in Jersey in the period 2008 to 2012 announced in his Media Release of 14th January 2013, have actually been filled, broken down by year and by sector?

Of the job opportunities created, 819 had been filled by June 2012. Additional opportunities filled since then will be accounted for once the December 2012 manpower returns are completed and the figures released.

The attached chart shows the breakdown of the jobs filled in various sectors during the period December 2008 – 2012. We have not broken the information down to year by year for two reasons. Firstly, staffing licences are granted under the Regulation of Undertakings and Development Law on a 3 year basis and therefore businesses will fill the available posts depending on their growth over a rolling period. Secondly, it may be possible to identify an individual business from the sector and therefore be able to ascertain staffing licence numbers which are confidential to that business.

One of the key aims of the Economic Growth and Diversification Strategy is the growth and diversification of the finance sector, which provides 41% of GVA. Therefore, I am delighted that of the 172 licences granted, 43 were for finance sector related undertakings. In the time available to answer this question it has been estimated that approximately a quarter of these businesses are subject to a 10% tax rate. These businesses have created 442 job opportunities, of which 220 had been filled at June 2012.

My department is not privy to tax paid by individual businesses or persons. This is confidential between the business and/or individual and the Income Tax Department.

These businesses undertake a wide variety of businesses activity within the Island. These activities include having their headquarters with senior employees based in Jersey, for example, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Finance Officer and Chief Operating Officer. Employees are also involved in marketing, finance, analysis, accountancy and sales. Local personnel are also employed on site at locations across the world.

2.7 DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS:

Question

Will the Minister give a breakdown of the total cost to his Department in respect of the disciplinary action against three of the officers involved with the importation of illegal drugs in 2007, as follows -

(a) The cost of the criminal investigation by Hampshire Police and their associated legal costs?

(b) The States’ police’s legal costs preceding the disciplinary Hearing?

(d) The travel and accommodation cost for the various officers attending the disciplinary Hearing?

and advise from which budget the funding is coming from?

Answer

It is only possible to give precise figures for bills paid to date for matters other than normal police officers’ time and the figures below refer to this.

(a) It should be noted that the investigation into the actions of the three officers started as a general review of police actions. As issues arose, it became an investigation into potential criminal and / or disciplinary proceedings. The total cost of the whole process was £117,104.

(b) There was more than one disciplinary hearing, so I am not sure as to which hearing the Deputy is referring. This notwithstanding , it is not possible to separate out the legal costs incurred preceding any disciplinary hearing from those incurred during a disciplinary hearing as, understandably, a great deal of work is done in the run up to a hearing as well as during. The total legal costs associated with the disciplinary hearings to date are £119,808. This figure includes the £10,000 that I agreed to contribute towards the legal costs to ensure equality of arms for both sides after it was brought to my attention by the independent Chief Officer conducting the disciplinary proceedings that the financial resources available to the Police Association may be exceeded.

(d) The cost of travel and accommodation for the officers attending the disciplinary hearings to date are £4,562.

The budget is part of expenditure on Police Operations and has been funded from the 2012 Police Budget.

2.8 DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING legal powers of the U.K. to prevent Jersey signing a Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) agreement with the U.S.A:

Question

Will HM Attorney General advise whether the United Kingdom government has any legal power to prevent Jersey signing the proposed FATCA with the USA and, if so, can he explain the legal and/or constitutional basis for this can be found. And, in this eventuality, what appeals mechanisms does the Island have against this decision?

Answer

A FATCA agreement concluded between Jersey and the United States of America would be an international agreement which can normally only be entered into between sovereign states.

Jersey is not a sovereign state and as such has no power to enter into international agreements without the consent of the Crown, in right of the Government of the United Kingdom (hereafter referred to as “the UK”).

The UK has, however, allowed Jersey to enter into international agreements relating to taxation information under a letter of entrustment dated the 23rd November 2009. It has further entered into an agreement with Jersey on the 1st May 2007 known as the “Framework Agreement” under which it is agreed that Jersey will develop its international identity.

Accordingly, the UK should consent to the conclusion of a FATCA Inter-governmental agreement made on appropriate terms between the United States of America and Jersey.

There is no right of appeal, per se, but should the UK unreasonably withhold consent to such an agreement then that decision may be amenable to Judicial Review in the High Court of England and Wales.

2.9 DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING the use of rooms in the Magistrate’s Court Building:

Question

Are rooms in the Magistrate’s Court building, Union Street, either rented, leased, hired, loaned or used by any private organisations? If so, what rooms, by whom, and for what consideration?

Answer

The ‘Magistrate’s Court Building’ includes areas occupied by the Probation and After Care Service as well as the Courts themselves and ancillary offices.

No rooms are rented, leased or hired to any third party for a monetary consideration. Detailed below are the circumstances in which rooms may be permitted to be used by other organisations:-

1. The Magistrate's Court will make available a Court for Law Firms for the following:

Yearly - practical experience of Court processes for 6th Form students
Practical experience of Court processes for newly qualified Advocates

The above are normally a full day session.

Ad-hoc lunchtime sessions covering issues such as Bail, Committals etc

2. The Magistrate's Court makes provision for the following training:

Witness Skills Training - run by Highlands College on behalf of the States of Jersey
Police Witness Skills and Court Processes
Prison Officers Court Processes
JFSC Court Process training

The above are normally full day sessions.

Centeniers training - normally a Saturday morning run by the Police Legal Advisers

3. Interview rooms are used on an ad-hoc basis for a variety of reasons regarding the court - for example debt collection agencies for consultation with clients during Petty Debts Court sessions, Advocates interviewing clients prior to court appearances etc.

4. The Victim Support and Witness Service, Centeniers and the Law Officers' Department are provided with a dedicated room and use of other rooms on an 'as required' basis - for example the training of new volunteers for the Victim and Witness Support service. This is provided rent free in recognition of the service provided to victims and witnesses

5. The Magistrate's Court is part of the Court Service estate and is frequently used by the Royal Court and the Appeal Court.

6. There are a number of informal visits to the Magistrate's Court from organisations such as the secondary schools/colleges, Scouts and Hackney Boys Club which, strictly speaking, also use rooms.

7. The Magistrate's Court has an agreed protocol for the Police to use the Custody Suite as an emergency Police Station - this has been activated twice.

There is no charge levied on any of the above activities as they are viewed as being supportive of the overall aims of the Court.

8. Probation provides an office space for the part time co-ordinator of the ADAPT programme for domestic violence perpetrators as part of the States and Court support for the charity. The co-ordinator is employed by a charity (the Hampton Trust) and in return no charge is made by the Trust for Probation Service referrals which are usually over 50% of those on the programme.

9. Very occasionally Probation has allowed ad hoc use of an interview room for medical professionals preparing a report for the Courts when there is a security risk. No charge is levied by Probation.

2.10 DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING the amount spent on a super-injunction case:

Question

In responding to my question as to how much taxpayers' money had been spent and/or allocated in support of the so-called 'super-injunction’ case being brought by four private individuals under the Data Protection Law, the Assistant Chief Minister stated that he could not answer as this was sub-judice. Will the Attorney General clarify -

1) that this does indeed apply to revelation of monies/costs even though they have nothing to do actual facts of the case;

2) provide the exact wording of this ruling;

3) outline when the Crown/Law Officers were engaged in support of the case?

Answer

It is a matter for the Chief Minister, as for any States Member, as to how he or she answers a question in the Assembly. The term “sub judice” means “under judicial consideration” and embodies a rule that governs what public statements can be made about ongoing legal proceedings and, generally, prevents States Members from discussing matters awaiting or under adjudication in the courts. The Attorney General is unable to express any view on whether or not the matter is in fact “sub judice”.

The question does not make it clear what “ruling” it refers to and the Attorney General is therefore unable to answer it, even were it appropriate to do so;

The Attorney General assumes that the expression “Crown/Law Officers” refers to the Attorney General and the Solicitor General and, in this instance, the Law Officers’ Department. Neither the Law Officers nor anyone else in the Law Officers’ Department have been engaged to provide advice or support in any case which the Attorney General believes may be referred to in the question.

2.11 DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING proposed changes to the Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948:

Question

Will the Chief Minister detail who initiated the proposed change to the Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948 (P.93/2012) allowing Guernsey Jurats to potentially sit on Jersey cases?

Answer

The proposed change to the Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948 was initiated from the Bailiff’s Chambers in 2010 and following discussion with Guernsey was lodged in the Assembly for the reasons set out in the accompanying report.

2.12 DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION REGARDING the base figures used in its report:

Question

Will the Chairman of the Electoral Commission explain why the Commission chose to base its proposals on the number of eligible voters in each Parish rather than the higher figure of the population of each Parish, given that all parishioners can expect to receive representation?

Answer

The Commission’s terms of reference required it to consider constituencies and mandates. Proposals based on the population of each parish would potentially have taken it into territory that fell outside its terms of reference, and would have required the Commission to set aside academic advice on best practice.

In paragraphs 5.27 – 5.33 of the final report, the Commission makes the case for each eligible voter to be able to exercise broadly similar voting power whilst maintaining the simplicity of a system based on parish boundaries. Considered advice from Dr. Alan Renwick, a reader in comparative politics and Director of Postgraduate Research Studies in Politics at the University of Reading, refined the Commission’s thinking in this regard. Dr. Renwick prepared several reports at the request of the Commission and these can be accessed via the Commission’s website using the following link -

http://www.electoralcommission.je/news/research/

In his report entitled: ‘The Jersey States Assembly in Comparative Perspective,’ Dr. Renwick provides, amongst other things, a most helpful explanation of the standard measure of mal-apportionment and of the value of the Sainte-Laguë apportionment method (also known as Webster’s method) to achieve equality in the value of the vote among pre-determined districts. In both cases, the number of eligible voters is taken into account, rather than the overall population.

The final part of this question raises the issue of who should be entitled to vote, as well as how those who are not entitled to vote have their voices heard in a democracy. Neither of these questions fall readily within the Commission’s terms of reference. It is nevertheless a matter of record that the States revisited the former question as recently as 2007, when it elected to lower the voting age from 18 to 16. Regarding the latter issue of voices being heard, the Commission is sure that all Members endeavour to uphold their duty to represent all their constituents in a manner consistent with their oath of office.

2.13 DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING the Jersey Finance industry in 2012:

Question

Can the Minister outline what the estimated total of monies channelled through Jersey by the financial industry was in 2012; how this has reduced since the onset of the global downturn of 2008; and what is the estimated total benefit to the Island in terms of both overall taxation and investment as of 2012?

Answer

It is not possible presently to provide a total estimate of ‘monies channelled’ through Jersey because of the wide range of financial services activity that takes place on the Island and the different ways in which it occurs, many of which cannot really be described as 'channelling'. However, some further work is being undertaken on this at the moment which will be reported to States Members in due course. For example, in banking the total value of (sterling and foreign currency) deposits in Jersey as published by the JFSC amounted to just under £150bn in the third quarter of 2012. This compares to the equivalent figure of just over £200bn at the end of 2008, although it must be remembered that trends are affected by exchange rate trends because they include foreign currency deposits. In addition, the net asset value of funds managed in Jersey was just under £190bn in the third quarter of 2012, compared with about £240bn at the end of 2008.

It is understood that Jersey Finance, at a recent industry update, gave their estimate of the benefit of the Finance industry to the Jersey economy through taxes and duties as £300million per annum. The latest estimate from the Economic Adviser’s Department of the benefit, based on the 2010 year of assessment, is that it provides approximately 50% of the Taxes and Duties raised. This figure is currently being updated based on the latest available information.

In terms of the benefit of the Finance Industry to Jersey it is possible to consider this in terms of economic activity (GVA), employment and expenditure by finance businesses in the economy. Figures for 2012 are not yet available for some of these, so, making an estimate based on 2011 would suggest the following:

 Gross Value Added (GVA) of the Finance sector in 2011 was £1,493 million or 41% of total GVA that year

 Gross Value Added (GVA) of the Finance sector in 2008 was £1,716 million or 46% of total GVA that year

(Source: Jersey Economic Trends 2012 – Statistics Unit)

 Employment in the Finance sector in June 2012 was 12,590 staff, or 22% of the total number of people employed at that time

 Employment in the Finance sector in 2008 was 13,220 staff, or 23% of the total number of people employed at that time

(Source: Jersey Labour Market at June 2012 – Statistics Unit)

 Expenditure on Goods and Services by the Finance Sector in 2011 was £410 million

 Expenditure on Goods and Services by the Finance Sector in 2008 was £352 million

(Survey of Financial Institutions 2008 and 2011 – Statistics Unit)

2.14 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING DETAILS OF 400 JOBS CREATED:

Question

Following the Minister’s statement to the media regarding his department’s role in job creation in the Island will he outline, using the following table, details of the 400 jobs created?

Name of Firm	Type of Business	No. of jobs created	Type of job created	Full or part time	Date created

Note: Type of job created e.g. Clerical, sales, junior management, middle management, senior management, technical, junior, driver etc.

Answer

I have not identified specific companies and their business details previously for the reasons outlined in my answers to question 1240/5/6937 and 1240/5/6969 and I refer the Deputy to Hansard.

If the Deputy is referring to the 428 job opportunities created in 2012, a sectoral breakdown is provided below. The type of jobs vary depending upon the business and the sector but include CEO, CFO, administration, accountants, sales, waiter and waitresses, IT and marketing.

2.15 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING the accountability of Law Officers to the States of Jersey:

Question

Will Her Majesty’s Attorney General explain to members the various checks and balances that apply to the Law Officers and the Law Officers Department and explain how and in what way the department is accountable to the States of Jersey Assembly?

Answer

It is unclear from the question precisely what is intended by “accountability” and “checks and balances”.

The Attorney General and Solicitor General are appointed by the Crown and hold office during good behaviour. Although the Attorney General is the senior Law Officer they are independent of each other. The Law Officers have supervision of the Criminal and Civil Functions of the department through the Director of the Criminal Division and the Director of the Civil Division. The Law Officers are sworn office holders and are bound by the terms of their oaths.

Many of the members of the Department are also lawyers who owe independent professional obligations. Other than the Law Officers, all members of the department are subject to the codes of conduct and other policies applying to all civil servants.

The Law Officers’ Department carries out a number of different functions and different considerations apply to the various functions.

Neither the Law Officers nor the department are accountable to the States Assembly for prosecution decisions or prosecutorial matters which are and must remain independent of political considerations and pressure.

Similarly, the Law Officers’ Department is not accountable to the States Assembly for operational matters as it must maintain its ability to give impartial and independent advice.

Subject to such exceptions the Law Officers’ Department is accountable to the States Assembly through the Attorney General or Solicitor General who are members of the Assembly.

Financially the Law Officers’ Department is accountable to the Chief Minister’s Department and Treasury and thereby ultimately to the States Assembly for matters of financial management.

Some decisions of the Law Officers may be challenged before the courts. In the exercise of their functions, the Law Officers are public authorities under the Human Rights Jersey Law and must therefore act compatibly with the Convention rights of others, whenever such rights are engaged by the exercise of those functions.

Should the States Assembly fundamentally lose confidence in a Law Officer then the Assembly could adopt a motion of no confidence in that officer. Although the motion would not be legally binding, the Crown and the officer concerned would inevitably pay regard to the views expressed by the elected representatives of the Island.

2.16 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING checks and balances regarding Health Insurance Fund (H.I.F.) payments to G.P.s.:

Question

Further to my written question 1240/5(7300), dated 11th December 2012 regarding Health Insurance Fund payments to doctors, will the Minister:

(a) explain whether a similar check to that requested in the original question has previously been carried out by the department and if not what checks and balances have been made in this area;

(b) explain the reasons why nine or more doctors are claiming more than £100,000 per annum for patient consultations in 2011;

(d) why certain doctors have had significantly high consultation and referral payments over the three years examined;

(e) why doctor 41’s level of consultation fees and referral fees appear to be physically impossible on the basis of a normal working week and number of consultations per day?

Answer

Whereas question 7300 did not explicitly refer to the checks and balances provided by my Department in respect of Health Insurance Fund payments to local GP practices, I can reiterate the information provided in response to question 7223 (asked by Senator Ferguson on 20 November 2012). This stated that:

“Claims are checked automatically using embedded business rules within the Department’s IT system before processing and invalid claims are rejected, according to those business rules. These rules include automatically rejecting multiple claims for the same consultation and alerting the Department if a patient has more than one visit/claim within 24 hours from a single surgery. In the latter scenario, payment is not made unless the surgery can confirm that it is a genuine instance of 2 separate claims. When claims are rejected, this information is provided to the GP, as each batch of claims is paid.

In addition to these automatic checks which are applied to every claim submitted, the Department undertakes periodic random checks on claims by confirming details with the individual patient, by either letter or phone call. The Department also writes directly to surgeries, again on a random basis, to confirm details of claims. Checks are also specifically undertaken in respect of patients with high numbers of consultations.

A Medical Director has recently been appointed to lead the Primary Care Governance Team and he has already undertaken a number of visits to local practices to ensure that best practice is being followed and has initially focussed upon practices with high levels of consultation or referral letters

Between 1 October 2011 and 30 September 2012 2,438 claims were disallowed.

The claims submitted by GPs include information on the identity of each patient and the date and time of their consultation.”

The variation in the level of payments demonstrated in the tables attached to answer 7300 relates to the variation in the level of activity as undertaken by individual GPs. GPs in Jersey operate as private businesses and are free to practise on a part-time or full-time basis. Within practices, some GPs will work longer hours than others. During the period in question some doctors may have been on maternity leave, sabbatical or sick leave, therefore the figures should be interpreted with caution.

I can confirm that the information provided with question 7300 included 10 GPs showing a total in excess of £100,000 for medical benefit claims in 2011 in respect of consultations. It also included eight GPs showing a total of less than £40,000 for 2011. The information identified 15 GPs with medical benefit claims in excess of £15,000 for referral letters in 2011, and a further 15 with claims of less than £5,000. These details are based on the information submitted by GP practices.

As noted previously, there will be significant variations in funding received for several reasons including:

The total number of hours worked per GP;
Number of consultations offered per hour
Knowledge base – some GPs with a particular knowledge of some aspect of general practice may see more patients in that area
Ancillary services offered – e.g. minor operations might reduce the number of claims for HIF benefit in comparison to other GPs as these procedures result in longer consultations
Amount of annual leave taken (varies between practices and between individual GPs)

Some GPs see patients with a higher morbidity index (i.e. are sicker than others) - and therefore will generate more rebates as their patients need more care.
Characteristics of the patient list for each GP that will affect the number of consultations include
- age
- disease
- co-morbidity
- health-seeking behaviour (some patients are more dependent than others)
- social situation

Some GPs are more actively involved in providing population services such as screening and immunisations
The proportion of work undertaken by the GP that receives funding from the Health Insurance Fund - some services provided by GPs do not qualify for health insurance rebates.

In addition to the above factors, referral rates can also vary for a variety of reasons including:

Knowledge base of doctor (there is evidence to suggest that doctors who have more skills in a subject may refer more patients than a doctor who is less skilled). GPs are trained as generalists and they are responsible for making appropriate referrals.
Clinical need - particularly with ageing population
Patient expectation
Obtaining access to secondary care medication or investigations e.g. MRI scans.

I can confirm that the high amounts attributed to doctor "41" in the previous answer result from an administrative error within a GP practice which led to claims from two separate GPs being submitted using a single code. This administrative error did not affect the total amount of money claimed by the practice. The Department receives claims for medical benefit in batches from GP practices, and not from individual GPs. These claims are checked as described above, and then a payment for the whole batch is made to the practice. The Department does not make medical benefit payments directly to individual GPs.

The Department has been working closely with the Primary Care Governance Team, the Primary Care Body and individual GP practices over the last few months, since the appointment of the Primary Care Medical Director, to improve the information available in respect of GP governance. This is part of a major project which began in 2010 to ensure that GPs in Jersey are working within a well regulated environment and able to meet the revalidation requirements of the UK General Medical Council.

The Primary Governance Team (PCGT) is working with GPs and practices to introduce a comprehensive governance programme. This will allow GPs to demonstrate to the UK General Medical Council that they are up to date and fit to practise. It will also provide assurance to Jersey patients that GPs are continuing to work to the highest standards.

A programme of practice visits has been introduced by the PCGT. GPs will continue to have an annual appraisal (and have done so for the last 3 years). They will now also produce information to show how they are improving the quality of their practice. They will need to show how they keep up to date and ask for feedback from patients and colleagues and agree an annual personal development plan.

Patients will not want doctors to be taken away from the time they spend with patients, so the governance framework will focus on those issues that are most important for patient care and will seek to ensure that all GPs are reflecting on their practice.

There is a close connection between clinical and financial governance and the improvement in the clinical governance of local GPs will allow enhancements to be made to the existing financial governance structure.

2.17 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING A RECENT COURT CASE:

Question

Will the Minister explain the apparent contradiction between the Supreme Court’s criticism of the actions of the three police officers involved in the recent Curtis Warren bugging case and their exoneration by the Disciplinary Panel? Is the Minister satisfied that the public retains faith in our police force and the judiciary?

Answer

These are two different sets of proceedings with different burdens of proof and with different sets of evidence being presented. The public can be fully confident that the issues were properly investigated by an outside Police Force, that the recommendations of that force were acted upon and that a disciplinary hearing was conducted in accordance with the current law.

The public may also take some comfort from the fact that independently of this case, the States of Jersey Police leadership and I have commissioned a review of the current law in relation to police disciplinary matters and that I intend to make improvements in this area.

The results of recent Jersey Annual Social Surveys of public opinion have shown a high and increasing level of public confidence in the States of Jersey Police Force and I believe that the vast majority of the public of this Island have faith in our States of Jersey Police Force and particularly in its senior leadership.

In the context of this matter I do not understand the reference to the judiciary as this disciplinary matter was presided over by the Chief Constable of another British Police Force.

2.18 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING a breakdown of expenditure of the Data Protection Commissioner for legal advice and prosecutions:

Question

Will the Chief Minister break down the expenditure of the Data Protection Commissioner for (a) legal advice and (b) prosecutions over the last five years, and explain how much money has been budgeted for legal advice and prosecutions during 2013?

Will he also explain whether the Data Protection Commissioner’s office is entitled to or has received any funds from the Court and Case Costs Fund and if so how much it has received?

Answer

Deputy Higgins has already raised the general issue as to monies being spent by the Data Commissioner in Supplementary Questions to a question asked by Deputy Tadier on 9th October 2012. As I explained at that time the budget for the Data Protection Commissioner is published as a non-executive Ministerial department which is approved by the Assembly and an annual report is produced from the Data Protection Commissioner’s office. For information, the relevant link to the States website is www.statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Reports.aspx.

Deputy Higgins has, on 20th November 2012, asked a question regarding the number of prosecutions brought by the Data Protection Commissioner under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005. The answer I provided to this question clearly stated that prosecutions for offences contrary to the law can only be brought by, and require the consent of, the Attorney General. Details of the costs incurred arising from prosecutions under the law would be a question more appropriately directed to the Attorney General.

At the last States Sitting Deputy T. Pitman asked an Oral question relating to money spent on actions under the law. The answer my Assistant Minister gave then explicitly stated that where there are proceedings that are on-going, disclosure of information, including comment on any costs incurred which have been funded from the Court and Case Costs budget, would be sub-judice.

The Data Protection Commissioner is able to request funding for particular cases from the Court and Case Costs budget but where proceedings are on-going the disclosure of information risks being sub-judice.

2.19 SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE CAPACITY OF ORCHARD HOUSE:

Question

What is the total capacity of Orchard House?

Of the current occupants, what is the length of time each occupant has been detained?

What is the longest period for which occupants have been detained?

Answer

The current capacity of Orchard House is 15 beds.

As of 22nd January 2013 there are 6 patients in Orchard House. Their length of stay to date is:

Patient	Length of stay in days
1	17
2	72
3	15
4	16
5	112
6	102

The longest period of detention is not a simple concept. A person can be detained in hospital under Article 6 of the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 1969 for observation, Article 7 for treatment, or Article 10 for an emergency placement. In addition, an Article 20 can also be applied, allowing a person to return home for a leave of absence whilst still remaining under Article 6, 7 or 10, and hence therefore, still under detention.

An Article 20 can apply for up to 6 months, hence a person detained under Article 6, 7 or 10 could, under Article 20, have spent a significant part of the 12 month period at home as opposed to being in Orchard House.

Of the 6 people currently in Orchard House, the longest period of stay has been 112 days, but included in these 112 days have been extended periods of home leave.

The longest period of detention in 2012 was 91 days, without home leave.

2.20 SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING CHANGES MADE ON PARCELS TO THE UK:

Question

Would the Minister explain how the charge now made on parcels being sent to the UK by the Jersey Post Office is made up – is it effectively UK VAT? What is the procedure to forward this to the UK, and to whom is it payable?

What plans are there to improve the collection of GST on incoming parcels, given that ParcelForce parcels are not all checked?

Answer

This matter falls outside my direct remit, but I will endeavour to answer the Senator’s queries.

As the Senator correctly identifies, the charge made on parcels (over and above standard postage rates) is the UK VAT payable on such parcels. This is collected by Jersey Post as a prepayment service in order to minimise delays for local customers posting to the UK. In addition, this also prevents the addition of a VAT collection charge of £8 which is levied by the Royal Mail if it is necessary to collect the tax due from the recipient. The VAT collected by Jersey Post is remitted to HMRC on a monthly basis. The costs of providing this service are currently absorbed by Jersey Post. Further details are available on the Jersey Post website.

With regard to the collection of GST on incoming parcels, I am informed that Customs Officers attend the Post Office on a daily basis to examine ParcelForce parcels. This led to the collection of £37,000 in GST in 2012.

Should the Senator wish to have any further information on this matter, she should contact the Customs and Immigration Service.

2.21 SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING the length of residence in the Island of Highlands students:

Question

Would the Minister advise members of the length of residence in the Island of students studying at Highlands, broken down into the following age groups - those under 16; those between 16 and 18; and those over 18?

Answer

The Minister is currently unable to provide the precise data requested.

Highlands does not retain records that show the length of residency of individual students who have previously been educated in Jersey schools.

Full-time students aged over 16 who have not been educated in Jersey are required to provide length of residency and to meet additional criteria on application. This data is used to determine whether applicants qualify for free or subsidised tuition.

However, as this data is retained in individual records and not currently in an electronic format, it is not easily collated to provide the information requested by the Senator.

The current admissions procedures will be reviewed by the College and its governing body.

2.22 SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING Jersey’s position in the U.K.’s membership of the European Union:

Question

The Assistant Minister for External Affairs recently stated that it is better for Jersey if the UK remains within the European Union.

Would the Chief Minister please explain when this became part of Jersey’s policy and what is the evidence for this statement?

Answer

Jersey’s relationship with the European Union (EU) is covered by Protocol Three of the UK Act of Accession to the European Communities. If the UK were to leave the EU then Protocol Three would fall away. The Council of Ministers' Common Policy on External Relations, as reported to the States Assembly on 23 November 2012, does not include the desire to seek a renegotiation of Jersey's relationship with the EU, but that we will seek to be a good neighbour, on the basis of reciprocity, to both the UK and other European Member States, and also to ensure that the Island is prepared for external change. The Assistant Chief Minister’s comments are consistent with this policy.

I have noted the speech made by the UK Prime Minister in London on 23 January stating his belief that Britain should want to remain in the EU and that Britain’s national interest is best served in a flexible, adaptable and open EU.

3. Oral Questions

3.1 Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade of the Attorney General regarding the review of appeals made against decisions of the Minister for Planning and Environment by the Court of Appeal:

Will the Attorney General inform the Assembly whether Royal Court judgments in appeals made against decisions made by the Minister under the Planning and Building Law are subject to review by the Court of Appeal, and if so whether the appeal procedure is available to litigants in person under the modified planning appeals procedure which protects appellants from costs being awarded against them?

Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

Yes, the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from any judgment or order of the Royal Court when exercising jurisdiction in any civil cause or matter. The modified planning appeals procedure was introduced under the Royal Court Rules 2004 for certain planning appeals. The award of costs, even for appeals under the modified procedure, is at the discretion of the court, however the Practice Direction of the Royal Court for such appeals indicates the Royal Court will only make an award of costs in exceptional circumstances. The modified procedure does not apply in the Court of Appeal. The costs of and incidental to all proceedings in that court are at the discretion of the court. The court has full power to determine by whom and to what extent the costs are to be paid. I think it likely that the Court of Appeal would pay regard to the fact that an appeal arose out of the modified procedure in the Royal Court.

3.1.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:

Could the Attorney General please explain to me the difference between the appeal that Deputy Young was referring to on the Planning and Building Law; is that a case of the court looking at the procedures adopted by the Planning Department or is it a full hearing? Can he just clarify the situation between the 2 courts? Is the overall Appeal Court looking at all matters to do with the case?

The Attorney General:

There is a right of appeal to the Royal Court from any decision made by the Minister under the Planning and Building Law. The court will apply the normal judgment in determining whether or not the appeal should be allowed. The appeal is, I recall, on the basis of whether or not the decision was unreasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The court will examine the decision and will determine whether on accepted principles it could be characterised as unreasonable or not.

3.1.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

In that case the court when it is looking at it will not review, for example, the Island Planning Law and whether, for example, the building should or should not be built, whereas the ultimate Court of Appeal, in this sense, would review everything; is that correct?

The Attorney General:

No, that is not correct. The Royal Court would indeed have regard to the statutory environment in which the decision was made. It would have regard to the policies and procedures under the Island Plan and it would use those factors in determining whether or not the decision was a reasonable one. It would be an unreasonable decision if it was not done in accordance with the law.

3.1.3 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:

Building on what Deputy Higgins has mentioned. Would the Attorney General say that recent cases and indeed public disquiet suggests that if we had a merits-based planning appeal system it would open up the appeal system in a way that would be much more useful to people who are seriously aggrieved about some of these issues?

The Attorney General:

I am not entirely certain what the Deputy means by “a merits-based planning appeal system”. The court will determine whether or not in its view the decision of the Minister for Planning and Environment was reasonable in all of the circumstances of the case. It cannot avoid, in doing so, forming a view as to whether or not it was a reasonable decision. That seems to me to go without saying. I am not sure what improvement there could be on such a process.

3.1.4 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

If I could give a little explanation? Would the, for example, Attorney General feel that the appeal system would be much strengthened were people within perhaps constraints, so that every decision was not open and taken to appeal so that the court could, in the end, substitute its decision for the decision, for example, of the Minister or a Planning panel.

The Attorney General:

The court can do that.

The Bailiff:

Do you wish a final question, Deputy Young?

Deputy J.H. Young:

No, Sir, just to thank the Attorney General for his answers.

[9:45]

3.2 Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John of the Minister for Economic Development regarding a new freight area, associated car park and access roads for Hanger8:

Would the Minister give estimated costs of providing alternative provision for a new freight area, associated car park and access roads to enable Hanger8 to establish operations in Jersey on the existing freight buildings and car park site, and advise whether the funds are inscribed into the department’s current capital or revenue budgets or whether the works will be deferred until after the incorporation of the Harbours and Airport?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):

The cost estimate for the proposed work that the Connétable refers to is commercially sensitive due to the pre-qualification and tendering processes. The tendering process, when approved to commence, will utilise the Procurement Unit e-tender portal. The project will be funded entirely from the Airport’s Trading Fund and not from the budget of the Economic Development Department or central reserves and is not dependent upon incorporation.

3.2.1 The Connétable of St. John:

Is the funding then allowed for over the next 3-year business plan and, if so, where will I find it in the business plan please?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

The funds for this project are contained within the Airport Trading Fund. The project itself in terms of this cargo facility was intended to be refurbished. There are funds available for refurbishing. That project, of course, will not go ahead if this proposed build goes ahead. A Shadow Board have looked at it and as far as they are concerned it is moving to the next stage, which is ensuring that due process is followed and that a maximum return on capital employed is secured.

3.2.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can the Minister explain how it can be commercially sensitive if it is a States department that is carrying out the removal works? Surely the Airport is accountable to this Assembly through the Minister’s department, so could the Minister explain how it can be classed as commercially sensitive. What we are talking about are the movement of existing buildings ...

The Bailiff:

I think you have put the question. How can it be qualified as commercially sensitive?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

It is commercially sensitive quite simply that we do not want to announce, and I certainly would not wish to announce in a public forum, the expected costs of such a project when we are going out to tender, hopefully, which would give advantages to tenderers. We want to maximise return for the public on funds invested and we cannot do that if that type of public statement is made at this stage.

The Bailiff:

Do you wish a final question, Connétable?

The Connétable of St. John:

Only one, Sir?

The Bailiff:

Yes.

3.2.3 The Connétable of St. John:

Given that we cannot get the information from the Minister because he is trying to hide behind confidentiality, which in my view is totally corrupt, is the Minister ...

The Bailiff:

No, no, no.

The Connétable of St. John:

That is my view, Sir.

The Bailiff:

You cannot allege that he is corrupt, now you know that.

The Connétable of St. John:

That is a view I am expressing.

The Bailiff:

No, you may not.

The Connétable of St. John:

In my mind, I said.

The Bailiff:

You may not express such a view under Standing Orders. Please withdraw it.

The Connétable of St. John:

Well, I do not know, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Please withdraw it, Connétable.

The Connétable of St. John:

Can I give that some thought?

The Bailiff:

No, you may not give it some thought. I am directing you now to withdraw it.

The Connétable of St. John:

Well, if you are directing me to withdraw it, then I will follow the lead of the Chair but I do so with regret.

The Bailiff:

Very well, thank you. That is all you need to say on the subject. [Laughter]

The Connétable of St. John:

That being the case, is the Minister prepared to send this item to Scrutiny so it can be properly reviewed by a Scrutiny Panel?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Quite naturally we have discussed this matter with Scrutiny. The Connétable has asked a number of questions in this area before and I know the chairman and members, possibly, of his Scrutiny Panel have attended upon the Group Chief Executive of the Ports to discuss this matter. It is with Scrutiny. As far as I am aware they are satisfied but if they are not I am sure they will raise their concerns in the appropriate way.

3.3. Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Chief Minister regarding the Historic Child Abuse Redress Scheme:

Will the Chief Minister advise the Assembly the current position regarding the Historic Child Abuse Redress Scheme and, in particular, the number of claims accepted, rejected and in dispute, and in the case of the latter will he outline the nature of the disputes and the current position regarding the extension of the scheme to cover people who were abused while in foster care or abused by persons who either lived in the care homes or were visiting them?

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):

A total of 131 claims have been received by the scheme to date. As at 24th January 2012 a total of 27 offers have been accepted by the claimants. At the present time no applications have been rejected. The remaining claims are still at various stages of the process. The issue of claims which concern foster care is a matter which is to be referred to the Council of Ministers in due course. The Council of Ministers has previously decided that the claims received, which involve visitors to any care home, as well as certain cases involving abuse which happened away from the premises of the home are to be considered as part of the scheme.

3.3.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Is the Minister aware that many of the claimants are being, to put it mildly, messed around by the scheme lawyers who appear to be acting as judge and jury in this case? Many people are being referred to psychiatric assessments and also many of the claimants are being disputed in terms of lost evidence by the police and other considerations. Is the Minister aware of these difficulties and would he advise the States of what he does know?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

I absolutely refute that any claimants are being messed around by the scheme lawyers. The scheme lawyers are acting on behalf of the States in a very professional manner. As we have said on previous occasions in this Assembly, these are not necessarily straightforward cases, extra evidence has to be gathered and brought together. Where there is not perhaps sufficient evidence then psychological reports can be undertaken. There is by nature a negotiation between the scheme lawyers and the lawyers representing potential claimants. I do not see it in the light that the Deputy portrays it.

3.3.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

It is a related point, and I hope you will allow it. On a previous question I asked the Chief Minister whether victims who were in financial difficulty could obtain some funds from the scheme in anticipation of a final settlement from it. The Chief Minister assured the House that that would be the case. In the case that I put to the scheme lawyers no such attempts have even been made to even contact the people. What does the Chief Minister have to say about that?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

Unless the Deputy, and I have not trawled Hansard to see whether that is the case… but it is my understanding that there has never been an interim payment available.

3.4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Attorney General regarding a recent prosecution case:

Given the criticism of the States of Jersey Police and a lawyer in the Law Officers’ Department by the Privy Council in relation to the Curtis Warren prosecution and the alleged involvement of the Attorney General in the subsequent police disciplinary case, would the Attorney General make a statement clarifying the situation?

The Attorney General:

The events referred to by the Privy Council took place over 5½ years ago. The facts have been litigated at length in the Royal Court, the Jersey Court of Appeal, the Privy Council and more recently in private police disciplinary proceedings. At the last sitting I explained that I had no involvement in the police disciplinary proceedings. I am happy to repeat it. I was not the complainant in those proceedings. I was not a party to them nor involved in them in any way. It was not my decision nor upon my advice were the disciplinary proceedings brought. That much is already in the public domain as I made a statement in response to a question for a comment from the Jersey Evening Post which was reported. I see no value in a further statement.

The Bailiff:

This all sounds very good and we went through a very lengthy debate in 2011 when we debated the Island Plan. One of the reasons the glasshouse sites were rejected on that occasion was because I believe Members wanted to give the Minister for Planning and Environment a chance to deliver the homes that are desperately needed on States-owned sites. I am not convinced we are going to do that. As far as I am aware there are very few applications coming forward for social housing, in particular, and affordable housing. I am not convinced that this Minister is doing enough. Those ...

The Bailiff:

You are coming to your question, Deputy?

Deputy J.A. Hilton:

Yes, the question is: the Planning Inspector at the time said those glasshouse sites that were removed from the Island Plan were perfect sites for social housing. I understand exactly why that did not happen but what I want to know from the Minister is when is he going to take action and bring forward sites, for the desperately needed social housing that we require, to be actioned?

If I may say so, that was a non-answer. It was not explanatory at all.

3.7.4 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Obviously we want all our police and the Law Officers to be singing from the hymn sheet so in fairness to his officers, the Detective Chief Inspector, I believe, stated that the complaint about all this did arise from the Attorney General. The Attorney General has assured us - and I completely accept his word - that it was not him. Could the Minister for Home Affairs just clarify that the officer in question is not misleading anyone and who did make this complaint?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am unusually grateful to Deputy Pitman for his question because it does give me an opportunity to clarify something which has been puzzling me. There appears to have been a mistake made by the Deputy Chief Officer, either in his understanding of the question or in the way in which he expressed the answer, which has given the impression that what he was saying was that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Law Officers. The Attorney General is correct, that is not so, but what did happen was this. There were discussions with the Law Officers’ Department at an earlier stage and the Law Officers’ Department were of the opinion that there should be a general review of procedures. I have not looked at what the exact question asked was but it depends what the exact question was and what the understanding of the Deputy Chief Officer was. It is clear that they were of the opinion that a general review should take place. That was the first stage and if Members would care to look at the written answer which I have given to the question of Deputy Tadier today, they will see I explained the first stage, a general review. Subsequently, as a result of that general review, the matter then led on to a detailed investigation of potential criminal matters and of potential disciplinary matters. Subsequently it led on to disciplinary charges but the Law Officers had no involvement in those latter stages, simply in initial matters. So I do not know whether the Deputy Chief Officer misunderstood the question or whether he had a wrong understanding of it but the correct position is that there was some advice from the Law Officers initially in relation to there being a review but nothing subsequently.

3.7.5 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I am grateful to know that I always help my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs. Perhaps he will help me on this occasion. Can he just clarify for me, not being a lawyer, that what he is saying is that a complaint was somehow generated in a past Attorney General’s term of office and it sort of mushroomed? It all became part of a general review. It was not a complaint by anyone. Is that what he is saying?

Can I come back in? Yes, would it not have been better if the police authority had been involved in any inquiry so that it could be seen as being totally impartial?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The Police Complaints Authority did get involved in relation to this matter at a certain stage in the process. Indeed, I have discussed the matter and what happened at the hearing with the Chairman of the Police Complaints Authority but it is normal for investigations to be done by police officers from forces outside. Indeed, as I have said before, the outcome of that investigation was a recommendation for disciplinary matters.

The Connétable of St. John:

I will put it in a written question, thank you.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Sorry, Sir, could I just seek your guidance? The Minister speaks very quietly. Could you just tell me did he say when Deputy Higgins tried to intervene that effectively no one authorised this?

The Bailiff:

I am sorry, you cannot have another question, Deputy.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

We cannot hear, Sir, that is what I am saying. I do not want another question. I just could not hear.

The Bailiff:

I see, all right. You will have to speak up, Minister.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I apologise. Deputy Higgins has his own question. I have also got questions without notice so there should be plenty of time for further review of this matter.

3.7.12 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

In order that there be no lingering doubts which the officers will have to deal with, can the Minister assure us that having ultimate political responsibility for the police and having now undergone this inquiry having been cleared, that he is now satisfied that they acted with complete authority?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

We are back to where we started. I am not prepared to because of the fact that there are further proceedings pending. I am not prepared to express a view outside of what was said in the judgments of the senior courts.

3.8 Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the size of population upon which the size of the proposed new hospital was being based:

Would the Minister confirm the size of population upon which the size of the proposed new hospital is being based?

Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):

The hospital pre-feasibility spatial assessment project uses a bed model generated from the most recent activity data plus a projected population growth of additional 150 households per year. The base data was an analysis of actual inpatient data from a 3-year period which incorporated key assumptions about demographic change and service change. The 150 additional households per year is a population growth projection endorsed by the States Statistics Unit.

The Bailiff:

So what was the answer to the question? [Laughter]

The Deputy of Trinity:

As I said, on base data already given and base data on the 150 heads of household per year.

The Bailiff:

The question was what the size of the population was. Ministers really should focus on the question. What was the size of the population upon which the proposals for the hospital has been based, 100,000, 110,000, 95,000?

The Deputy of Trinity:

We know the square meterage of the hospital but not the population for which it will cater. Will the Minister confirm when she received notice of this oral question and does she not think that by failing to provide an answer to this Assembly, she is showing contempt for this Assembly?

If you will allow me a 2-part question. First of all, I would like to know why the new bus operator did not simply take over the existing Connex routes without making changes at the same time, which has caused a lot of confusion. Secondly, the Minister did suggest he would discuss this issue with the new bus company. Could he advise me if that is going to be in the near future and could he give those details to me as soon as he has them?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes, indeed. That will be within the next few days.

The Bailiff:

The other part of the question, which was why they did not just take over the existing routes?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I cannot argue with that. It was a very ambitious project. There was disruption when the previous contractor took over and we have had obviously a lot of disruption on this one. It would have been far easier in hindsight to have taken over the existing routes and then tweaked at a later dates so it was an ambitious project.

3.10 Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chief Minister regarding the basis for the conclusions of the Electoral Commission:

Does the Chief Minister consider that option B of the Electoral Commission meets international standards outlined by the Venice Commission in that it proposes the votes of those in urban areas such as St. Helier, for example, would be worth less than others? If so, how does he believe this to be compatible with the Council of Ministers’ commitment to promoting fairness as part of a strong and successful Island?

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):

The Privileges and Procedures Committee has invited the Assembly to submit the Commission’s recommendations in a referendum in the form suggested in their final report. It will then be for Islanders to decide upon. Islanders may or may not wish to have regard to the Venice Commission’s code of good practice in electoral matters, which I understand recommends the principle of equal voting power while also advising that geographical criteria and administrative or historical boundaries may be taken into consideration.

3.10.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I do not know if Members have read the written answer to question 12 because frankly it is embarrassing and it is well worth reading in this context. As, I believe, having an accountant background, could the Chief Minister clarify something for me? St. Helier basically makes up around one-third of the Island’s population I think it is fair to say. So let us suppose all the good people of St. Helier get up on referendum day and they all vote to say: “No, our equal vote is more important than keeping the 12 Constables in a job.” Does the Chief Minister not concede that as a minority, they still cannot win that vote? They are relying on people whose votes are worth more. If so, will he be campaigning with his Ministers against option B as it is completely undemocratic? It is a loaded question and frankly it is embarrassing, almost rigging of a referendum.

Senator I.J. Gorst:

I would refute the Deputy’s allegations. I do not see how. This Assembly has got to approve those questions but the Electoral Commission have worked very hard to come up with them and therefore I hope that the Assembly will approve those questions going to referendum across the community. Every individual, as I understand it, on the Electoral Roll will be able to vote and give their preferences with regard to those questions and I see no problem with that. The Deputy is well aware of my longstanding position, which is supportive of the Connétables remaining in this Assembly.

[10:45]

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

With due respect, the Minister has not answered that part of the question. People in St. Helier cannot influence this even if they all vote against it. Does he not understand that as an accountant? It is just numbers. Sorry to push it but it is so important.

The Bailiff:

Deputy G.P. Southern:

The Minister for Economic Development is accidentally, because he cannot handle the figures, misleading the House.

3.14 Deputy J.M. Maçon of the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding the participation threshold in referenda:

Can the Chairman explain whether the proposed referendum will carry a participation threshold before the results will be deemed credible as there is no provision for this in the Referendum (Jersey) Law 2002 or in P.52/2013 and if not, why not?

The Connétable of St. Helier (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

The Referendum (Jersey) Law 2002 is essentially an enabling law and does not make provision for the setting of a participation threshold. P.5/2013 could technically have introduced the participation threshold but I am advised that the Electoral Commission agreed after careful consideration that it would not be constructive to propose one.

3.14.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Can the Chairman please give further details of the reasoning as to why it would not be constructive given that many countries throughout the world, when it comes to constitutional change, do have a participation threshold?

The Connétable of St. Helier:

It is perhaps a question that should be put to the Electoral Commission but it may be helpful if I direct the Deputy to the debate on the referendum law which was adopted in 2002 without amendment by 37 votes to 2 and in its accompanying report, it dealt with the question about participation thresholds and whether a certain majority should be required and in the report, it is suggested that, as the outcome of the referendum is not binding anyway, it would not be helpful to have a participation threshold.

3.14.2 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

If the Chairman of P.P.C. could remind me, I thought Senator Vibert brought in a 75 per cent threshold to pertain to any reform of government, does that apply in this case?

The Connétable of St. Helier:

I do not believe it does, certainly not as far as the referendum goes. It will be up to the States to decide what to do with the results of the referendum because it will come back to the Assembly and clearly it is in everyone’s interests, whatever their view of the referendum, that we encourage a large turnout and I think our energy should be focused on … certainly from P.P.C.’s point of view, we will be doing all we can to make sure that the referendum is widely participated in.

3.14.3 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Does the Chairman not agree that we might be able to quash many arguments in the future given for exactly the reason that it has got to come back to the Assembly, that if you have a participation threshold reflecting a significant turnout of the public, then that will help States Members to be able to cast a vote accordingly when it comes back - granted it will still be on their conscience - and that would provide better foresight than having none whatsoever?

The Connétable of St. Helier:

I personally do not have any strong views on this matter but if I can quote the report again from P.40/2002, it does raise a problem in having a threshold. It says, and I quote: “If a preponderance of the Island’s elected representatives wishes to pose a question to the electorate, it will be difficult in the opinion of the committee to justify law that could thwart the will of the majority of those representatives.” In other words, it certainly seemed to a previous committee, that was a legislation committee, that it would not be right to interfere with the wishes of the States by putting this essential threshold.

3.15 The Connétable of St. John of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the recent snow disruption:

On 18th January during the snow disruption, how many miles of States roads were gritted or salted and when was it decided to remove grit boxes from major junctions or hills across the Island?

Deputy K.C. Lewis (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):

I can confirm that all priority roads, hills, A, B and C roads were salted during Friday, 18th January between the period of 0300 hours and 1800 hours which equates to approximately 143.44 miles. The grit boxes were removed prior to 2006 as they were constantly being broken into and the stocks of grit salt depleted or totally emptied by various other parties and therefore they became redundant. Since that time, T.T.S. has doubled the number of salt-spreading machines that it operates.

3.15.1 The Connétable of St. John:

Will the Minister please give a list of what he considers are the priority roads within the Island?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes, the priority roads would be as follows. West: commercial buildings and underpass, Victoria Avenue, Beaumont Hill, Airport Road, Airport Terminus, St. Aubin’s Inner Roads, St. Peter’s Valley, Mont Les Vaux, the whole hill; and east: New St. John’s Road, Queens Road, Trinity Hill, St. Saviour’s Hill, Wellington Hill, Mont Millais, Mont Felard and Grouville Hill; Liberty bus routes, Liberty Station to St. Aubin’s via Inner Road, Liberation Station, Gorey via Coast Road.

3.15.2 The Connétable of St. Helier:

While not wanting to diminish the sterling efforts of his staff, could the Minister confirm that his staff was also assisted by other manual workers around the Island, particularly those of St. Helier, who were up very early to help clear the roads? [Approbation]

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes, indeed. I was going to mention that when I was out walking around St. Helier, I did in fact see the St. Helier workforce doing sterling work salting roads, et cetera, so well done to them.

3.15.3 The Connétable of St. John:

Given the amount of roads that the Minister mentioned, he mentioned hills like Queens Road and the like, but a big percentage of the population do live out in the country areas, probably one-third of the population, and we have centres like Sion, in our case, St. John’s Village, et cetera, and other villages in St. Ouen. Can the Minister say why these areas were not covered in his 140 plus miles that he quoted where we have clusters of maybe 500 or 700 people living in a very close area?

Given from information released last week that only 737 home connections have been made between August 2012 and now in the Gigabit Jersey project, how does the Minister reconcile this with his answer to Senator Ferguson on 26th June 2012 that: “the rate of connections was anticipated to rise to 2,000 per month.” How much of the budget of £41.5 million remains to be spent?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

I am grateful for the Deputy’s question in relation to this. Gigabit Jersey is obviously an exciting and important 5-year programme, which has been supported by the Treasury by a loan to J.T. (Jersey Telecom). The Board of J.T. set itself an extremely tough internal challenge of connecting 2,000 homes per month, a target well in excess of which was originally designed to achieve the planned project over 5 years and indeed that ambitious target was the subject of my answer to Senator Ferguson in June. Gigabit Jersey has effectively 3 important components. Firstly, the core infrastructure. That was completed in 2012 on time and to budget. The second component, homes passed, was tracking slightly but currently I am advised is slightly above budget. It is run physically considerably ahead of schedule with some 26,115 homes passed by the end of the year as opposed to the plan of 9,600. The homes connected component is the third issue and that is the issue that is proving more of a challenge. This is complex because of the difficulty in predicting accurately the time to connect each home and there are indeed tens of thousands of homes to connect. I am advised that J.T. contractors have taken longer than expected to deliver the programme into an effective production line and this is the reason why only 1,737 broadband homes were connected at the end of December. J.T. is dependent on performance of a third party contractor and I am advised that there are commercial discussions and a resolution is attempting to be made between the parties. I will ensure that Members are briefed in the start of the first quarter next year so that they have an update of the briefing. Finally, of the budget question, I am advised that £18.5 million of the budget has been spent, leaving a total of £23 million of the original budget. I am advised by the J.T. Board that in order to meet the 5-year target and remain within the budget, J.T. is going to now prioritise the connection of broadband customers over those only voiceover. That seems to me a sensible solution. I will attempt to answer supplementaries.

3.18.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Minister acknowledge that perhaps at the beginning, the plan was over-ambitious and would he also outline to the House why the relations between the contractor and J.T. appear to have partially broken down?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I agree that it is indeed an ambitious project and indeed the very fact that we have done Gigabit has now unleashed a wave of new activities in relation to the digital space, the setting up of Digital Jersey, the new e-government initiatives. All this has been based upon the programme and I know that the Deputy supports that. I am disappointed but I have been fully briefed by the Board of J.T. in relation to the subcontractor issue. I am somewhat constrained by what I can say currently about that dispute because obviously it is a subcontractor issue with J.T. but the Deputy can rest assured that I have asked both the Treasurer to monitor developments closely and the Board to keep me informed and I want to see connections regain their momentum and as many homes connected, which now can be because the spine and the infrastructure has been put in place, but I will advise Members as soon as I have more information about the resolution of the contractor.

3.18.2 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

The Minister champions the Gigabit project. I believe he has underestimated the magnitude of the problems involved and overestimated the benefit but could he confirm or otherwise that the contractors are, in fact, owed £5 million by Jersey Telecom and as a result, some of the employees are looking for alternative employment?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Just so that we are completely clear, I do understand that the Deputy’s son may be involved in relation to this subject and I just think it is very important that we are absolutely clear about the source of information so I would just be grateful if perhaps he could confirm that. Yes, there are issues in relation to the contractor and I have advised Members that I am fully briefed by the J.T. Board and I want those issues dealt with but it would be wrong, I think, to cast any aspersions on J.T. I am satisfied with J.T. I have full confidence in them and I want them to resolve this issue but let us be clear about some information and the information flows where obviously different people there will always be different stories on a different issue. I have the absolute story from J.T. I was with them until 10.00 p.m. last night getting a briefing for today.

3.18.3 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Could I, for the avoidance of doubt, point out that my son is not looking for another job but if the Minister had answered the question about whether the contractors are, in fact, owed money and is this not a problem which is causing a great disturbance to the rollout of Gigabit?

Would the Minister not acknowledge the Constable of St. John, for example? I have had an email from St. John where it is stated that contractors are arriving to do one house on an estate, going away, coming back later to do another house. There appears to be no co-ordination. Secondly, would he comment on whether the pricing structure for connection was the right kind of pricing structure to get people connected?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

What I will do is I am going to arrange a briefing with J.T. for Members as soon as these issues are resolved, because I know that Members are widely interested in this and they need to know exactly what is going on. Clearly there has been an issue with a subcontractor and that is commanding the attention of the board and, as I said, I met with J.T. - as I have met 3 times in the last week in resolution of this issue - and I expect them to resolve it. But certainly the project must be delivered, it must be delivered within the budget and I want an acceleration of connections and I am pressing J.T. to achieve that.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

The change to the pricing structure I asked about?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am advised by J.T. that while there are issues with the contractor, certainly there is a fixed price contract in place with J.T. and the subcontractor needs to perform.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

The pricing to the public?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

The pricing to the public, that is going extremely well. Because so many people want fibre and want better speeds, the actual take up is going ahead for those people who are connected, of which I am not one of them, sadly, yet.

3.19 Deputy J.A. Hilton of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding standards for parking, amenity and storage space on new developments:

In what circumstances, if any, would the Minister reduce the standards for parking and amenity space on new developments, and does he believe there is a need to provide storage space in application for apartment blocks?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel (The Minister for Planning and Environment):

I am aware that some permissions have been issued with the reduced parking provision. Typically this was when the site had a particular difficulty in providing the required spaces, possibly due to an unsafe access, or where a development was located very close to the centre of town where residents could be expected to walk or cycle to most destinations. In respect of amenity standards, these are rarely compromised. Members will be aware that the 2011 Island Plan focuses new development in the existing built up area. We cannot expect to raise densities in these areas without providing adequate public and private amenity space and, therefore, I consider it important that space standards are upheld and improved. Finally, I agree that there is a need to provide storage space for residents in apartment blocks. These requirements are set out within the department’s standards for new residential development.

3.19.1 Deputy J.A. Hilton:

The reason I asked this question was because I looked at an application last week which was a very large development in St. Helier and I was surprised to be told there was no provision for storage whatsoever. The Minister, in answer to my question, said that where developments happen near to town that they expect people to walk. Well, people may choose to live in St. Helier but they also have a right to have access to a vehicle and just because we live in St. Helier does not mean to say that we do not want to drive out of St. Helier, so I do not think that is a good enough reason in my opinion. Has the Minister inspected other developments by this developer to give him a thorough understanding of what it is like to live in minimum standard space housing and, if not, why not?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

If the Deputy would like to approach me through the department and to point out which particular development we are talking about then I would be happy to speak to her. But I do have some information which suggests that in relation to 2 large developments, Westmount, 256 spaces were provided or have been asked for, for 242 units, but additionally 245 cycle spaces. With Le Coin I am told there are 18 spaces for 23 units and also a store for cycles. As I mentioned, it is absolutely vital that people do have enough amenity space for the storage of their goods and ...

The Bailiff:

I think you have given that answer, Deputy.

3.19.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I would like to follow up on Deputy Hilton’s questions about space. Dandara, I went and looked at one of their developments and they counted the floor space of the balcony outside as part of the overall floor space of the apartment. They had specially fitted furniture that was cut down, compared to what you would normally have in a property, and there were absolutely no cupboard spaces. I would like to know if the Minister thinks that is an acceptable thing because those people, finally they move into a house, they have to buy totally new future that fits the size of the building, and there is not sufficient space. Is that acceptable?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Quite evidently, no, it is not acceptable. Buying undersized furniture for oversized people is not something that I would support.

3.19.3 Deputy J.H. Young:

Would the Minister confirm that where those parking standards are relaxed, particularly in town, that the likelihood is that will impact on the need for public car park provision, and would he please comment on the impact potentially on the threshold of 4,000 public car parking spaces in town of these parking standards?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

The thresholds for the amount of car parking space as set out by a different Minister, the Minister for Transport and Technical Services, in terms of the Sustainable Transport Policy, and Planning do have a lot of regard for that document. In relation to the space standards, perhaps if I just read out a short part of the guidelines where it says: “It will not always be practical or environmentally acceptable to implement normal parking guidelines where it is proposed to extend or redevelop certain existing properties or subdivide large houses into small units. In such cases it will be necessary to balance the need for the proposed accommodation against the environmental cost of not providing adequate onsite parking.” The whole process at Planning is one of balancing those 2 competing aims and needs, and in some instances there will be decisions on one side of the middle point and in other cases decisions on the other side.

3.19.4 Deputy J.A. Hilton:

The Minister just said it was all about balancing the needs. I am talking about the Westmount Quarry site, about the lack of storage space. There are, I believe, 245 units and 256 parking spaces but when you consider a lot of those units are 2 and 3 bed units, I do not believe the provision is enough. St. Helier - especially in the centre and west - has a big problem with lack of parking for residents and visitors and so any lack of parking provision in private development impacts very unfairly on residents who are already living there. So I would ask that the Minister does not relax the conditions on these large town developments.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Every case will be taken on its merits and I must observe that the Westmount Quarry site is due to be determined, so those will be material factors to whoever decides on that.

The Bailiff:

Very well, I am afraid that brings questions on notice to an end.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Could I request that Ministers circulate the answers to 20, 21 and 22?

The Bailiff:

Yes, that is standard practice. I think it was agreed that Ministers would circulate their answers questions have not been asked, was it not?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Is surely is, yes.

The Bailiff:

You have requested that your question ...

Deputy G.P. Southern:

21 in particular, yes.

Deputy M. Tadier:

May I ask the same of 22, which I am sure is normal.

Deputy J.H. Young:

I am happy to withdraw 20 because I think it was covered by the Chief Minister’s undertaking to bring this to the Council of Ministers.

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Transport and Technical Services

The Bailiff:

We now come to questions without notice and the first period is to the Minister for Transport and Technical Services.

4.1 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:

The Minister is aware of the severe flooding which occurs in Rue de Samarés caused by a landowner refusing to clear the drainage ditches which cross his land towards Le Marais. I wish to ask the Minister, will he be responding positively to my request to utilise his powers under the drainage law to require the owner to clear these ditches and, thus, clear the flooding problem?

Deputy K.C. Lewis (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):

Article 31 of the Drainage Law, Repair of Other Flood Defences: this Article does not apply to designated water courses or designated flood defence works, but does apply to all other water courses and flood defence works. It is a slightly grey area and my officers are investigating this as we speak. There is a common law which says that fields may drain to the lower areas, but where that is causing congestion my officers will certainly look into it.

4.2 Connétable S.W. Rennard of St. Saviour:

At the last sitting we were given a list of roads that were going to be resurfaced, and very commendable. I just have a couple of issues.

[11:45]

I cannot see why we have to resurface Rue des Prés. What I would like to have resurfaced is the road that leads from St. Helier, the dock area, right through up Mont Millais, right the way through on La Grande Route de Saint-Martin, and I would also like the road that goes from Five Oaks to and beyond Queens Valley to be considered because that is a mess. An absolute mess if you are going along La Hougue Bie, right the way through. As I say, very commendable to have roads in St. Helier - and I cannot see why Rue des Prés has to be mentioned - but I would like to have these ...

The Bailiff:

Your question is whether those ones be mended?

The Connétable of St. Saviour:

I would like to have these put on the Minister’s list, yes, please.

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Some are on the list. Hougue Bie is definitely on the list, part of that has been done and the rest will be completed. I am more than happy to take that up with the officers, which roads are done. The Rue des Prés Trading Estate has suffered a lot of root damage from nearby trees and is on the list to be done.

4.2.1 The Connétable of St. Saviour:

The Rue des Prés is suffering from the roots of the trees but I understand that a preservation order has now been put on these trees, so I cannot see the point in resurfacing if these roots are going to be allowed to continue to mess up the Rue des Prés.

The Bailiff:

Does the Minister agree?

The Connétable of St. Saviour:

Given the skip scenario, and Deputy Young’s question this morning, is the Minister aware that this House gave instructions to find a site for this skip operator and, if so, what has happened between the Minister and his Ministry and the Treasury and Resources Department who are responsible for Property Holdings?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I thought that was a Planning issue.

The Connétable of St. John:

What has this Minister done along with the Minister for Planning and Environment and Property Holdings to make this happen?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I do not recall the original question put to the Assembly regarding this. Perhaps the Constable could enlighten me.

The Bailiff:

Time has run out. I think, Connétable, you will have to take this one up on a future occasion. Now we come to questions to the Minister for Home Affairs.

[12:00]

5. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Home Affairs

The Bailiff:

Very well, now we come to the vote on the proposition, Projet 138, of the Chief Minister, Comptroller and Auditor General: appointment. All those in favour kindly show?

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

The appel, please.

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for in relation to the proposition. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting. If all Members have had an opportunity of voting, the Greffier will close the voting.

POUR: 45	CONTRE: 0	ABSTAIN: 1
Senator P.F. Routier		Deputy M. Tadier (B)
Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Senator A. Breckon
Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Senator F. du H. Le Gresley
Senator I.J. Gorst
Senator P.M. Bailhache
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. Saviour
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B)
Deputy S. Pitman (H)
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)
Deputy of St. John
Deputy J.P.G. Baker (H)
Deputy J.H. Young (B)
Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Bryans (H)
Deputy of St. Peter
Deputy R.J. Rondel (H)

7. Draft Civil Partnership (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.128/2012)

The Bailiff:

Very well, so now we come next to Projet 128, Draft Civil Partnership (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations, lodged by the Chief Minister. I will ask the Greffier to read the citation. No, you have already, have you not, Greffier? Yes, so we will take that as read.

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):

8.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):

In 2002, as Members will know, the Island entered into a political commitment to support the O.E.C.D. (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) tax initiative on exchange of information and transparency and a number of tax information exchange agreements have been concluded since that time. The policy of the Island has been where it is possible to do so to negotiate a double taxation agreement, which embodies within it the same kind of provisions relating to exchange of tax information. A double taxation agreement contains certain benefits for the Island, greater benefits I think than what are obtainable under the tax information exchange agreements, and it has been possible to negotiate an agreement with the Government of the Republic of Singapore. This follows the similar pattern of other double taxation agreements which have been negotiated in the past with Malta, Estonia, Hong Kong, China and Qatar, and most recently last week with Guernsey and the Isle of Man. I therefore move the adoption of the proposition.

The Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition? Deputy Le Hérissier.

8.1.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I have asked it before and I will ask the rapporteur. He gave a list of countries, of course, where we have made such agreements, but the question still remains there are countries with whom the Island and Islanders have enormous links and where for commercial and personal ease it would be much better if we had double taxation agreements, places like Canada, France have been mentioned. I know the reasons; the Minister for Treasury and Resources has alluded to them. But there are other areas where there are real workaday reasons why there should be links as opposed to this rather eclectic but somewhat distant collection of states he has just identified.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak? Then I invite Senator Bailhache to reply.

8.1.2 Senator P.M. Bailhache:

Deputy Le Hérissier is, of course, quite right. This is an eclectic collection of countries with which we have managed so far to negotiate double taxation agreements but it takes 2 to tango. Whereas it would certainly be in the Island’s interests to have a number of double tax agreements - in particular, if I may say so, with our closest neighbour France - it has not been possible to persuade those countries to enter negotiations for the creation of such an agreement. But the Chief Minister’s Department continues to try to bring particular parties to the table. I accordingly move the adoption of the proposition.

The Bailiff:

All those in favour of adopting the proposition kindly show? Those against? The proposition is adopted.

The Deputy of Trinity:

Before we move on, can I request that Draft Motor Traffic, P.135, is deferred for a couple of weeks, please, because a few issues have come up which I wish to clarify.

9. Draft Taxation (Double Taxation) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.130/2012)

The Bailiff:

The Bailiff:

Are Members happy to take that one? Very well, so I will ask the Greffier to read Projet 137, Statistics User Group: appointment of Chairman, lodged by the Chief Minister.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to refer to their Act dated 17th November 1999, in which they approved the establishment of a Statistics User Group, and to approve the appointment of Mr. Martin Richardson as Chairman of the Statistics User Group for a period of 3 years.

10.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):

Perhaps before I just make the proposition I should make Members aware, as I am sure they are, that I know Mr. Richardson in a personal capacity and worked with him at Rawlinson & Hunter, but that has no effect upon his role as Chairman of the Statistics User Group. Mr. Richardson has been a member of the user group since 2009 and was reappointed last year. This is a proposition for him to become Chairman of that group for a period of 3 years from the date of approval of this proposition. Members will see from the proposition he is eminently qualified and suitable for this post and, therefore, I propose him as Chairman of the Statistics User Group.

[12:45]

The Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition? All those in favour of adopting ...

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff:

I beg your pardon, Senator Ferguson.

10.1.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Yes, I think this is a new appointment, is it not, of this particular gentleman? We do not appear to have, taking note from Deputy Le Fondré earlier, thanked the previous occupant of this post. So I think perhaps it is incumbent upon the proposer to do that small thing.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak? I invite the Chief Minister to reply.

10.1.2 Senator I.J. Gorst:

I do just that, thank the previous chairman for their work. It is unsung work and individuals who put their name forward for these voluntary bodies provide a very important service to the Statistics Unit. They find them invaluable. I believe they meet around 4 times a year and I am very grateful not only to the previous chairman but for all people who put their names forward for this work. I maintain the appointment.

The Connétable of St. John:

In asking for the appel, could the Minister tell us who the previous Chairman was, please? [Laughter]

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I could perhaps help there. [Laughter] I believe it is a Mr. Charles Clarke who has worked very hard on this. He has been supportive of Dr. Gibaut and it means that we now have a Statistics Unit that is worthy of the name.

The Bailiff:

Very well, the appel is called for by the Connétable of St. John. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting. If all Members have had an opportunity of voting, the Greffier will close the voting.

POUR: 42	CONTRE: 0	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator P.F. Routier
Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Senator A. Breckon
Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Senator F. du H. Le Gresley
Senator I.J. Gorst
Senator P.M. Bailhache
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. Saviour
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B)
Deputy S. Pitman (H)
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy M. Tadier (B)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)
Deputy of St. John
Deputy J.P.G. Baker (H)
Deputy J.H. Young (B)
Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Bryans (H)
Deputy of St. Peter

[12:47]

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

The Bailiff:

Yes, the adjournment is proposed ...

The Deputy of St. John:

Before we rise, may I take the brief opportunity of just reminding Members that there is one of the regular departmental presentations over lunch. It is the turn of my department. We will be providing a working lunch while we present on the work of the Education, Sport and Culture Department. It will be taking place in the Société Jersiaise.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Can I also seek maybe some direction from the proposer of P.134? I do not want to speak out of turn; I am only a member of the Education and Home Affairs Panel. It is my understanding that we will be wanting to look at the higher education grants holistically. We have concerns about the grant system that is being proposed but we also have concerns about the current system as it stands, so just to ask the intention of the proposer of this proposition will he be maintaining that or would he be willing for scrutiny to look at this and not have this debated this afternoon.

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

My understanding from the Chairman was that the Scrutiny Panel is not going to look at it at the present time but will, as the Deputy has said, look at it more holistically at a later date unless the Chairman would want to add to that.

The Bailiff:

Can I suggest that the Chairman and the Deputy get together over the luncheon adjournment and see whether there is common ground or not?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

If I may, my panel has already spoken with Deputy Baudains on this particular matter. We did attend the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture’s presentation to all States Members and arising from that we have given an undertaking to bring forward our review of the entire higher funding system, but this particular aspect is perhaps too refined to look at the whole issues that did come out of that presentation. So an executive decision I had to make and I propose that we do a whole review of the higher education system and it is left then for Deputy Baudains to decide how he wishes to proceed. We were always in favour, though, of the Minister proposing this in his own name.

The Bailiff:

I think we will adjourn until 2.15 p.m. and see what transpires.

The Connétable of St. John:

Is this not the only item left on the agenda? Depending what the proposer of 134 says, we might deal with it and all leave to get on with our other work.

The Bailiff:

If the Deputy is willing to indicate one way or the other, but I got the impression that perhaps discussions had not been seen through. Deputy Baudains, do you wish to indicate the position?

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I am not quite sure what the Constable of St. John is seeking to do, but I think it is fairly clear that the debate will go ahead and I would estimate it would take an hour or so, so if the Constable wants to carry on now ...

The Bailiff:

Very well, so we will adjourn until 2.15 p.m.

[12:50]

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

[14:16]

11. Higher Education Grants: methods of assessment (P.134/2012)

The Bailiff:

Very well. The matter we next come to is the Higher Education Grants: method of assessment, Projet 134 lodged by Deputy Baudains, and I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of the opinion to request the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture not to implement changes he has proposed to the method of assessment of income when calculating means-tested grants for university students and to retain the current provisions that the income of the natural parents of the student is used as the principal basis of assessment.

Deputy J.H. Young:

Sir, I wish to declare an interest and withdraw from the Assembly as I have got a stepdaughter who will be affected by these arrangements.

11.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I thought just before we start that maybe the proposition was not interesting enough and that is why there were not enough Members in the Assembly, but I am glad more have come in now. I was intrigued by the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) article of a few days ago, Saturday, I think, when the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture was interviewed on this subject, because above the picture of a very young-looking Deputy Ryan (I think it must have been taken way back in his rallying days) there was a headline which stated: “University fee systems open to abuse” on which my first assumption was that the U.K. were up to something again, but then I found out what he was referring to was these proposed changes to the system. So what is this all about? It is quite a narrow issue, as Members were discussing just before lunch. There is a whole wider range of grant and educational fees issues which I do not want Members to go off on tangents into; this is the very narrow issue of discretionary grants where the Education Department assists families who have insufficient funds otherwise to allow their children to go to university and have further education. In the majority of cases, this is not a problem, because evaluating the income and assets of a family is normally fairly straightforward, but the difficulty arises when families split up and the student wishing to go to further education resides with only one parent. Here, I can fully understand the difficulty which the department finds itself in. Some absent parents may refuse to co-operate, some might even arrange their affairs so that their wealth will not be taken into account by the Education Department. This is a problem and it is certainly one that does need to be addressed, however, what bothers me is that rather than seek a reasonable solution, such as ferreting out those avoiding their responsibilities, perhaps via income tax returns or even if that means a change in the law, the Minister instead has chosen, in my view, to take the easy way out. His solution driven also, we must not forget, by a need to find half a million savings for his department’s contribution to C.S.R. (Comprehensive Spending Review) is, rather than go to the trouble of assessing those absent parents, to means test whoever happens to be living in the house, whether or not they have any connection with the potential student. I must admit, I was quite taken aback by the Minister’s assertion that this new plan was fairer, that it removed an inequity. In my view, it creates one. It is because of this and the fact that the Minister intended to introduce this new measure by order - something I found out by a question - means that the first we would know about it would be after it had been brought into force. That is why I have lodged this proposition. I believe that the Minister’s intentions create a potential injustice, and it does deserve a greater analysis by this Assembly. In the report accompanying my proposition, which is about two-thirds of the way down, I think, I gave an example of how unfair the new system would be, it is an excerpt from an actual correspondence I have received. I had other similar concerns brought to my attention, one stating that they had only recently started a new relationship but, because of the threat of the Minister’s new policy, they were now considering splitting up again. I wonder if this is really what we want: yet more family upheaval. This proposed new policy is unfair, immoral and very possibly illegal, and there is no uncertainty about the Minister’s intention, he spelt it out in his statement he gave to the Assembly on 6th November last year. He stated, and I quote: “Where the student’s parents have separated or divorced, and the parent whose income will be assessed now lives with a new partner, the assessment will be based on the gross household income of both partners.” He then goes on to make what I consider an absurd statement that these new arrangements will be fairer. Notwithstanding the fact that in answer to a question by Deputy Vallois on 20th November of last year, the Attorney General stated that Article 4(1) of the Education (Discretionary Grants) (Jersey) Order 2008 does not allow the department to directly take into account a new partner’s income. In answer to a question by Deputy Young on the same date, the Minister stated the new arrangements did not exclude natural parents; they can opt to have their income taken into account. Had the Minister been a man who smoked, I might ask if he had been on a new batch, because that really is quite incredible. I will be brief because, as I say, it is quite a narrow issue. At present, the Minister in determining discretionary grants, assesses the biological parents of the potential student. In future, he intends to assess the parent the student lives with plus his/her new partner and, in so doing, the Minister hopes to save about £500,000 a year. I know he has rated the saving at potentially £2,000 per household, so this new scheme will potentially affect at least 250 households. Of course, the assumption that a new partner may have a higher disposable income than the absent parent is pure speculation; what if a new partner flatly refuses to support a child that is not his own? Presumably it will then all end in tears and the student will not be going anywhere; completely contrary to the underlying principles that the Minister claimed to uphold, namely, that no student who could benefit from higher education should be denied it due to financial difficulty. In my view, what the Minister should be doing, instead of taking the easy option, is investigating his options under the Children’s Law. I had a conversation yesterday with the Registrar of the Family Division, and he informs me that not only is he quite unhappy with what the Minister is proposing but, under the Children’s Law, it is quite possible for a parent or a student to gain access to the information of the absent parent. So I really do not see what the problem is; it is possible to get the financial details of the parent who is not there. I have to say, it is quite unfair for a new partner to have to pay for somebody else’s child when the biological parent could well be living down the road and going to work in a Bentley. It is really not on. It is a pig’s ear, and I hope Members will send a clear message to the Minister that his new strategy is quite unacceptable. I make the proposition.

The Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded]

The Deputy of Grouville:

Sir, may I declare an interest? I have 2 children at university so I would like to withdraw.

The Bailiff:

It is not really a relevant ...

The Deputy of St. John:

Sir, before you agree to that, could I please make a point to those Members that wish to declare interests? With the discretionary grant system, the grants are paid to the adult student, so the direct pecuniary interest is to the student; it need not necessarily involve the parents in any way. Now, it may or it may not, I do not know and it is not really the point, the point is that if you are going to declare interests, it should be clearly understood that the grant system is to help students, and that is the point.

The Bailiff:

I think it is quite clear that Members who have children who are going or may go to university, that in itself is not an interest at all because this only impacts on where there is a stepparent whose income may be taken into account. It is only in those limited circumstances, if you think it is going to directly affect you, then you may well consider it ...

The Deputy of Grouville:

I do, Sir. I am the one that pays the bill so, yes, I am going to withdraw.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Sir, on that, can I ask, although I think it is quite right that people declare an interest, presumably it is an interest which could be deemed to be shared by a large group of people and that therefore Members may not need to necessarily withdraw simply to declare an interest.

The Bailiff:

I think it is a matter for Members. It could be certainly shared with people other than Members, that is certainly true, so yes, it is probably one where, provided Members declare the interest so everyone is aware they may benefit or be prejudiced by it, I think then probably they can stay, but it is a matter for Members.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can I declare an interest, Sir. Thank you.

The Connétable of St. John:

Given that I have 5 children from 3 marriages [Laughter] I think we need to ...

The Bailiff:

But are yours young enough to be going to university? [Laughter]

The Connétable of St. John:

Well, unless they decide to go at a mature age, and they could do, and they are entitled to, because I know one of my sons went at a mature age.

The Bailiff:

I am sure you are all right, Connétable.

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I think the Constable of St. John was the cause of all our problems. [Laughter]

The Bailiff:

Very well. The matter has been proposed and seconded and I call upon the Minister.

11.1.1 The Deputy of St. John:

At the moment, free education is offered by the States to all children under 16 and also, if they qualify, between the ages of 16 and 18 as well, and more than 90 per cent of children opt to continue into education or training after the statutory school leaving age of 16. After that, it is a student’s choice whether or not to continue into higher education by going to university, but there is no free access, either on or off-Island, and ultimately the student is responsible for the costs of attending university. I think that is a very important point that Members should note. Of the 90 per cent that are in further education or sixth form education, a further 44 per cent, and rising, choose to go on to higher education at university, and all of those people reach the age of at least 19 years in their first year. However, in recognition of the social and economic benefit that highly-qualified people bring to the community, the States has for a long time provided a substantial budget to assist students in the cost of attending university, either through tuition fees or for maintenance of living standards. This is done through a discretionary grant system, but there is no right to receive a grant. The adult voluntarily applies for financial help, the department asks for information to enable it to assess need and then voluntarily awards a grant in proportion to the total budget it has available. In other words, the department uses its discretion as stewards of public money. To distribute that pot of money to those most in need of it, the department follows 3 key principles, and these are shown in the second paragraph of my written comments.

[14:30]

But there are problems, and they are becoming more acute, specifically, the use of parental income as the basis for assessing need, and that brings me to where we are today. This is potentially an emotive subject. Some of us here today will have fierce personal experience of divorce or separation and, if not, then it is highly likely that they will know of a friend or relative that has had that experience. I am quite pleased that Deputy Baudains referred to an Jersey Evening Post article, because it also, as well as the report attached to the Deputy’s proposition, highlights many of the misunderstandings around grants to students that want to go on to university. If I look at the Jersey Evening Post article first aside my picture; we can argue about whether I looked quite youthful or not, but nevertheless alongside it is a headline written by a sub-editor, presumably, which reads: “Bid to make student’s household pay rather than parent.” I am afraid that is just simply factually incorrect. The department cannot make any student’s household pay or any parent pay towards the cost of a student’s university education. So it is the use of the words “make” and “pay” rather than “parent” that I am afraid are factually incorrect. So let me now refer to the report attached to Deputy Baudains’ proposition. He states that, when assessing the financial liability for the education of the child of a single parent, I am seeking to take into account the financial circumstances of that parent’s new partner rather than the child’s other biological parent. The department does not assess a parent’s liability. The costs of higher education are primarily the responsibility of the student and/or the dependant student’s family. The department assesses the contribution that the taxpayer will make. The Deputy also in this statement uses the word “child” to describe a student in these circumstances and, regrettably, this further opens the door to an emotive debate about the moral responsibilities of divorced and separated parents, but we are not talking about children. Students reach 19 years old in their first year at university and therefore fall outside the scope of mandatory child support or maintenance arrangements. They are, in effect, adults in their own right. Then Deputy Baudains asks: “How can the new arrangements proposed be fairer than the existing system?” I recognise that my proposal is not perfect, nothing will be in these circumstances, but there will be greater equity and less opportunity for abuse of the system. Because it is not perfect, and when governments are forced to put into place policies that could have unintended side effects, it is essential that there is a properly-constituted appeals process to mitigate this risk. The department has a well-developed tried and tested and longstanding appeals process. Appeals are chaired by one of my Assistant Ministers, there is a further recourse to a review of any appeal decision directly to the Minister and, finally, students can apply for a referral to an independent administrative review panel on the process itself. So, clearly, appeals are important and they will continue. So what are the problems with the current system? At the moment, students may apply for a grant to help with the costs of tuition and maintenance. Under these arrangements, the amount of any grant awarded to a dependant student is based on the income of their parents. The award is discretionary and is made to a 19 year-old. The parents, whether married or not, cannot be compelled to disclose their income. However, if they do not supply the information required, the student may not receive any financial assistance. More often than not, where families have separated, only one income is declared on the forms and the grant assessment is based on that. In genuine circumstances this is right, as otherwise the student may not be able to go to university, however, the one-parent income assessment for grants has become widely known and it has become the norm for only one income to be disclosed where there has a been a divorce or separation. Even where a new partner resides in the home and brings in a significant income, the grant application can only be assessed on the income of the single parent. At this point, I would ask Members to turn, please, to appendix 2 of the written comments and in appendix 2 there are some examples of how the current system works and how the proposed new system would rectify some of the problems, not all, but some of the problems. There are 2 examples: the income levels in example 1 are based on Jersey’s average income as given approximately by the Statistics Unit. Example 2 is pitched to illustrate the situation at higher incomes and, in fact, just above the point at which a grant is normally payable because means-testing income levels for grants finish at £89,960 currently. I am just going to take a moment for Members to look at those 2 examples and I hope they are self-explanatory. I have tried to make them as clear as possible. In each case, and under the current system, if the natural parents decline to disclose one income, and there could be many family-related reasons for this, then the department has no option in the interests of the student other than to assess the taxpayer’s contribution based on the income of the one parent living at the same address as the student. The result in example 1 is a student grant of £11,636, some £6,581 per annum more than to the student from the married family with the same gross household income. This is true, regardless of how much the new partner earns. In example 2, the inequity is even higher and results in a grant award of £12,150 per year versus a zero grant for the student from the married family with exactly the same household income. Is this fair, either on the married couple or on the taxpayer? Under the new proposals, the differences are either minimised or equalised. Of course, Deputy Baudains and Members may be concerned about how fair the revised arrangements will be on new partners. My proposal must assume that new partners contribute financially to a new household in which they live as opposed to a previous financial commitment to the previous household. It also assumes that the total income levels in the new reconstituted home should be taken into account when assessing how much the taxpayer should contribute towards higher education for a student that lives there. So it is quite simple. In terms of fairness, who should contribute first: the taxpayer or the newly-reconstituted family partnership, in whatever form? There is no perfect solution to this, otherwise other jurisdictions that have also wrestled with the complexities would have found it. My proposal is not perfect, but it is fairer; in fact, it offers a flexibility that is not available in many other jurisdictions. In circumstances where the natural parents are separated yet wish to use their joint incomes for the purposes of a grant assessment, the department will accept that option, even if it is lower than the household income where the student resides and therefore will result in a higher taxpayer contribution. The last part of example 2 illustrates this last point so that, based on the joint parental income of £80,000, because of the reduction in the maintenance, a student grant of £2,017 can be assessed under that circumstance. Deputy Baudains suggests that this is absurd. It is not absurd; a number of divorced parents already choose to provide information about their respective incomes. In most cases, this is because there is a separation agreement in place that covers university education, however, some parents still opt voluntarily to do this, even without a written agreement but, regrettably, the number of these cases are dwindling. The Deputy cites a response by the Attorney General to a written question from Deputy Vallois that the current legislation does not provide for the implementation of this proposal. It has already been stated on several occasions by me that the appropriate modifications to the law will follow to give effect to this policy change. Of course, I have taken advice. Deputy Baudains goes on to describe the distressing story of a resident’s family circumstances, and I can only sympathise with the resident and his family, however, the issues described in relation to parental rights and guardianship do not apply to 19 year-old adults and, I submit, without wishing to be dismissive in any way, that they are therefore not relevant to this decision. The fundamental question is whether it is fair to expect the taxpayer to meet the cost of higher education for students from divorced and separated households regardless of the income of the household in question. It is not considered fair in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Guernsey or the Isle of Man; what makes it fair in Jersey? The Deputy says I am driven by financial pressure. All States departments are facing financial pressure in the current climate and so are individual families. My department currently has a budget of £8.9 million to support students studying at university. I want to ensure that the money is directed to where it is most needed. It is true that savings that will come from this change have already been given up as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, but this is hardly hastily contrived, nor is it an ill thought through solution to a financial problem, as has been suggested by some. If Members would like to refer to appendix 1 of my written comments, it can be seen from the consultations that are detailed there that this proposal has been under consideration since 2005. The main reason for the change is simply that the current system is not fair and the passage of time will only make the leakage of taxpayers’ money worse. I have been accused of taking the easy option. The easy option would have been to do nothing. It is said that this measure will create more work in administration for my offices.

[14:45]

It may reduce it, as all students, whether living with their natural parents, a single parent or in a household where there is a new partner, will be required to provide the same information: household income. Deputy Baudains states that it is possible to ensure both natural parents contribute. He has made that point again in his speech. Again, this is incorrect. There is nothing to compel parents to contribute anything to the upkeep, or pay tuition fee responsibilities for an adult of 19 years of age. There is nothing that can compel anyone to do that. Attempting to force disclosure of financial information from any parent through the courts in order to better assess natural parents’ ability to pay is simply not possible. This is slightly technical, but I am going to say why. Fundamentally ... sorry, Sir, there are conversations going on. This is slightly technical, but I am going to explain why. Fundamentally in law, a debt must exist first in a discretionary grant system. Both the request for a grant and the awarding of it are voluntary, so a debt cannot exist. The States are being asked to agree, finally, that I should not change the current system. It has been suggested that there is another alternative that might fix the leakages and inequities in the current system, and this is that the department should take a universal, no-income-disclosure no-grant stance. The expectation from those that suggest that is that this would result in a change of attitude from absent natural parents. The Isle of Man tried that and it resulted in a miserable and costly failure. If I were to do it then many genuine cases of students needing help could be overlooked. Many of them would not go to university. Would that provide more equity? In the new system, that risk of adversely affecting the chances of students needing help will be lessened because, before turning down a grant request from a student from divorced or separated parents living in a reconstituted home, it can be seen quite easily that it will have been necessary for both the absent natural parent and the new family partner to have refused to disclose incomes so that we can assess the ability of the total family to pay. Nevertheless, if the States are minded to keep the old system and request that I take a much tougher stance, then to do that I would also have to bring to the States a review of a key principle that underpins the taxpayer support for university study. It is on the front page of the written comments: “Financial considerations should not preclude any qualifying student’s access to higher education.” That would need to be fundamentally reviewed. I ask States Members: is this really what we want for our young adults and would this really be in the long-term public interest? Before closing, can I respectfully ask Members to try to be dispassionate in this debate. I hope that Members will understand and accept that it is impossible for the department to attempt to arbitrate financial arrangements within the myriad of family circumstances that exist during divorce or separation and afterwards, and the reconstituted or extended family life. It is simply not possible for the department to get involved in those areas. This should not be an emotional decision; it is simply about the department trying to be equitable in its distribution of a fixed sum of money to those young adults that need it most and to be prudent in its stewardship of taxpayers’ money. [Approbation]

11.1.2 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

There is an underlying assumption in the Minister’s comments that everyone should go to university, but that is a question for another day. I do wonder what a “reconstituted family” is; it sounds a bit like a new version of sandwich, but anyway. The Minister comments that the student is responsible for their expenses. I do wonder what happens if the student is under 18. Surely the parent is still responsible and surely the whole thing underlying what we are discussing is the concept of parental responsibility. If you decide to have children, you have a duty of care and support for your child. We should not be substituting government choice for parental choice and we should not substitute the taxpayer for the natural parent. There is a duty of support by natural parents. There are cases, of which I think most of us know, of divorced couples where the mother on maintenance asks for a grant, or the student with a mother on maintenance asks for a grant, and the father, who is earning a significant salary, is not included in the assessment and yet, if he was, then no grant would be payable. These are the unfair cases and this is something where the department could do more. As I say, there is a duty of responsibility; if you have got children, you have a duty to support them. Not many children, quite frankly, when we talk about debt, under 20 have the resources to pay for education and yet we are dumping these loans on them from a dizzy height. Why should the natural parent be able to escape their responsibility? Frankly, I find this quite indescribably obtuse. There are means by which the department can pursue natural parents and to say it is not possible it taking the easy way out, perhaps. I will be supporting Deputy Baudains.

11.1.3 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I am pleased to see Senator Ferguson swinging more to the left; not nearly far enough. I should probably explain that because some of the things I do not agree with. However, it is not completely to the left. I have got some sympathy for the Minister, but I will be supporting the proposer because all we have heard here is really excuses, and I understand to a degree, because what this comes down to is this key issue of fairness that we keep hearing about, but it is because successive Jersey governments have only paid lip service to fairness. We have seen it today; people’s votes are not going to be valued the same, and we see the Chief Minister tried to wave it away as if it is unimportant. We have a justice system with huge flaws in it. We see taxation where it is quite acceptable for those who have the most to pay the least. It seems that some people do not really understand fairness or do not want to understand it. But if we go to education and we are not going to have fairness, I have to say to the Minister, if you cannot get passionate about education and young people, then we should all probably give up, because they are the future. Whatever he says, he is tied, buffeted by financial constraints. He might think, and I am sure he does think that he is doing the best he can in the circumstances, but with this proposal, I do not think anyone would agree that 2 wrongs make a right. I entirely agree with Senator Ferguson that to suggest that we cannot pursue if the parent goes missing is absolute nonsense. It should be done. Of course, if that parent is on some such pitiful income, then that is quite a different matter. How can it be right that someone who starts a new relationship, whether they are divorced or their partner has vanished, we do not know where they are, has to then pick up the tab? The offshoot of such things could be that those adults think: “Well, I would rather just kick the child out.” The cost of that will then go on to the state and the taxpayer. The Minister is right in one way, this is a hugely complicated area, but I think what he is doing is taking the easy option. It cannot be right that someone - as I say and Senator Ferguson said - has to pick up the tab for someone else’s child, and then to make the excuse that it is all down to the child, is ludicrous. What this comes down to is priorities, and that is where government in Jersey, I believe, fails. What we need to improve on are 3 interrelated things, I think: that principle of fairness, prioritising and joined-up thinking in government. We hear all the time that Ministers all work together; surely this is a time for the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture to be going to his colleagues, if he has not done already, and saying: “Come on. I need help here. I need real help because if I go on this route, the only people I think that will likely suffer in the end will be students.” Because when you look at it, fairness, there are countries that we probably unfairly dismiss as third-world who manage to send young people to higher education to a much higher degree than we do. How do they do that? It must be about their ability to prioritise and use what little they have. Does that not say that something has gone wrong in our society? We keep hearing about how we need young people to come back highly skilled to the Island so we do not have to keep importing labour, and that is right, but I think that what the Minister is doing is running the risk of making the problem worse. I have got a lot of sympathy with him, as I say, but I think what he has got to do is take a much tougher stance with his Ministerial colleagues. I will leave it at that, just to say that I will support the proposer because I do believe in fairness and I do not believe in 2 wrongs making a right.

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

Sir, I wonder if I could seek clarification from the Attorney General, because the last 2 speakers have made exactly the same comment: that it is quite possible to pursue the absent parent legally, and Deputy Pitman said it is nonsense, that you cannot pursue the absent parent. I would be grateful, before we have too many arguments on this basis, that we hear from the Attorney General.

The Attorney General:

Yes, Sir. The grant regime is created under Article 51 of the Education (Jersey) Law. It is always going to be a voluntary scheme and therefore I do not think it can create a debt. I think if there were to be an obligation for payment which was capable of being enforceable, it will require primary statutory change in order to achieve that.

11.1.4 Deputy G.P. Southern:

How appropriate that is, because the third set of words on my list to say is “statutory grant system.” I was quite impressed by the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture; he exercised quite a few of the powers of oratory which I did not think he had. He started off with a wonderful piece of hair-splitting sophistry that was really quite impressive in that the phrase that the proposer had used was completely wrong; he said: “We do not assess the income of the household, but we assess the contribution of the States by assessing the contribution of the household.” Wonderful sophistry - that was hair-splitting. He then misdirected his audience quite wonderfully and ended up with a false dichotomy whereby he suggests that he has only got one option and the option is the hardline: “There will be some students not getting a grant if I cannot get the information and that is the only way forward” and that is what we are voting on.

[15:00]

All the way through he kept repeating: “Is that fair? Is that fair? Is this fair?” He can produce some obvious evidence of the lack of fairness, but he also said: “I have not got a perfect scheme; nothing is perfect” and certainly I do not expect perfection from the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture but, really, he cannot get away with replacing one unfairness with another unfairness, because that is what he has done, and he has tried to take attention away from the unfairness that he already has and that is maintained by not doing something at the moment but, nonetheless, he cannot let that be an excuse: “This is more unfair than this system and there is unfairness all through the system.” There is unfairness through the system, and we have just heard from the Attorney General what is wrong. Here we go; we have got here a change of policy. Policy is not legislation, policy is not law, policy is not regulation; it is policy. Time and time again I have heard Ministers come to this Chamber and say: “That is a policy. We made the policy up, effectively, and that is what we use.” In this case, the policy is that all awards post 19 are discretionary, hence it does not create a debt and it does not create something you can change. But the principle underlying that the missing parent, the absent parent, the separated or divorced parent should be pursued to help with a contribution to his/her child absolutely still remains the right principle. What is required not either/or: “Either I do this or I come in hard and some people do not get grants” that is a false dichotomy. The Minister has been accused of taking the easy option, and it is the easy option, it is also, I believe, the wrong option, when he could go back to basics and say: “Right, the time has come for me to put this into the statute book to make it statutory, after which I can chase the missing parent and I will in some cases/in most cases/in all cases, secure that money. Hence the Government’s contribution will be reduced, and that is what I need to do, and that is the hard way.” that time and time again, Ministers do not do. That is what, I think, the Minister should do in this case: he should take the hard route, change the law, make it statutory and then chase the parents for the missing contribution. The sophistry of saying: “This is an adult” at 19; no, this is a student at 19, and that is what we are talking about. He or she may well technically be an adult but, nonetheless, the parental responsibility still, I believe, continues. I look for comparisons between what has been proposed here by the Minister, status quo, and I look at the issue of maintenance within income support, even those at that level are asked to pursue maintenance from the missing parent. I think about people leaving care homes at 18 and, increasingly nowadays, there is a duty of care on the people who have been caring for those people to make sure that between the ages of 18 and 21, they do not come off the rails, and providing some kind of ongoing support, and that has become the accepted way forward for people leaving care homes, for example. In this case, what we are doing is we are saying: “You are 18, you are an adult, look after yourself.” because this Minister cannot be dealing with drawing up the proper legislation to make sure he can deliver better ... again, perhaps not perfectly, but better, what he wants to deliver, which is support for students. I will be voting with this proposition.

11.1.5 Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:

It is good to follow Deputy Southern, because he is coming from exactly where I am coming from. The Minister has told us: “Let us not get emotional in this” and he quoted: “Should I really, as the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture say: ‘no income disclosure, no grant’” and then he has told us we need to get real because we are spending millions of pounds on students who do need these. How do we know they need them? Because, as Deputy Southern and the Attorney General has just told us, there is nothing in the law. What is the difference between this family and that other family who are going down to Senator Le Gresley for Income Support? They have to jump through every hoop to get anything. In the comments, it says right at the beginning: “The States contribute means-tested financial support where appropriate”; how is it means tested? It is not in the law, so do not ask me not to get emotional; this is starting at the wrong premise. We are talking about taxpayers’ money and if any of it is going to the wrong families, whether they be absent, whether they be living there, whether they are not, because one parent decided: “I am not going to disclose” ... as I say, if you go to Income Support, you have to sign your life away. You have to get your bank statements, you have to agree that the taxman can look at your last 2 years’ income, social security contributions, everything, to get sometimes £40 or £50 a week towards your rent being paid. So do not tell me this is fair. I think where Deputy Baudains is coming from, the “new family”; are we going to stop at their partner? What about if you have got a stepsister who is earning or a brother earning a lot of money? It is household income. But you have got the father. We are not talking about sensible families here, because the Minister said “divorced and separated” and we know that you can rarely keep the emotion out of that, can you not, when you asking them to pay a bit of money? My child would go and live with the separated parent ... and he says one-third thought this was the best system. Obviously the other two-thirds are married people who think that they are contributing more than the other; there is still only one third out of two-thirds. It is an absolutely bad system and it reminds me of our old poll tax: “Who is in the house this week?” and people did move around very fast then. He has already given people a year’s notice. It will not fundamentally work. They consider in Guernsey these people have supposedly put up ... these are the good families who would, yes, contribute. That person who is moving into the new household probably would have children in the next family. Are they going to be disclosing that? So if they are the ones that were going to pay for their stepchildren and their own children from a previous marriage, these would be the ones that would say yes. The ones who are not going to contribute because they think it is nothing to do with them ... as the man says: “I have no right in deciding even what education my stepchild has or my cohabitee” because it does not just apply if you are married. They could have moved in a week ago, could have lived with the family for 20 years, same contribution. He has picked it out of the air. It will not work, and to where he is fundamentally promising the coffers back at £600,000 when this is working in a full year, it is absolutely mad. He has got to go back to fundamentals, he has got to change the law. Because I am very unhappy to find out today that there is no disclosure, it still goes back to discretionary. Of course it is emotive; you have got a very intelligent youngster who wants to go to university that they cannot get one or either of their parents to say how much they are earning, so they sit round a board and discretionarily give away taxpayers’ money. Absolutely mad. Sorry, if you can do it down at Social Security, you can do it in Education. The Minister wants to go away and do his work and then come back with a system that works and is legal.

11.1.6 Deputy M. Tadier:

Just to give the context of this, because this is not a new issue. I am not going to call it a political football, but certainly the political issue of how we fund higher education for our students in the Island has been on the table for a long time, and the Minister referred to that. When I first joined the Scrutiny Panel back in 2008, we were set to look at this policy. It was a policy area which attracted a great deal of attention from the public, which is not always the case for Scrutiny reviews, and it was essentially led, in many ways, by public concerns over the current unfairness with the system and the policy as it is being applied. We were at the brink of reviewing it and we were told: “The department is reviewing it so, if it is all right with you, hold off for now and when we come back with a proper overarching policy to do with higher education, then is the time for you to look at it.” Our panel, which I am now on again, is very keen to look at this issue holistically. In some ways we are a bit bemused as to why we are debating this ... that is not reflecting badly on Deputy Baudains, but we are bemused; I think there is clearly a consensus here that first of all the current solution is not the best one that we have, the proposed solution is also one which may have many unintended consequences as well as the ostensible intended consequences that the Minister is talking about. Let us put this in context. There is a paradox, perhaps, in our system which we do not always realise. Notwithstanding the comments of Senator Ferguson, who was essentially saying if people have children then it is up to them to make sure that they can be funded to university; I think that is probably a view which not everyone would agree with because, of course ... sorry I will give way if she ... but I think what she said is if you have children, you have a duty to support them, is that correct?

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

That is correct, but I think the Member’s translation of it is slightly slippery.

Deputy M. Tadier:

The point I am making, I just recorded the words: “If you have children then it is your duty to support them” and so that is largely true, I think people do not necessarily think about having children sufficiently before they do, but the point is the world changes and also if you do have children, you do not necessarily know what kind of jobs you are going to have, and simply because you might have a low-paid job, does not mean that you should not be able to send your children to university to inspire them to have a better future. I think that is hopefully something we all agree with. But the paradox in the system is that we do not currently - and I do not think we would ever, certainly in this political reality - insist on primary school education being means tested. We would not insist on secondary education being means tested, or A levels or vocational post-16 education being means tested; that is all paid for by the taxpayer through general taxation. The irony is it is only when young people are old enough to no longer be the responsibility of their parents, that is the time when we ask the parents to contribute. That is the fundamental paradox, and I will repeat that: we wait until children are old enough no longer to be the legal responsibility of their parents in order to ask the parents to contribute. There, of course, is a simple solution to this: it will not necessarily be popular with most Members, and that is to say that you pay for everybody’s university education and you fund it somehow, and I say through progressive means. But that is not the political reality of the majority in this Assembly; as well, it would be very expensive. I believe money could be found in a very wealthy Island to do that; of course, notwithstanding the fact that we do not have control over the legal fees. The other alternative which has been mooted is a loan, which the U.K. has gone down as a kind of third way, which recognises the fact that students should no longer have to rely on their parents, who may be unwilling or unable to pay, and a loan scheme is perhaps an imperfect way in the sense that it saddles students potentially with a large amount of debt, but we are told that they only pay it back when they can afford to. But Jersey at the moment does not have access to a meaningful loan scheme. I think the current one is virtually meaningless. If the local students, for example, could get access to the U.K. loan scheme, that is something I would be very keen to support, because it would open up the potential a great deal, and that is perhaps an area where more ongoing talks with Education in the U.K. could be made. So we are left with means testing, which is, by its very nature, imperfect and often unfair. So there are issues that need to be looked into, and I hope I speak for the panel, but I certainly speak for myself as a member of it, that we are very keen to start looking at some of these issues. I am concerned about the argument that is given for the change, though, which says basically at the moment we cannot chase the absent parent, and we are put into a situation where if the absent parent does not want to contribute, or if they are simply not around and cannot be traced, then we are obliged to give the student a full grant because we can only take into account the income of one parent, provided that one parent’s income is fairly low.

[15:15]

But there is a problem under the new system is that what they would be saying is no income disclosure, no grant. But that is the actual reality of it. So we have a scenario where a new family would be reconstituted. It is entirely possible that one of the parents says: “I am not going to fund your daughter or your son to go to university. I have no intention of doing that. That is not what I signed up to when I got into this marriage. I married you. I did not marry your son and your daughter.” That individual would then, of course, say: “I am not going to give you any money.” The Education Department would then turn around presumably and say: “Well, seeing as you have not disclosed anything to us, we are not going to give you a grant.” In that circumstance who is it that loses out? It is not the taxpayer. Congratulations to the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture in that circumstance. He has boldly defended the rights of the taxpayer. We are not going to fund the student with taxpayers’ money. The absent parent, in the meantime, does not have to fund any of the student’s fees, because that student is not now going to university or if they are, certainly, he or she are not paying for that. The new parent is not paying any money towards that. So the student does not go to university. That is in spite of point 2, which is on the comments of the Minister, which says: “Financial considerations should not preclude any qualifying student access to higher education.” In fact, in this scenario, which is not one of the listed scenarios in the Minister’s comments, strangely enough, that student does not go to university, the taxpayer has been saved some money, but ultimately we have a personal tragedy there waiting to unfold. There are many circumstances like that which already occur in families, perhaps, which are not divorced, because parents perhaps earn too much. So what I would like to look at is how is this means testing going to work. We know that there are other examples of means testing in our system. The 2 that immediately spring to mind for me are income support and legal aid provisions. Both of which are horrendously complicated, of which there are many examples of unfairness in them. I can, for example, give one case of legal aid where one family member is going through a divorce. They have been asked to take the new partner’s income into account, even though they are not married and the partner has said, quite rightly, in her context: “This is not anything to do with me. I am not disclosing my income.” Therefore, ultimately, they will not give any assistance with that. Even though a court order said that there is no legal requirement for the individual to disclose her income. I question the legal basis for this. All this essentially needs scrutiny. We need to know that whatever policy we are bringing forward needs to be tangible, it cannot simply be a Ministerial decision. I hope that the Minister has already given a tacit agreement to bring something to the House which we can analyse, that we can scrutinise and I do also ask the question, which echoes Deputy Southern’s point, is that why are we having a system which is discretionary. We have so many things in the States that are discretionary rather than statutory. One of them is housing provision. But we are told that with housing provisions there is no obligation legally for the States to provide housing for the population. The department take very seriously their duty and best practice to provide housing. But the consequence is that if somebody has an issue and they are not housed in Jersey there is absolutely no legal recourse for them, because after all it is just discretionary. It is our gift to you. There is no legal recourse. I think that we should be looking perhaps at the merits of making a statutory. What I am asking here is making a case for this to be scrutinised and for some real detailed policy to be put on the table. I do not think that by supporting the Deputy’s proposition today we do that. It simply leaves us as we are. I do not think the current system as it stands is very good either. There are a whole raft of issues which I know the Deputy is keen for us to address collectively, as a panel, and for the Minister and his department to go away and think about.

11.1.7 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Can I start by saying that I was a little bit disappointed when the Minister stood up and made his case? Inasmuch while he is legally correct that students are responsible for the grants, in reality we all know that that is not the case. I personally, like many others in this Chamber, will bear testament to that. That really is the basis for the conundrum that we find ourselves here. I might well agree that what we need is a statutory change, but the debate in front of the Assembly this afternoon is whether we retain the status quo or we allow the Minister to move to something else. I too have attended the presentation that the Minister gave and asked some questions. I do not believe that the Minister has chosen the easy way out. I think we all know that the current arrangements are at times woefully short of equitable or fair. It may well be that it is unfair to burden a new partner with university fees for the child that he or she have recently inherited. But it also seems extremely unfair where a married couple may well have divorced before even the birth of the child in question to then burden that biological parent with fees for university. In actual fact, the real unfairness is seen most from the eyes of genuine parents who, through all the trials of life, have managed to get to 18 or 19 years of marriage and they see other parents, whether biological or non-biological, with equal incomes consistently paying significantly less into a system. I do not think what the Minister is proposing is perfect and I am glad he has admitted to that, but I personally think it is better than what we have at the moment. It is not perfect, but it is better and I will not be supporting the proposition of Deputy Baudains.

11.1.8 Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier:

I think Deputy Martin is right to say this is an emotional matter. Whenever you deal with children, our own children or the children of the Island and you start talking about money it becomes emotional. But, we need to start focusing on what the issues are. This is not about the 68 per cent, who at the moment are married and doing the right thing by declaring their incomes. It is not even about the 32 per cent. It is about a percentage of that 32 per cent. It is about a small percentage. One thing that has not been discussed is the quantum shift in the way in which we see the lives of people happening across the world. The U.K. now has the highest rate of divorce in Europe. I believe that Jersey has a higher rate of divorce than the U.K. So we have to be very circumspect about where we take our money from and where we put it to. In fact, it was Deputy Baudains himself that said this is a sort of thin argument and it is about those people who do not co-operate and those people who change their affairs to hide their wealth. So where you were saying this was not a moral argument: “Where is the immorality?” that is where it lies. For a married couple who declare their income there is no change. For a divorced couple who declare their income there is no change. For a divorced couple where one parent wishes to pay and lives on their own there is no change. It is back to this small percentage, 2 people have decided to live together, both incomes will be taken into account and, as has already been said, this potentially could give us a return of £650,000. Where a divorced person lives with another and claims a full grant because they do not declare the second income, as has rightly been said, who should pay? This is where the issue of the taxpayer comes in. There is another issue as well, which is the matter of hindsight. We are always looking for it in this Assembly. We always wish we could look back and see what somebody else has already done and benefit from that. Here we have it. England, household income; Scotland, household income; Wales, household income; Northern Ireland, household income; Guernsey, household income; Isle of Man, household income. The very thing that has been requested of the Education Committee is that they should look for those divorced parents that have even moved away. The Isle of Man tried to do that and dumped it. It did not work. It was too expensive. This is not about those who abide by the rules, but those who choose to abuse them. As has already been said, this is an investment by the Government of this Island in the lives of our children. We want to make sure that the right money is given to the right people at the right time. Most parents adopt a responsible attitude towards their children, recognising their moral obligation to provide for their children’s education. This has already been stated by Senator Fergusson. That usually includes college costs, because we, as a Government, recognise our need to invest in our own children, as I have already said. This is a grant to help them. The U.K. has already moved away from this system, as Deputy Tadier said, has moved to a loan system. There was a possibility, and we did look at it, to increase the situation that we had here. But, unfortunately, we are down to, at this moment in time, one bank that is willing to consider a loan situation. We went to the Treasury and they equally looked at that situation and came back and said no, it was unworkable. So we return to where we are. As I said before, this is about giving the right person the right money at the right time and I will not be supporting this proposition.

11.1.9 Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin:

I would like to thank the Minister and his officers for the explanations they have given to Members in recent months through the Education Department statements, interviews and presentations, and indeed even the press releases. I have found them very useful and the Minister has again today explained the dilemma that he finds himself in. The situation has not been easy for the Minister and the department. I can understand his attempts to make savings from the Education budget while attempting to maintain the underlying principles that no student who could benefit from higher education should be denied access due to financial difficulty. However, I also applaud Deputy Baudains for bringing this proposition, which too has much common sense and with principles with which I very much agree. This is a difficult topic and one which is obviously viewed differently depending on which category, which camp, you happen to fall into. The husband and wife who have had to skimp and save just to ensure the best for their children and furious that they have to pay so much, while seeing families that may have split up and are paying far less because of that split, yet maybe having double the income, maybe even higher. That cannot be right and the Minister is now trying to right that wrong. Of course, the couple that live together, cohabit, think the current system is perfect, because the possibility that they are receiving a larger grant, because they are assessed as single assessed income. The worse thing about the whole issue, however, is that a natural father or natural mother, failing to contribute their fair share of the cost of further education at university or college in the U.K. of their child or their children, while expecting the States to pick up much of the bill, money from those law abiding, hard-pressed families who have religiously paid their own bills, their taxes and are paying the costs, or more than others, for further education in the U.K. I am surprised we have not seen public protest marches up and down King Street and in the Royal Square from those hardworking families with youngsters at or about to go to university. I can understand and I think we must all accept the real frustration of the 62 per cent of the working families, the mums and dads, husbands and wives, struggling to bring up their children and wishing the children the very best for the future in these difficult times by having to fund the university and associated costs in the U.K. or elsewhere. Those families who see the remaining 38 per cent, the figures that we have at the moment, may be in a better financial position than themselves. I say “financial position” because they might be facing other problems associated with a break-up, but who will possibly, most probably, be paying fewer contributions for their children at university. I too, like many here today, I suspect, have experienced that same feeling, that same frustration with having had 2 daughters who both went to university and the very tough and tight budget controls that my wife and I had at home despite an element of grant support. I think the wording of the Minister’s statement in this Assembly on 6th November identified an important point. In that statement the Minister said: “The level of grant is determined by an assessment of parental income in the calendar year proceeding the year in which the course commences.” My interpretation of parental is a natural father and mother, as seems to be exactly where Deputy Baudains, Senator Ferguson, Deputy Pitman and others are coming from this afternoon as well. Article 4 of the Education (Discretionary Grants) Order also states is the income of the student’s parents, again the natural father and mother, surely. The Minister’s comments paper clearly agree that more often than not where families have separated only one income is declared and the grant is assessed on that alone.

[15:30]

The comments paper goes on: “In terms of fairness, should the taxpayer or the new partner be the first to contribute?” I believe the comments paper missed the third option that the only correct answer to that question is the natural parents. It seems that we have gone wrong in the past in that we have allowed a situation to develop whereby an increasing number of young people now go to university or other U.K. training. There were never those sorts of numbers when I was younger… blackboard and chalk. Unfortunately, greater numbers of families than maybe they used to. But, most importantly, we seemed to have allowed split families to be identified as such and allowed one party to evade their responsibilities, because it has been just too much bother to chase them up. I might be being unfair to the department, because the department would have always been following their own policy of trying to avoid preventing a student who would have benefited from higher education to be denied that education because of financial difficulty. Maybe the way forward should be that the Minister and the department proposals should only be applicable where the new partner agrees to support and agrees to remove the responsibility of the natural parent. But, that is there in any case too, because there appears to be this either/or option. We all know that probably the majority will go for not supporting the child into the family that they have moved. I have concerns with the Minister’s decision. A new partner may have moved into the household where the prospective university student was aged 16 or 17 years of age. The natural parent will have to remind his or her new partner that they have children and that one of them is just about to go to university and that they might be expected to contribute for the next 3 or 4 years or more - a bit of a passion killer. [Laughter] Maybe a new partner will feel somewhat different if he or she had moved in and brought the child up, maybe from a baby. Other scenarios may come to light in the Minister’s proposed method and he may be able to answer them, but of course he has not brought this proposal forward today and has already spoken. How will the Minister ensure that the department knows if there are joint incomes and will it require the department to have their own enforcement team to investigate home circumstances and that false information might be being supplied? What if the child or indeed children are being brought up by aunts or uncles or grandparents, because neither of the parents wish to contribute? Is it the household income of the aunts and uncles or maybe the grandparents who have taken it upon themselves to look after the young person? I suppose the discretion aspect of the department then comes in. Is there an option that may be explored that young people go to university will find the loophole with this split parents by going to live with those grandparents or aunts who are worse off than their parents and therefore get a better grant. The Minister’s statement of November stated parental income and really that is what it should be. It is, however, a far easier option for the department, the States, to aim at the household income and save a lot of work, while at the same time one parent to avoid his or her moral responsibilities. However, in saying all that, I cannot support Deputy Baudains proposition merely because the decision of the department is better than what we have at the moment. It shows an understanding by Government to save money, to support the 62 per cent of those families that are paying their share fairly. Even what Deputy Tadier said this afternoon that this is not a new problem and it has been going on for so long, let us do something to move forward, at least move forward today. I support the Minister, because it allows the absent natural parent to contribute and have his or her income assessed if they so wish. An alternative option and one that is best for them. But, as this option was not available of the choice then I am not sure I would support the department’s views. But, I support the department too, because it seems to be a tried and tested system in other jurisdictions, because it makes significant savings to the taxpayer and it will also save those that might be considering separating or changing their lifestyle just to get a greater grant. I ask, if the change is approved, that it be monitored by the Minister and amended if it is shown not to work or to achieve the gains envisaged and if necessary during that time work at changing the law. Thank you, Sir.

11.1.10 Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:

I think that I am fairly well placed to speak on this having chaired, in a previous role as Assistant Minister for Education, Sport and Culture, the Grants Appeals Panel. Ideally, of course, as everyone says, the natural parents would support and wish to support. I cannot understand, I have to say, any man that does not want to support his children in any way. But the fact is that they do not. The fact is that in law we can do nothing about it at the moment, it may be that there is to be a change of law at some time. It is exactly the same way, and I am sure the Minister for Social Security will correct me, as if you go down to Social Security and make an application for a grant but fail to provide the bank statements and disclose the other information you will not get a grant. The same happens with the divorced or separated parent who refuses to participate, refuses to provide information, very often it is the mother who is the one on the low income that has to come to the panel because she could not support her young person, because we are not talking about a child, through the system. It has been said before and I will not labour on it, the Isle of Man, Guernsey and others, a whole list of them, tried the system that Deputy Baudains is suggesting that we maintain, that we keep, it did not work. So, why do we want to continue to keep it? In slightly different vein, and I accept that we are not talking about children, but even in the U.K. the Child Support Agency with all the legislation around it failed to get natural parents, particularly fathers, to contribute what the court had very often ordered them to contribute and yet we want to continue with some sort of system along the same lines, although we are not talking about children. The current system is unfair, it is open to abuse and it is abused. There is no doubt about that, I can tell you, having chaired the panel. I would like to put a slightly different emphasis on this, because I met with a young person last week, a constituent, on an issue. This young person - I am being very careful that they cannot be identified - is a single parent, they come from very humble background, but they have worked very, very hard and they have studied and they have gained management qualifications and they are now going up their chosen career ladder, receiving no States support nor seeking any; a model citizen. As this person continues to work hard, it is likely by the time their child is old enough to consider university that this person will have a more senior post, plus a greater income and will either not be eligible for the grant or just a very small grant. Now, let us just imagine, living next door is a couple with a child the same age, in the same type of house, on the same estate, the only difference being they are not married. The child is the mother’s from a previous relationship. Mum works only part-time with a relatively small income. The income of the new partner or the established partner is very good. Could we even say £100,000 per annum? Under the current system, only the mum’s income is considered and they are likely to get a full grant. Our hardworking, single parent will get no assistance or little assistance. That cannot be fair. There are sufficient safeguards in place if the partner is supporting a previous family and a real robust appeal system. On that basis I ask the Assembly to reject this proposition.

11.1.11 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Yes, a very difficult one and I thank Deputy Green. I was going to bring up the Child Support Agency, because if ever there was a case where people tried to be rational and the Government said at the time, the very things that Senator Ferguson said: “Parents must bear their responsibility. We are going to go after largely errant fathers, blah, blah, blah.” Apparently it has ended up with a situation where, I think, 70p in every £1 gained by the agency is used in the exercise of collection from a very small minority of parents. I have struggled with this one, because as the Minister has said and as Members have said, there is not a perfect solution. Certainly Deputy Martin spoke, as did Deputy Pitman: “Change the law, everything will be great.” It will not be. It will be why the Education Department should be engaged in massive man, and sometimes woman, hunts around the U.K., for examples, after fathers or mothers who have jumped the Island, which is often the case, of course, with maintenance in any case, if we are going to get into that situation. Based on the experience of the Child Support Agency, we will be spending hours and hours doing that. Okay, morally, it is not a perfect situation. It would be so nice to confront these people with the situation and say: “This is your biological child. You be responsible.” But the reality is we have to be pragmatic and we have to make sure in the process of doing so that the child does not suffer. Deputy Green mentioned also the appeals body. I chair it at the moment. We meet nearly every 2 weeks, because we have an awful lot of appeals. A lot of them now are to do with business failures, as well as to do with ambiguous relationships of the kind outlined by the Constable of St. Martins. I would say, we discussed this, should we have brought a list of these results? The vast majority of appeals are conceded. In the sense that if the department sees an ambiguous situation arising, and the Constable of St. Martin mentioned them all, how on earth you would embrace those situations in law, I just do not know. He did a very good analysis of, in a sense, why we have to seek some kind of pragmatic solution. The officers will try and intercept the application and it generally does not go to a “no”, it will come to the appeal panel and will assess the person’s situation. Is there alienation between the stepchild and one of the partners, for example? Although, as I have said, oddly enough a lot of them are about business failures and about people, for example, not able to declare large profits and should they or should they not declare their profits. They are arguing: “Well, we have to put them back in the business” and so forth and so on. Anyway, the point being because of this ambiguity that has been mentioned, we try and deal with it with our sense of discretion. I can say, and had we produced a list it would have been obvious, that the vast majority of appeals are conceded. So, that there is no child ... we have some people who tell us: “Oh, you never told us the rules.” We had one of those the other day. It was a single parent - interestingly enough the single parent who came to the hearing was not the guardian parent, it was the other parent - about a student who had not declared the kind of difficulties that they were going through at the time medically and we had moved to charge them full rate. So, we have asked the person: “Go and search out that information and we will make a decision, probably a positive one, on the basis of that information.” I could go on and on about disclosing that. In a way it does not do us credit, because what it suggests is we have to run the system with a lot of discretion. But we do have to do that because of the factors that the Constable of St. Martin said and because pragmatism tells us that the Education Department, no matter how toughly the law is enacted ... if we look at other jurisdictions, if we look at experience here at people who jump ship from the Island and people who disown families and so forth, if we were to push it to that extent we would end up in incredibly embarrassing situations and the Education Department would end up doing a job for which it is not suited. Just briefly, and the Constable of St. Martin will know this because he has been through the system, it is taxable income that is looked at. Again, there is a big debate about should it be all disposable income, should it be capital assets, et cetera. There certainly is, as Deputy Tadier indicated, a case for a large reform. The problem is if you bring in these large reforms, you will bring in big bureaucracies. Have no doubt about it. You will end up, ironically, with an income support situation. That is the dilemma that you are always faced with. I have always thought it is not perfect, it does not include full disposable income, as Deputy Tadier reminded me the other day.

[15:45]

It does not include capital assets, but I have always thought the tax form is workable, because it is a form that has been invalidated by another States department and which we can use with confidence. We do not have to go into all those searches mentioned by the Constable about aunts and uncles and everyone else who is whipping in and out of the household. On balance, and it is an on balance decision, because in order to get a workable system and a fair system ... Deputy Pitman mentioned about fairness as did Deputy Southern. But, the fairness ... I have been approached by several of the 62 per cent for the reasons that the Constable of St. Martin and Deputy Green said. They have asked us: “Where is the fairness towards us? We are having to declare. We are having to declare fully. We cannot manipulate the system. They say [they cannot put figures on it] there are people manipulating the system and it is not fair on us. We want to see a fairer system.”

The Deputy of St. John:

Before the Senator starts, if he would not mind, I need to ask for a clarification from the Attorney General. I know he is not in the Assembly and I would just like to give him fair warning that there is a clarification that I would ask.

The Bailiff:

Very well, the Greffier will ask him to return. Thank you.

11.1.12 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I was also hoping that the Attorney General would be here to answer a question that I will be posing [Aside] ... as if by magic. A number of Members have made the point that we need to change the law if we are going to be able to do this. I have a copy in front of me of the Education (Jersey) Law (1999) and looking at Article 51. It says: “The Minister may by order make a number of provisions.” Then it goes on to list them from (a) to (f). The one that I would like to ask the Attorney General is if the Minister can do this by order, under (d) it says: “The grounds to entitlement to assistance, including the age, educational qualifications and financial status of the applicant and the financial status of the applicant’s parents.” So, I read, and I am sure the Attorney General will confirm if I have it right, that the Minister can by order change that particular term of the grant, the grounds for entitlement. Of course he does that under the Education (Discretionary Grants) (Jersey) Order 2008, which is the order which he wishes to change to bring in these new rules. I would like the Attorney General to clarify that the Education (Jersey) Law 1999 allows the Minister to do this by order by amending that order that he intends to do and has told us in his statement.

The Bailiff:

Can I just clarify, you are asking whether he can force information from the natural parents?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I thank Members who have spoken and mainly stuck to the narrow subject involved, for which I am grateful. Having listened to the Minister in his speech, I was going to make the comment that I made at his presentation the other day and I was glad I understood the subject before I came. I did find he wandered around the issues a lot without approaching the issue of, is this fairer than the previous system. Also, I am afraid, he did not offer any explanation as to why he assumes a new partner is either more likely to pay than an absent one or might indeed have a higher income than the absent biological parent. It is pure conjecture. In my view, the end result is that a student’s ability to go to university might well be compromised by these new proposals. Senator Ferguson, I thank her for her support and Deputy Pitman and Deputy Southern as well. Deputy Martin asked the question that income support requires total disclosure, why not with education. I will come back to that in a minute when I address the comments of Senator Le Gresley. She also raised the issue that a new partner may well have children of his or her own. Are they expected to pay for their own children and someone else’s? I think the new proposed system is quite unfair and probably the present system is not fair and not good: the new one is worse. Deputy Tadier suggested that perhaps we should look at the U.K. loan system. I am not sure I agree with him on that, because starting out in life, earning a wage with that amount of debt around one’s neck, I am not sure is a good thing. I wonder whether some of these people will ever be able to pay back the loans that they have. The Constable of St. Martin, I thank him for his contribution. I do wonder if he slightly confused himself, because he relies on an absent parent offering to give support. I have to ask him, is a new partner any more likely to offer? I somehow doubt it. Changing one unfair system for an even more unfair one really, to me, does not make sense. To some extent the comments I make there apply equally to the Minister for Housing, Deputy Green. Deputy Green has suggested we should follow the new proposals because they are used elsewhere. My understanding is they are not working terribly well elsewhere either. What is the point of moving from one system that does not work to another system that does not work? I think my good friend Deputy Le Hérissier fell into a similar trap. It is too difficult to trace the absent parent, so let us grab whoever is standing nearest and we will have them. I suggest that it might be more difficult to get money out of a new partner, even though, obviously, the partner will have a greater idea of where he or she is. It does not mean to say that his or her assets are any greater than the absent parents or that they are even willing. We have heard much about how the problem is that the absent biological parent is unwilling to pay. I would suggest that the current new partner is going to be even less willing to pay. So, I really do not see progress being made here. I do not think the department is going to be saving money. I think it is going to be costing more. I said I would get to Senator Le Gresley. He made reference to what was assessed in determining income support. He will no doubt be disappointed to hear I believe that the previous welfare system worked better. [Laughter] You will excuse me if I am not persuaded by his argument. He spoke of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 not applying to children of university age, whereby a student or a parent can access the information relating to the absent parent’s assets and that. Of course, that may be true, but people do not decide to go to university on the spur of the moment. These are plans made well in advance. I do not see any reason why a student or the parent that the student is living with could not apply to get this information while they are still within time to do so. Finally, the Minister for Treasury and Resources made comment about the fact, not so much on the issue of fairness or otherwise or the likelihood of it even working better than the present system, but purely on financial issues, that this will save the Island money. As I said a few moments ago, I do not think it will. You may know where the new partner is, whereas you may not know where the absent parent is, but I think the chances of getting money out of the new partner are going to be less than getting money out of the biological parent. I think Senator Ferguson hit the nail on the head, because what I am seeking is that parents take responsibility for their children, where families have split up, the absent parent should not be able to avoid his or her income being taken into account. If that requires a change in the law, whatever law, surely that is something the Minister should be pursuing. I believe it is immoral and unfair to expect a stranger to pay for somebody else’s child’s education. I certainly would not be too excited if, having moved in with a new partner I found that I was expected to pay for the education of that person’s child. I would most probably refuse to do so. Then what happens? The child does not go to university. Judging by the comments that I am hearing from the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture, which is not necessarily… what is the difference between that and the biological parent refusing. Nothing, as far as I can see. As I have said, what the Minister should be doing is seeking to tweak the present system. Because, in my view, replacing a system which I agree is unfair ... Members may be saying: “Why retain an unfair system?” The reason I am asking Members to agree to do that is because the proposal is even worse. It is the cleanest dirty shirt syndrome. Neither system is perfect, but the one we have at the moment is better than the one that is proposed. The one that we have at the moment needs tweaking, I do not deny that. I am not saying it is perfect. Of course it is not. But, starting up with a new one which, in my view, will have greater problems ... I do not believe there are financial savings to be made. I believe it is quite unfair, morally unacceptable and is going to lead to tears and probably going to lead to students ending up not going to university. There I make the proposition.

The Bailiff:

Very well. Is the appel called for? The appel is called for then in relation to the proposition of Deputy Baudains. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 10	CONTRE: 34	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator A. Breckon	Senator P.F. Routier
Senator S.C. Ferguson	Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Connétable of Grouville	Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Connétable of St. John	Senator F. du H. Le Gresley
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)	Senator I.J. Gorst
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)	Senator P.M. Bailhache
Deputy S. Pitman (H)	Connétable of St. Helier
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)	Connétable of Trinity
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)	Connétable of St. Clement
Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)	Connétable of St. Peter
	Connétable of St. Lawrence
	Connétable of St. Mary
	Connétable of St. Ouen
	Connétable of St. Martin
	Connétable of St. Saviour
	Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
	Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
	Deputy of St. Ouen
	Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
	Deputy of Trinity
	Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B)
	Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
	Deputy M. Tadier (B)
	Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
	Deputy A.K.F. Green (H
	Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
	Deputy of St. John
	Deputy J.P.G. Baker (H)
	Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
	Deputy of St. Mary
	Deputy of St. Martin
	Deputy R.G. Bryans (H)
	Deputy of St. Peter
	Deputy R.J. Rondel (H)

The Bailiff:

Very well. That completes Public Business. We now come to arrangements of business for future meetings. I invite the Chairman of P.P.C. to speak.

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

12. The Connétable of St. Helier (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

The arrangement for Public Business is set out under M on the Consolidated Order Paper with the addition of P.8/2013, which was added to 19th March in error, and P.135, which was deferred from today by the Minister for Health and Social Services. Deputy Martin has asked to defer the Police Station Relocation: review of decision, P.92, until 5th March.

The Bailiff:

Very well. Does any Member wish to say anything in relation to future business?

12.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

What is the reason for the deferral of the Police Station proposition?

12.2 Deputy J.A. Martin:

Yes, because there is only me and I have transcripts of 2 reports. The second report is not even finished. Judging by some comments made this morning, they will have to bring back some people from Home Affairs. So we are cutting it to the wire and 2 weeks, I think, is quite lenient to be putting this debate back. Yes, that is why I have asked for this to be deferred.

The Bailiff:

Very well. Does the Assembly agree to approve the business for 19th February, therefore, which is not with P.92. It is the other matters shown, plus P.8 and P.135 with P.92 moving to 5th March. That is agreed. Very well. That concludes the Assembly’s business. We will reconvene on 19th February.

ADJOURNMENT

[16:15]