STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 3rd JULY 2007

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1.1 THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE BY SENATOR B.E. SHENTON REGARDING 'J' CATEGORY EMPLOYEES:

1.2 THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BY SENATOR B.E. SHENTON REGARDING EVOLUTION OF THE WATERFRONT:

1.3 THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY THE CONNÉTABLE OF GROUVILLE REGARDING PROCESSES IN PLACE CONCERNING THE SALE OF STATES’ PROPERTY:

1.4 THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE HOUSING PROPERTY PLAN:

1.5 THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN REGARDING CODES OF PRACTICE ATTACHED TO THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS (JERSEY) LAW 2005:

1.6 THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW:

1.7 THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING THE OFFICE OF FINANCIAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN:

1.8 THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING HIS PLANNING POWERS.

1.9 THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING ENACTMENT OF THE UNLAWFUL PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT (JERSEY) REGULATIONS 2004.

1.10 THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE LOWERING OF THE ROAD AT THE WATERFRONT.

1.11 THE CHIEF MINISTER BY DEPUTY SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING MIGRATION AND POPULATION FIGURES.

1.12 THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING BY DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE BREAKDOWN OF THE DEPARTMENT'S MAINTENANCE BACKLOG.

1.13 THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING ANTICIPATED LOST REVENUE FROM GAS PLACE CAR PARK WHEN IT IS CONVERTED TO A TOWN PARK.

1.14 THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING THE STUDENT LOAN SCHEME.

1.15 THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING A CAP ON MORTGAGE TAX RELIEF.

1.16 THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING WIND-TESTS PERFORMED ON THE CASTLE QUAY DEVELOPMENT.

1.17 THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING A MULTI-STOREY CAR PARK PLANNED FOR ANN COURT.

2. Oral Questions

The Bailiff:

2.1 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier of the Minister for Transport regarding the transportation of incinerator ash between the incinerator and La Collette:

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (The Minister for Transport):

2.1.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:

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

2.1.3 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier:

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

2.1.5 Deputy J.A. Martin:

2.1.6 The Connétable of St. Helier:

2.2 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding actions in response to I.L.O. recommendations relating to the Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 2007:

Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security):

2.2.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.2.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.2.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.3 Deputy J.A. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding estimate of working population:

Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):

2.3.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

2.3.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.3.3 Deputy J.A. Martin:

2.3.4 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.4 Deputy J.A. Martin of the Minister for Housing regarding applicants in rental sectors awaiting allocation of 3-bedroom accommodation:

Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing):

2.4.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.5 The Connétable of St. Helier of the Minister for Economic Development regarding powers in relation to purchase of C.I. Traders and implications of sale for retail strategy:

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):

2.5.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:

2.5.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.5.3 Deputy J.A. Martin:

2.5.4 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.6 Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding actions following upholding by I.L.O. of complaint about Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 2007:

Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):

2.6.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.7 Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of H.M. Attorney General regarding legislation relating to the Magistrate’s Court not being subject to human rights audit:

Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C. (H.M. Attorney General):

2.7.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

2.7.2 The Deputy of St. Martin:

2.8 Senator B.E. Shenton of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding control over parking and public parking charges on the Waterfront:

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):

2.8.1 Senator B.E. Shenton:

2.9 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel regarding advice intended to be sought from H.M. Attorney General:

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence (The Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

2.9.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

2.9.2 Senator J.L. Perchard:

2.9.3 The Deputy of St. Martin:

2.10 Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding valuation of the former Jersey College for Girls site and negotiations for sale:

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

2.10.1 The Connétable of Grouville:

2.10.2 The Connétable of Grouville:

2.11 Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the contracting of a U.K. company to produce Jersey Brand logo:

Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):

2.11.1 Deputy S. Pitman:

2.11.2 Senator B.E. Shenton:

2.11.3 Deputy J.A. Martin:

2.12 Deputy S. Pitman of the Minister for Housing regarding criteria for the identification of States-owned properties for sale:

Senator T.J. Le Main: (The Minister for Housing):

2.12.1 Deputy S. Pitman:

2.12.2 Deputy J.A. Martin:

2.12.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.12.4 Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier:

2.13 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding process for the modification of route structure of scheduled bus service:

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):

2.13.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

2.13.2 Deputy J.A. Martin:

2.13.3 Deputy C.J. Scott Warren of St. Saviour:

2.13.4 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

2.14 Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the acquisition of Le Mont de la Ville, South Hill Battery, St. Helier for development:

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

2.14.1 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

2.14.2 The Connétable of St. Helier:

2.14.3 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

2.15 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding a fundamental review of Education, Sport and Culture Department spending:

Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):

2.15.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

2.16 Deputy K.C. Lewis of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding recommissioning of the swimming pool at Fort Regent:

Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):

2.16.1 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

2.16.2 Senator J.L. Perchard:

2.16.3 Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade:

2.16.4 The Connétable of St. Helier:

3. Questions to Ministers without Notice - The Minister for Planning and Environment

3.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:

3.2 Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:

3.3 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

3.4 The Deputy of St. Martin:

3.5 Senator B.E. Shenton:

3.6 The Connétable of St. Helier:

3.7 Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity:

3.8 Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John:

3.9 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

3.10 Senator J.L. Perchard:

3.11 Deputy G.P. Southern:

3.12 The Deputy of St. John:

3.12.1 The Deputy of St. John:

3.13 Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:

4. Questions to Ministers without Notice - The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture

4.1 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

4.2 Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter:

4.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

4.4 Senator B.E. Shenton:

4.5 Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:

4.6 Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

4.7 The Deputy of St. John:

4.8 The Deputy of St. John:

4.9 Deputy J.A. Martin:

4.10 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

4.11 Deputy D.W. Mezbourian:

4.11.1 Deputy D.W. Mezbourian:

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY

5. The Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel regarding Draft Price and Charge Indicators (Jersey) Law 200-

5.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

5.1.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

5.1.2 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

5.1.3 Senator M.E. Vibert:

5.1.4 Senator B.E. Shenton:

5.1.5 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

5.1.6 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

5.1.7 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

5.1.8 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

5.1.9 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

5.1.10 Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:

5.1.11 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

6. The Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel regarding the establishment of a Sub-Panel to investigate money laundering

6.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

6.1.1 Senator J.L. Perchard:

6.1.2 Senator J.L. Perchard:

6.1.3 Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:

6.1.4 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

6.1.5 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

6.1.6 Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:

6.1.7 Deputy J.A. Hilton:

6.1.8 Senator F.H. Walker:

7. The Chairman of the Comité des Connétables regarding the Island-wide rates figure

7.1 Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:

PUBLIC BUSINESS

8. Environment Scrutiny Panel: Vote of No Confidence (P.85/2007)

The Bailiff:

8.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

8.1.1 Senator F.E. Cohen:

8.1.2 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:

The Bailiff:

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

PUBLIC BUSINESS (…continued)

Environment Scrutiny Panel: Vote of No Confidence (P.85/2007) (…continued)

8.1.3 Deputy C.J. Scott Warren:

8.1.4 Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

8.1.5 Deputy J.J. Huet:

Deputy C.J. Scott Warren:

8.1.6 Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

8.1.7 Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade:

8.1.8 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

Deputy C.J. Scott Warren:

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

8.1.9 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

8.1.10 Deputy J.A. Martin:

8.1.11 Deputy G.P. Southern:

8.1.12 The Connétable of Grouville:

8.1.13 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

8.1.14 Connétable K.A. Le Brun of St. Mary:

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

Deputy C.J. Scott Warren:

The Connétable of St. Mary:

8.1.15 Senator B.E. Shenton:

8.1.16 The Connétable of St. Helier:

8.1.17 The Deputy of St. Mary:

8.1.18 Senator L. Norman:

8.1.19 Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

8.1.20 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

The Bailiff:

Senator M.E. Vibert:

The Bailiff:

9. Former School Premises, Clearview Street, St. Helier: sale to Scott Gibaut Homes (P.65/2007)

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

9.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):

9.1.1 Deputy C.J. Scott Warren:

9.1.2 Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

9.1.3 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

9.1.4 The Connétable of St. Helier:

9.1.5 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

9.1.6 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

The Bailiff:

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

The Bailiff:

ADJOURNMENT

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer.

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1.1 THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE BY SENATOR B.E. SHENTON REGARDING 'J' CATEGORY EMPLOYEES:

Question

Would the Minister provide a list of all ‘j’ category staff within his department listing job title and place of employment?

Answer

1.2 THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BY SENATOR B.E. SHENTON REGARDING EVOLUTION OF THE WATERFRONT:

Question

Would the Minister provide the dates that the following developments received planning approval and the names of the President and Vice-President of the Planning and Environment Committee at that time –

 (a) the Cinema Complex?

 (b) the Harbour Reach Development?

 (c) the Waterfront Hotel?

Answer

I am happy to provide the Senator with the information he seeks.

Cinema Complex

Planning-in-principle permission -16th September 1997.

Detailed permission – 21st June 1999.

For both applications the Committee President was Mr. N.L. Quérée and the Vice-President Mr. A.J. Layzell.

Harbour Reach

Planning-in-principle permission – 12th April 2001.

The Committee President was Mr. N.L. Quérée and the Vice-President Mr. A.J. Layzell.

Detailed permission – 15th July 2003.

The Committee President was Mr. M.F. Dubras and the Vice-President Deputy J.A. Hilton.

Waterfront Hotel

Planning-in-principle permission – 7th.July 2000.

The Committee President was Mr. N.L. Quérée and the Vice-President Mr. A.J. Layzell.

Detailed permission – 3rd March 2005.

The Committee President was Senator P.F.C. Ozouf and the Vice-President Mr. J.L. Dorey.

1.3 THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY THE CONNÉTABLE OF GROUVILLE REGARDING PROCESSES IN PLACE CONCERNING THE SALE OF STATES’ PROPERTY:

Question

What processes for the sale of States’ property has the Minister put in place following the recommendations made (and accepted by him) in the review of the proposed sale of the former Jersey College for Girls site (S.R.10/2007)?

Answer

The Corporate Services Scrutiny Sub-Panel when reviewing the proposed sale of the former Jersey College for Girls endorsed the recommendations of its adviser, which were accepted by me. I set out the nine recommendations below with my comments on each in italics.

Recommendations

1. The States should review their method of property disposal to establish the correct method appropriate to a specific site.

 Property Holdings policy is to decide on the most appropriate method of property disposal on a site specific basis.

2. The States should determine a criteria statement to enable them to consider proposals where a straightforward sale of a property is not possible.

 Property Holdings will submit a disposals strategy for approval as part of a Strategic Property Plan to be considered by the States early next year. The strategy will include proposals for managing the disposal of complex and high value properties.

3. Marketing strategies should be considered for any disposal prior to advertising and a decision made as to whether such marketing should be carried out in-house or an external agent/surveyor appointed.               Property Holdings currently applies this policy.

4. Where informal discussions are carried out prior to any formal marketing, the details of such discussions should be documented and the rationale for choosing the parties approached clearly stated.

 Property Holdings currently applies this policy.

5. Where a disposal property requires a development brief the States should provide its Officers with clarity upon priorities relating to planning, economic viability, uses and social issues which may affect the brief.

 When determining the most appropriate use for a property that has been identified for disposal, Property Holdings takes full account of all relevant information to inform the development brief. Development briefs are amended in order to reflect changing prioritise, an example of which is the Belle Vue site identified in the 2007 Plan.

6. In choosing a purchaser or preferred developer or joint venture partner the States’ Officers need clearly defined goals and objectives to enable them to consider fairly each offer/proposal.

 Property Holdings’ overriding objective is to extract optimum benefit from property assets - this is not restricted to financial benefit. The choice of disposal route, through sale or development, will support this objective.

7. Legal advice should be sought at an early stage so that the choice of a preferred developer can be documented so that both parties have security in proceeding with a scheme.

 Should Property Holdings enter into this type of agreement in future, legal advice will be taken at an early stage.

8. Where disposals are for whatever reasons complex and/or likely to take a period of time to reach an outcome independent advice should be obtained at appropriate stages in respect of values.

 Property Holdings currently applies this policy.

9. Prior to the choice of any purchaser/preferred developer, due diligence should be carried out on the parties concerned to establish their financial standing and their ability to deliver their proposals. Whilst it is accepted that this may have to be duplicated at a later stage where a scheme such as the one under consideration takes a significant period of time to reach fruition, it is imperative at the outset that the chosen party is the right one from the beginning.

 Property Holdings will continue to apply this policy, where appropriate, in particular for transactions which are not simple purchases.

1.4 THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE HOUSING PROPERTY PLAN:

Question 1

At a recent briefing on the Housing Property Plan, the Minister advised members that there were only some 25 applicants on the States rental waiting list for 3-bedroom houses; will he inform members how many tenants have applied for transfer to three-bedroom accommodation for medical or under-housing reasons?

Will he further state how many applicants have been removed from the transfer list for 3-bedrooms for rent arrears or other problems?

Answer

As at 1st June 2007, there were 16 families on the Transfer list waiting for three bedroom accommodation on medical grounds. 6 of those are considered as having an “immediate need” and 10 are considered as having a “moderate need”, these are direct recommendations from the Medical Officer of Health. In addition, there were 50 families waiting for three-bedroom accommodation on the grounds of currently being “over crowded”.

These figures need to be taken in context with other Transfer list figures. For example, there are 23 families living in three and four-bedroom homes that require one or two-bedroom properties. There are 89 individuals/couples occupying two bedroom properties who need to move to one bedroom units. The stock is being “blocked” as there are not sufficient one bedroom units to cater for the aging population.

[C M1]The table below shows the breakdown for Transfer applications made since 1st January 2007, that have since been cancelled, and why-

Question 2

Will the Minister explain the basis for his assurance that the increase in permanent ‘j’ category numbers is not responsible for the house-price inflation currently witnessed in the 3+ bedroom housing market, and why, therefore, he has recently called for an emergency ministerial debate on the need to build more housing as a result of the Island’s need for increased numbers of ‘j’ categories to feed the objective of 2% economic growth?

What predicted figures for future numbers of ‘j’ category and other immigration does the Minister currently have on which to base future housing demand?

Answer

As noted in the response to Question 1(d) presented on the 27th March 2007 –

“It has never been stated that ‘j’ category purchases have no impact on the housing market, simply that any impact is minimal in light of the fact that 92% of purchases are made by locally qualified individuals. This was clearly stated in a previous response given on the 21st November 2006.”

As also stated in the same response –

 “it is simply not plausible, in the context of large increases in local employment and real economic growth for the first time in 5 years, to ascribe the increase in house prices to a small number of essential employees”.

There is no doubt that house prices are an important area, and this is why Minister’s meet to consider the position on a frequent basis, hence the meeting on 21st June. It is important however, to put the issue into perspective.

Over the past four years, rises in house prices (13%, since 2003) have been lower than rises in earnings (18%) and inflation (16%) indicating not only a real increase in general purchasing power of Islanders, as earnings growth has outstripped inflation, but also a relative improvement in the affordability of housing in the Island, as earnings outstrip house price growth.

This house price growth must also be put into context with other jurisdictions. Comparing 2007 with 2006, while house prices rose by 3.5% in Jersey, in Guernsey, house prices increased by 5%, and in the United Kingdom by 11%. As such, Jersey has performed well, seeing moderate rises and maintaining overall levels of affordability.

As to the specific issue of three-bedroom houses, while price rises in Quarter 1 2007 were 5.5%, two-bedroom house prices rose by 9% for the same period. On the whole, j employees do not predominate in the two-bedroom sector, and as such, it is telling that inflation has been lower in the property types that j employees seek, not higher.

What the above adds up to is moderate house price growth driven by a favourable economic climate – high employment, rising earnings, moderate inflation, relatively low borrowing costs - not by a small number of j purchasers. This is not to say the affordability of homes is not a serious issue, just that the empirical evidence does not link ‘(j)’s’ as a prime or significant cause.

These issues are part of a wider policy agenda being promoted by the Council of Ministers for the future – with shared equity, sheltered housing, the States Property Plan, the Island Plan, the Population Review, the skills strategy and the Economic Growth Plan - all combining to create a sustainable and positive vision for the future. The Migration Advisory Group, which was set up for these very purposes, continues to monitor the situation very closely, balancing economic growth with demand on housing and other resources. The next key data for analysing is the 30th June 2007 Manpower Survey, which will provide sufficient data to predict numbers for this year. The meeting called on the 21st June 2007 was a part of this ongoing monitoring and governance process.

Question 3

Does the Minister not agree that there has nonetheless been a substantial rise in the number of ‘j’ categories being granted in the last 2 quarters of the last year, and furthermore, does he accept, as the Statistics Department does, that in the finance sector, whereas he quotes the overall figure of 84 per cent locally qualified, in the finance sector in the third quarter of 2006, the numbers were such that 75 per cent of new employees were locally qualified and 25 per cent, a rise in the proportion, came from ‘j’ categories and non-locally qualified in the finance sector, which was responsible for the largest proportion of expansion of jobs?

Answer

The number of ‘j’ categories being granted for the private sector has indeed increased, not only in the last six months of 2006 but throughout the last two years with a view to stimulating the Island’s economy and particularly to growing high value added sectors. At the same time, the number of local people in work has increased significantly, while the number of lower skilled non-local employees has remained static, declining as a proportion of the workforce.

All of the figures mentioned in this Question are either directly quoted in, or may be derived from, the publicly available report on the Labour Market at December 2006, published by the Statistics Unit earlier this year (verbatim quotes from the report are shown in italics) -

• “overall, about 84% of people employed in Jersey in December 2006 were locally qualified (as defined under the Regulation of Undertakings and Development Law)”;

• locally qualified employees accounted for 86% of all employees in the Finance sector in December 2006, a higher proportion than the average across all other sectors;

• “the Finance sector accounted for more than half of the total increase in private sector employment, up by 810 on a year previously; locally qualified staff accounted for more than three-quarters of this increase”.

• j-category staff accounted for 16% of the increase in Finance sector employment in the twelve months to December 2006;

• over the twelve-month periods to December 2005 and June 2006, j-category staff accounted for 58% and 31%, respectively, of the total increases in employment recorded by the Finance sector.

Therefore, whilst the number of j-category employees in the Finance sector has been increasing, the proportion that they represent of the increases in employment seen by the sector has in fact reduced most recently.

Question 4

Will the Minister inform members what proportion of the 200 ‘j’ category staff arriving in 2006 –

 (a) were granted a permanent contract? and

 (b) were in the finance and related sectors?

and will he confirm that these permanent ‘j’ category staff –

 (c) are able to purchase a house in their own name from day one of their employment? And

 (d) will after five years’ residence become “entitled” under the new migration policy and be no longer registered as “licensed” for housing or employment purposes?

Answer

 (a) 40% of j category applications in 2006 were granted without a time limit, equating to 80 employees. A time limit on a j would usually follow on from the fact that it was a fixed term contract, and visa versa.

 (b) As recorded in the published Jersey Labour Market December 2006, “the number of ‘(j)’ category employees in the private sector increased by 160, more than 80% of which were in financial services”

 (c) A ‘j’ category employee is able to purchase a property through a company

 (d) As detailed in the approved Migration Policy, P25/2005, it is proposed that ‘entitlement’ is gained after ten years.

1.5 THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN REGARDING CODES OF PRACTICE ATTACHED TO THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS (JERSEY) LAW 2005:

Question 1

Will the Minister inform members the reasons for the delay in preparing the necessary Codes of Practice under the Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 2007 (adopted by the States on 17th May 2005 and subsequently amended, but not yet in force), given that much of the Law cannot be put into practice without them, and state when members should expect to see the Codes?

Answer

Draft Codes of Practice were prepared and presented to States Members along with the draft Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 200-.The Law was not registered by the Royal Court until January of this year.

A revised draft of the Codes of Practice will shortly be published and I will invite representations from the public and interested parties before approving the Codes of Practice. Members will see the resulting codes later this year when I present them by Order, prior to proposing an Appointed Day for the Law.

Question 2

Will the Minister inform members of the reasons for requiring further time for the presentation of income support plans to the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel and to the Assembly following his presentation to the Council of Ministers on 8th June 2007?

Answer

I am not aware that the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel was expecting to be presented with the Income Support plans, however I have been working closely with the Income Support Scrutiny Sub-Panel for more than 18 months.

I have not delayed the lodging date for the Income Support Regulations further to briefing the Council of Ministers on 8th June 2007. The intention remains to lodge in the week commencing 9th July 2007.

1.6 THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW:

Question

Would the Chairman outline why the Corporate Scrutiny Panel was seen as the body which was qualified to assess the manpower implications of the proposed Freedom of Information Law? What other alternatives were or are being explored to expedite the process?

Answer

As the Deputy will be aware, considerable work had already been undertaken by the Privileges and Procedures Committee under his presidency to establish the costs of implementing a Freedom of Information Law. P.72/2005 ‘Freedom of Information: proposed legislation’ sets out at sections 19 and 20 the human resource and financial implications that the Committee considered would accrue. In addition, it was not that Committee’s intention to introduce publication schemes at the outset, so mitigating further any anticipated costs, and the current Committee maintains this position.

The draft Freedom of Information Law was sent out to consultation in the spring of 2006, and responses were received from many quarters, including the Council of Ministers, the Corporate Management Board and States’ departments. On 26th July last year, the Privileges and Procedures Committee noted the recommendation of the Council of Ministers that, as there was uncertainty about the resource implications of introducing a new Law, an independent person should be invited to carry out an audit of the costs involved. The Council of Ministers believed that this proposal offered a sensible way forward and would help to give the States a better understanding of the resource implications. The Council of Ministers asked that the audit would assess the anticipated costs of responding to requests for information, implementing records management systems up to the required standard, and introducing different lead-in times for various provisions of the Law.

The Committee considered a suggestion that an approach be made to the Information Commissioner in the United Kingdom (Mr. Richard Thomas) either to request that his office review the draft Law, or a person nominated by him be approached. The Committee also considered whether it would be more appropriate in the Jersey context to seek assistance from the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, which had been established to consider the topics of corporate services, corporate policies and external relations. That Panel’s terms of reference include the obligation “to scrutinize draft Laws and draft subordinate enactments which are to be made by the States and consider possible amendments to them, if appropriate”. (Standing Orders 131(1)(a) and 132(c) refer).

The Committee considered that the Panel had the necessary local knowledge and was the appropriate body, and therefore decided to ask the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel if it was prepared to review the draft Law, and in particular to assess the financial implications of introducing the Law, over and above the costs already expended on access to information in accordance with the Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information. The Committee is mindful that there are costs associated with the proper implementation of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 and the Public Records (Jersey) Law 2002, which legislation is already on the statute book. It would, of course, be inequitable for the costs of implementing records management systems to meet the requirements of those Laws to be attributed to the proposed Freedom of Information Law.

The Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel has agreed to carry out the above review. In the light of the undertaking of the Panel to review the matter early in 2008, no alternatives are being explored at this time.

1.7 THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING THE OFFICE OF FINANCIAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN:

Question

Would the Minister advise when he will be presenting a consultation paper (‘Green Paper’) outlining the various options in respect of establishing an office of Financial Services Ombudsman, has he considered how such an Ombudsman would be funded and if so, would a levy on the industry be an option?

Answer

As the Deputy is aware this is a subject of much recent debate including his own question and my answer only a fortnight ago.

The Chairman of the Consumer Council also, last week, wrote to me on the subject.

It might be helpful to restate some of the background to this:

• Since it was first raised by the Edwards report in 1998, a Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme has been considered in 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005 and again when the last report was presented on June 6th last year.

•             On each and every occasion this matter has been looked at, the conclusion has been the same:
•              

Whilst everyone accepts having an Ombudsman would be attractive it is uneconomic to set one up in the form typically found in large developed economies. This was the conclusion of my 2006 report.

So where do we go from here?

It is important that Members understand the economics of a levy on industry. I urge Members to revisit the 2006 report (R.51/2006 refers). As I have already mentioned, whilst everyone agrees that having an Ombudsman would on the face of it be attractive, we have to weigh carefully the costs and benefits for the consumer, the finance industry and the Island. In a small economy an industry levy, especially one that is weighted by complaint levels has the possibility of placing a disproportionate burden on operators critical to the local market.

We need to be clear that once an Ombudsman is created it might be very difficult to contain the running costs if complaints were to soar.

In the light of the Deputy’s question and having taken soundings with Members, I propose that we set up a roundtable steering group to commission an independent review of this matter, ruling nothing in and ruling nothing out, and seeing the process through to conclusion. I am happy to agree the constitution of this committee with other stakeholders and would aim to have it established along with terms of reference agreed and ready to start work in January 2008.

If we are to look again at this matter we need to allocate the necessary resources to ensure we do it properly and I will be including the required resources in my budget for 2008.

1.8 THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING HIS PLANNING POWERS.

Question

Does the Minister consider it desirable that power to grant planning permission be vested in one person, that is, the Minister for Planning and Environment? If not, what does he propose to do about it?

Answer

In my answer to Deputy Le Hérissier’s question on the same subject tabled at the last States sitting I outlined some of the checks and balances on my powers. The implementation of Third Party Appeals significantly alters the situation as my decisions can now be appealed both by applicants and relevant objectors.

I regard the present situation with respect to my powers as satisfactory. However if the Privileges and Procedures Committee suggests changes in the way my powers are exercised then that is a matter for its members and for the States as a whole.

In principle vesting planning powers in the Minister is no different from the powers vested in other Ministers. It is for the States to decide if the Minister for Planning and Environment’s position warrants special arrangements that are not applicable to other Ministers.

It is relevant to note, as stated in my previous answer, that I am moving towards holding all Ministerial decision meetings in public, when I make application decisions or other decisions relating to individual properties (such as listing). This will include provision for hearing oral representations from those wishing to make them. I intend that these provisions should be in place for my next decision-taking meeting in July.

1.9 THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING ENACTMENT OF THE UNLAWFUL PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT (JERSEY) REGULATIONS 2004.

Question

Is the Minister satisfied that the enactment of the Unlawful Public Entertainment Regulations (Jersey) 2004, is a legally valid exercise of the powers under the Order in Council of 1771?

Answer

Yes.

1.10 THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE LOWERING OF THE ROAD AT THE WATERFRONT.

Question

In the light of the assurances given by the Minister on 19th June to reveal ‘all the necessary details in relation to the financial package’ pertaining to the lowering of the road at the Waterfront, will he inform members what overall profit levels are anticipated as likely to accrue to the developer and subsequent owners/leaseholders?

Further, will the Minister inform members what consideration, if any, has been given by him and the Treasury and Resources Minister to the return to government in taxation that will result from the Waterfront development under the zero/ten tax initiative, and if none, will he now do so and report back to members before he returns to the States with the ‘Hopkins Plan’?

When can members expect to receive the promised paper detailing the ‘extraordinary economic benefits’ to be derived from the capital investment in, and running costs of small museums/galleries elsewhere, and how such benefits can be transposed to the proposed national gallery on the waterfront? Can the Minister indicate to members on which ministerial budget he expects such running costs to be included: Education, Sport and Culture or Economic Development (Tourism)?

Answer

I can confirm that the necessary details of the financial package will be made available when the Waterfront proposals are brought to the States for debate. This will include disclosure of the financial return from the scheme to the Waterfront Enterprise Board Limited (WEB). However, the profitability levels to the preferred developer are subject to confidentiality clauses and cannot be disclosed. I regret that I am not in a position to release further information on the financial package at this time, as WEB remain in negotiation with the preferred developer and the commercially sensitive nature of this process must be respected. All I can say is that I will only bring forward to the States proposals that deliver a very significant return to the public through WEB.

All property developments profits arising from Jersey land and property, including those on the Waterfront, will continue to be taxed at 20% under Schedule A of the Income Tax (Jersey) Law and the Comptroller of Income Tax will be assessing all such profits on the relevant developer, whether Jersey resident or non-Jersey resident, corporate or non corporate, when the profits arise. Property development profits arising in Jersey are specifically excluded from the 0 / 10 corporate tax proposals.

Officers in the Economic Development Department are working, in consultation with my officers, to deliver a paper evaluating the evidence regarding the potential economic benefits of small art galleries. This will draw on existing studies of galleries elsewhere to appraise the potential for the realisation of such benefits in association with the proposed National Gallery on the Waterfront. The timetable for production of this paper is still being finalised, but I anticipate that it will be available in early September 2007.

I cannot at this stage confirm how the proposed National Gallery’s running costs will be funded. This project is at an early stage and a variety of funding options both for the construction and running costs will be evaluated.

1.11 THE CHIEF MINISTER BY DEPUTY SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING MIGRATION AND POPULATION FIGURES.

Question 1

Further to the answers given in response to Deputy J.A. Martin on 19th June 2007 on the 2006 migration and population figures, will the Chief Minister inform members –

 (a) how many of the 200 heads of households were granted time-unlimited ‘j’ category licences?

 (b) how many of the 340 dependants were –

  (i) children?

  (ii) eligible/likely to take up employment?

Answer

(a) 40% of ‘j’ category applications in 2006 were granted without a time limit, equating to 80 employees.

(b) The number of dependents associated with inward migrant ‘j’ category employees is not collected directly but is estimated from the age‑gender distributions compiled by the last Census, with any potential recent change being monitored by the results of the annual Social Survey. Statistics on both pre-school and school-age children provide an additional complementary cross-analysis to this estimate.

 From these complementary approaches it is estimated that there were approximately 340 dependents of inward migrant j-category employees in 2006, and that these broke down into children and working-aged adults as:

 (i) approximately 170 children aged 15 years or under

 (ii) approximately 170 adults of working age (defined as men aged 16‑64 years and women aged 16-59 years).

Question 2

Given the Chief Minister’s expressed policy to maintain economic growth at 2% per year whilst containing job growth to 1% (500 jobs) –

 (a) can the Chief Minister explain to members why job growth in 2006 amounted to 1,540, or 3%? (source: Statistics Unit - Jersey Labour Market December 2006)?

 (b) what measures, if any, are envisaged to contain job growth to within the target of 1% for coming years, and if not does he expect similar figures for 2007? Will these include measures to increase productivity, and if so, what specific measures will he or his Ministers employ to bring this about?

 (c) what proportion of the increase in total employment in the private sector in 2006 is attributable to the employment of ‘j’ category and non-qualified staff?

 (d) what measures does the Chief Minister propose to limit the accelerating rate of private sector ‘j’ category job growth, led by the finance sector, illustrated by the 80% increase over 5 years in Figure 8 of the Jersey Labour Market December 2006 above?

Answer

(a) Employment growth in 2006, based on the December figures, amounted to 1,540 because of the strong performance of the Jersey economy, favourable international economic environment, and the approach of the Council of Ministers to promoting and facilitating economic growth in accordance with the approved Economic Growth Plan, and the Strategic Plan, 2006 - 2011. This growth was driven by 1,140 local people gaining employment and entering the workforce - accounting for 81% of the private sector employment growth. This is a welcome development, and not something that should be capped in any single year, but rather, something that should be managed within the 1% per annum target over the life of the economic cycle and the life of the Strategic Plan.

 The Strategic Plan was agreed in 2004 and was set against the position in 2003. In this context, average growth in the total workforce over the 3-year period, 2003 - 2006, has been 0.44% per year, which is significantly below the 1% target. Such an average measure reflects the accepted economic reality that economic growth is not spread evenly in each and every year, but has a significant cyclical element which must be managed.

(b) The Regulation of Undertakings and Development Law and the Housing Law continue to be applied to manage economic growth, and in particular to manage migration. The strictness with which these controls are applied is reflected in the figures, with non-local employees making up 13% of the workforce, j employees making up just 3% of the workforce, and local employees making up the vast majority, 84%. In terms of growth in employment in 2006, local people were the beneficiaries, with 81% of job growth coming from local people. These controls will continue to be applied to achieve average employment growth of no more than 1% over the life of the Strategic Plan, until such time as in the near future new migration controls are introduced.

 In 2007, the economy is expected to continue to grow at a healthy rate and there will be further growth in job numbers. Any firm estimate, however, must await the publication of the 30th June 2007 manpower results.

 It is a clear objective of the Economic Development Department to deliver economic growth through increased productivity, with a maximum average annual growth in the working population of 1%. This is why, amongst other things, the Council of Ministers has placed a high priority on the development of a Skills Executive which, for the first time, will bring together all aspects of the skills agenda under one organisation. Over the coming months this new body which will be charged with developing a series of measures to maximise the skills of local people to meet the needs of the local economy in the most effective way.

(c) As recorded in the published Jersey Labour Market December 2006, 11% of employment growth came from j category essential employees, 8% from non-locally qualified persons, and the vast majority, 81% from locally qualified people.

(d) ‘j’ employees account for just 3% of the total labour force, and while this may be a 1% increase on 2002, when ‘(j)’s accounted for 2% of the labour force, it remains a small proportion of the total. It has also taken place at the expense of lower skilled non-local employees who now account for 13% of the workforce, compared to 14% in 2002. Local people continue to account for 84% of the workforce.

 These changes reflect improvements in productivity, in finance in particular but other industries also, as general economy activity becomes increasingly skilled, diverse, and of higher value. This is a positive development for the local labour force, who benefit from the skills transferred from this small j category labour force, enabling the Island to better compete in the international market place, as it must. Furthermore, as these skills are transferred to the local labour force, the less will be the need for j category employees in the future - while still securing the skills base the Island must have.

 These structural changes – the displacement of lower skilled with higher skilled activities - have taken place within the strict controls applied under the Regulation of Undertakings Law and Housing Law  within the context of balancing economic growth against the demand of resources, in particular, housing. These controls will continue to be applied to achieve this balance.

1.12 THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING BY DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE BREAKDOWN OF THE DEPARTMENT'S MAINTENANCE BACKLOG.

Question

(a) Would the Minister provide a breakdown of his Department’s £75 million maintenance backlog?

(b) Would the Minister provide an age profile of those 1,000 ‘better-off’ tenants, identified within the Social Housing Property Plan as paying full-fair rent without abatement or paying at least 90% full-fair rent?

(c) What consultation has been undertaken by the Department with the 1,000 ‘better-off’ tenants, identified within the Social Housing Property Plan as paying full-fair rent without abatement or paying at least 90% full-fair rent, to enable it to identify the likely uptake of tenants of the proposed Shared Equity Scheme?

(d) What consultation has been undertaken by the Department with the tenants currently occupying the 800 properties that have been earmarked for sale within the Social Housing Property Plan, to enable it to identify the likely uptake of tenants of the proposed Shared Equity Scheme?

(e) In view of the fact that the Social Housing Property Plan is to be debated on the 17th July 2007, would the Minister inform Members what discussion has taken place between his Department and those mortgage providers who provide mortgages to the over 50s?

Answer

(a)   The breakdown of refurbishment work per site is as follows -

(b)          The 1,000 ‘best off tenants’ as at today can be categorised as follows -

 152 are 40 years old or under,

 404 are aged between 41 and 50,

 73 are aged between 51 and 60

 371 are aged over 60.

(c)          It was not deemed sensible to contact these tenants in advance of a States decision, particularly when this is a 10 year Plan and it is accepted that, over that ten year period, people’s incomes and circumstances will continuously change. However, the information below provides a snap shot of current uptake:-

(d)           

 236 tenants have already come forward to confirm their interest in purchasing. 142 of these tenants are currently paying full-fair rent without abatement or paying at least 90% full-fair rent. On the basis of declared earnings, the following can also be confirmed:-

 Of these 236 -

  191 could secure a mortgage of £160,000

  175 could secure a mortgage of £211,500.

(e)          The Property Plan does not identify the actual properties being proposed for sale, rather a maximum number of sales on any given Estate.  70 of these properties are at Le Squez and Le Marais and have already been sold or are due to be sold over the coming months. The remaining properties at Le Squez and Le Marais (139) will be newly built during the refurbishment of future Phases on the two Estates. All tenants at Le Squez and Le Marais have been visited on at least one occasion to discuss the redevelopment, those being affected the earliest and who are being decanted at this time, have in most cases been visited three times.

 In respect of the other properties outlined in the Plan, the Department has no intention of asking any of the current tenants to move from their home in order for a sale to go ahead. Current tenants, who wish to buy their home, once refurbished but at any time over the 10 year period, will be able to do so until the maximum number of sales on that site is reached. Tenants who wish to buy over that 10 year period who do not currently occupy a property proposed for sale, will have the opportunity to do so as and when properties naturally become void over that 10 year period.

(f)           A number of lending institutions have approached the Department to discuss the proposed Shared Equity Scheme. These meetings have been at the request of the lending institutions to familiarise themselves with the proposals. No reference was made during discussions to particular age groups as sales would be open to tenants of all ages, although it has become clear that a number of the lenders are tailoring their products to older first time buyers and those on lower incomes offering such things as extended repayment periods and 100% mortgages.

1.13 THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING ANTICIPATED LOST REVENUE FROM GAS PLACE CAR PARK WHEN IT IS CONVERTED TO A TOWN PARK.

Question

(a) Would the Minister advise members how much annual revenue is received from Gas Place car park, (and which will be lost once it is converted to the town park)?

(b) Would the Minister provide the total cost of the proposed refurbishment of Minden Place car park?

Answer

(a) It is not possible to give an exact figure of annual revenue from Gas Place car park as it is not possible to establish when someone purchases a book of Paycards or a Season Ticket and in which car park they will use it.

 However, based on recent utilisation surveys, it is possible to give a fairly accurate indication of net revenue based on 2006 figures.  This would be in the order of £415,400 per annum. This does not include the rental received for the Talman Site, adjacent to Bath Street/David Place.

(b) There is no intention to refurbish Minden Place car park. When a new car park is constructed to replace Gas Place car park, it will provide both shopper and commuter car parking and allow Minden Place to be demolished as it is no longer effective or efficient as a modern parking facility.

1.14 THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING THE STUDENT LOAN SCHEME.

Question

Would the Minister, in relation to the student loan scheme, advise members –

 (a) whether there will be a maximum loan amount for the overall period of study, including interest, given that there is a £1,500 maximum per annum?

 (b) whether the terms of the agreement reached with the Banks by the Minister includes reference to interest charged and, if so, whether that includes a fixed or variable rate? Furthermore will the Minister be underwriting loans above a set limit?

 (c) whether loans will be fixed term, or able to be paid back with corresponding reduction in interest?

 (d) how the scheme caters for students who may be declined a loan by banks for                              whatever reason?

Answer

With regard to the student loan scheme –

 (a) there is no maximum loan amount for the overall period of study;

 (b) the agreement reached with the banks provides for a loan with interest charged at 1% above base. The 1% is a fixed rate, base rate however can change. The Minister will not be underwriting loans above a set limit;

 (c) the repayment period is a fixed term of 5 years commencing one year after graduation. There are provisions however for early repayment which would have the effect of reducing accumulated interest;

 (d) the arrangements made with the banks provide for a loan supported by a States guarantee; the banks therefore will not refuse loans to eligible students;

1.15 THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING A CAP ON MORTGAGE TAX RELIEF.

Question 1

When the Minister set a cap on mortgage tax relief in 2003 for the 2004 budget, the average price of a three bedroom house was £333,000; it is now £381,000 and rising. Will the Minister inform members whether he has under consideration any of the following actions –

 (a) raising the cap in line with inflation, or

 (b) raising it in line with average house price inflation, to around £350,000 or

 (c) leaving the cap where it is, thus generating additional tax revenue, or

 (d) reducing the cap, as occurred in the U.K. during MIRAS (Mortgage Interest Relief At               Source) reform?

Will the Minister further indicate what tax revenues might be generated or lost from any of the above actions?

Answer

I have no plans to amend the cap from its current £300,000 limit.

From an economic standpoint there is little reason to consider raising the cap for mortgage interest relief.  Firstly, it will have the effect of undermining revenues, much in the same way as a tax cut, and this would not be prudent at a time when the economy is performing very strongly and we are predicting budget deficits in future years.  Secondly, at a time when the housing market is clearly tightening, reflecting the strength of our economy, to increase the cap would only serve to add to house price pressures in the Island.

Although the Comptroller of Income Tax has details on the Income Tax Returns delivered to him of the amount of a particular mortgage and the interest payable on it, he does not contain that information on his computer system. So he would have to go through every single personal taxpayer file to determine all those with mortgages on principal private residences and then estimate, through that exercise, the yield from increasing or decreasing the £300,000 cap. That would take a huge amount of effort and resource. As I have no plans to amend the cap, that is not a resource I am prepared to expend, particularly as the Comptroller and his staff are fully occupied doing their normal operational and administrative tax work. However, from next year, 2007 year of assessment, when 20% means 20% is operational, details of the mortgage amount, the £300,000 cap and the total interest paid by individual taxpayers will be placed on the computer system, so the tax yield / cost of such ‘cap movements’ may very well be available in the future through a new tax modelling programme.

Question 2

Does the Minister consider that property owners in the buy-to-let market enjoy a tax advantage over those buying to occupy under Jersey tax rules and if so, would he consider the introduction of measures to remove such inequities in treatment?

Answer

Where a person acquires land or buildings for the purpose of letting that property on commercial and open market terms, full tax relief is granted for the interest payable on a loan incurred for the purpose of buying that land or property. This relief is available to all Jersey taxpayers, and is the same tax treatment as given to all interest payments incurred for a commercial purpose, including that of real property investment holding. There is no limit on the relief available on borrowing for commercial purposes. This policy ensures that employment, commercial and business activities continue to prosper.

Mortgage interest tax relief for the purchase of a principal private residence is restricted to the interest payable on a mortgage up to the value of £300,000, thereby assisting those in the lower to middle income brackets but denying relief to higher income earners. I do not consider this inequitable, since the circumstances

1.16 THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING WIND-TESTS PERFORMED ON THE CASTLE QUAY DEVELOPMENT.

Question

Is the Minister now able to reveal the results of the wind-tests performed on the Castle Quay development?

Answer

I can confirm that the results of this study are now available. A summary of the Wind Tunnel Study has been published within the Environmental Impact Analysis that was undertaken for Castle Quay. This Environmental Impact Analysis was a prerequisite of the application, as required by Supplementary Planning Guidance, and is a public document which constituted part of the formal planning application submission.

I am pleased to provide a summary of some of the main results of this study.

A boundary layer Wind Tunnel Study was carried out by consultants to assess the pedestrian and terrace level wind environment for the Castle Quay Development. The study provides a detailed quantitative assessment of the wind environment at key locations around the proposed development. This is evaluated in terms of the U.K. Industry standard pedestrian comfort and safety criteria. The study assesses the impact of the proposed development relative to the existing site conditions. The study also verified the effectiveness of wind mitigation schemes in order to provide a suitable pedestrian level wind environment for planned pedestrian activities.

Three key conclusions were drawn from the work:-

1. For existing site conditions the pedestrian level wind environment in and around the existing site is generally rated as unsuitable in terms of safety and deemed comfortable, at least in winter, for no more than a level of walking normally associated with business activities.

2. The proposed development has a significant beneficial impact on wind conditions within the site relative to existing site conditions.

3. The proposed development also has a major beneficial impact on conditions during much of Rue de L’Etau and at the south-west side of the Aquasplash Leisure complex.

The wind mitigation scheme has been prepared by the developer and is integrated with the hard and soft landscaping proposals which from part of the landscaping framework for the site.

The main mitigation measures are screens which can either be solid i.e. glazing or walls; or porous, i.e. landscaping and planting, located at key points within the scheme to provide wind deflection. There are a series of folding door shutters at ground floor level where the development has a westerly aspect which will give protection to pedestrians to wind and inclement weather. They are retractable so that in fine weather the ‘inside’ street becomes part of the outdoor promenade.

These measures need not detract from the appearance of the development. Where ‘porous’ screening such as planting is appropriate they will contribute positively to the appearance. Plants and trees have been chosen with their context and ability to adapt to the conditions very much in mind. Where solid screens are unavoidable they will be used in a manner which considers their context and visual impact. Glazed screens (which can be decorated) have been used in schemes elsewhere to deliver the same protection to pedestrians whilst considering appearance, context, setting and views.

The approval will stipulate that all mitigation measures which are not currently part of the landscaping scheme will require the approval of the Minister before they can be implemented.

In summary, the construction of Castle Quay should not have an adverse impact upon the current wind level environment around adjoining buildings. Base level information is available for the existing wind levels at Harbour Reach and the proposed development will not adversely impact upon the present wind environment around that building.

My officers will be happy to provide access to the full Report, as described above.

1.17 THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING A MULTI-STOREY CAR PARK PLANNED FOR ANN COURT.

Question

Has the Minister consulted with the residents of numbers 1 and 2 districts of St. Helier regarding plans to demolish Ann Court and replace it with a multi-storey car park, and if not, when will he start the consultation process?

Answer

This proposal is part of the wider EDAW review into regenerating St. Helier and consultation on this is currently being undertaken. I am not anticipating undertaking specific consultation on this single proposal but, if it is progressed, residents will be able to have input in the planning process as normal.

2. Oral Questions

The Bailiff:

We come now to oral questions and the first question is in the name of the Connétable of St. Helier of the Minister for Transport.

2.1 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier of the Minister for Transport regarding the transportation of incinerator ash between the incinerator and La Collette:

Would the Minister give details as to the frequency of the transportation of incinerator ash consignments between the incinerator and La Collette?  Whether any account is taken of weather conditions during the operations and what regime is in place to ensure the careful transport of ash between Bellozanne and La Collette, particularly the prevention of “fugitive emissions” at each stage of the process?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (The Minister for Transport):

The average frequency for incinerator ash transportation from Bellozanne to La Collette is 33 deliveries per week.  This frequency varies according to how many incinerator streams are in operation at the Bellozanne plant and the workflow availability of ash transportation lorries.  Ash is transported in most weather conditions, however if the wind speed is excessive the operation will be postponed until the wind drops.  When incinerator bottom ash exits the incinerator’s water quench bath it is transported to a temporary weathering bay which is an external concrete storage area at Bellozanne with a facility for capturing leachate.  From the weathering bay the ash is transported in covered lorries to the lined ash pit at La Collette where it is tipped, covered and eventually sealed with a capping liner.  A similar process, although a slightly more intensive one, applies to incinerator fly ash.

2.1.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:

Could I refer the Minister to a report from the Head of Environmental Protection and I quote: “TTS’ (Transport and Technical Services) officers have confirmed that there were difficulties experienced in the operational aspects of the work resulting in the fugitive emissions of ash from the area and likely to have been taken off site.”  In the light of what he has just said can he assure the House that this was a one-off occurrence and that ash is not regularly being blown off La Collette into the surrounding areas?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

Yes, Sir, I can give that assurance.  Indeed, as soon as there was any indication that ash was being blown from the site, operations ceased immediately.  In fact I can go further and inform the House of the result of a Planning Environment investigation into the alleged migration of waste from the La Collette site.  It says: “No physical evidence exists to suggest that significant pollution of controlled waters has occurred”; in other words has escaped from the site entirely into the sea, and no evidence is available to suggest that the operator, the Transport and Technical Services Department, has operated in anything less than an environmentally sound manner.  I hope that gives reassurance to Members. 

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

I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurances this morning.  I wonder if he could just clarify one thing?  I am glad to hear that the ash is transported in lorries in a covered fashion.  During the unloading process, the tipping process, is the ash dry and if so, surely with any wind blowing there is likely to be some loss of ash in that process?  What mechanism is used to ensure during the tipping process it is not liable to become airborne?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

It is my understanding, Sir, that normally - and if I may refer in this instance to the slightly more toxic incinerator ash - when emptying the silo at Bellozanne the fly ash is mixed with water until it is similar to a cake mix.  This is done to prevent the ash from getting airborne during discharge or transportation.  The dampened ash is then channelled into a covered lorry, transported directly to La Collette site, put into a lined ash pit and covered immediately.  So I think I can give a fairly clear assurance that the ash is still in a damp condition when it is being unloaded.

2.1.3 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier:

Could the Minister explain what the reason was behind the ash being stored temporarily outside of the lined pits at La Collette?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

One of the lined pits had basically filled up and the second lined pit was not immediately ready for use.  Consequently ash was placed on top of the lined pit, suitably covered and then removed and transferred at the appropriate juncture.

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

What the Minister describes sounds very safe.  But what I would like to ask the Minister, can he tell us who polices this and inspects that these practices are carried out in the way he describes and how often these practices are tested?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

There are 2 regulators involved, the Health and Safety Protection Team under Health and Social Services and also the Environment Protection Officer under the Planning and Environment Department.  There are also Environment Officers who are experienced in the handling of ash on site and the department itself ensures that approved processes are adhered to.  I do want to, while standing, Sir, take this opportunity to assure both Members and the public that there have been an embarrassing number of scare stories emanating from some Members of this House that are entirely unfounded.  I understand that even now there are some parents in the Island who are preventing their children from swimming at the Havre des Pas swimming pool on the grounds that it may have been polluted by toxic ash from the La Collette site.  This is, I regret to say, patent nonsense.  The Havre des Pas swimming pool is entirely safe for anyone to swim in for as long as they wish.

2.1.5 Deputy J.A. Martin:

Sorry, Sir, can I just press the Minister?  He did not answer, he told us who does the inspections but he did not tell us how often they are carried out.  Could he please inform the House that?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

The approved processes are adhered to regularly by the staff who work on the site.  In other words effective monitoring is carried out on a daily basis.

2.1.6 The Connétable of St. Helier:

It is more a point of clarification.  In his answer to Deputy Le Claire about the fact that ash was stored in a mound outside the ash pits for a period of time, the Minister said that the ash was suitably covered and yet in the report to which I referred earlier from the Head of Health Protection there is an admission that there were difficulties experienced and there was emission of ash off the site.  So I am confused.  Is the Minister saying that there was no emission of ash off site or is he saying, in fact is he agreeing with the Environmental Health Department in saying, yes, he accepts there was some fugitive emission off site?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

My understanding is fairly clear on this matter.  Ash is deposited, in this case it was deposited on top of the top liner of a pre-existing ash pit and it was then covered with soot.  However, to move the ash when the time came to put into a new lined ash pit, clearly you have to dig into the ash and its covering.  So during the period between a digger digging into one pit pile and moving it a matter of 50 to 100 metres to another one, then clearly there is a level of exposure of ash to the elements.  In the instance that was referred to, which I believe took place on 18th May, there were some prevailing windy conditions and when it became clear that ash was being blown off site, and that is not suggesting that it was being blown necessarily into the sea, the operations were curtailed.  That is essentially the situation.  It is not possible to move ash without exposing ash.

2.2 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding actions in response to I.L.O. recommendations relating to the Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 2007:

What actions, if any, does the Minister propose to take in response to the International Labour Organisation’s (I.L.O.) recommendations following its upholding of the complaint that the Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 2007 and its associated codes, were in violation of the principles of freedom of association?

Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security):

I will be taking advice over the coming weeks and will carefully consider the Committee’s comments which have been made in the form of a report, in which the Committee of Freedom of Association requests to be kept informed of developments.  Once I have considered that advice I will then be in a position to decide what action, if any, will be required.

2.2.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Can the Minister confirm that such actions will include the request by the Committee to pursue its review of the Employment Relations (Jersey) Law and its accompanying codes in full and frank consultations with the employers’ and workers’ organisations concerned?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I cannot confirm what actions I will be taking but I will obviously take the advice that I am given.  The consultation period for the codes of practice will be happening soon and we will obviously be listening to what employers and employers’ associations have to say.

2.2.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

The Minister mentions the word “soon”, can he give a timescale in which he will engage in active consultation over the codes of practice and the law on which they are based?

Senator P.F. Routier:

The Deputy is asking a written question in regard to the codes of practice and I refer him to that answer.  With regards to the Law, I will take advice from people and decide whether the Law itself needs to be looked at.  But the Law has been passed by the States in a freely democratic manner and we should be proud of that Law.

2.2.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Notwithstanding the Minister’s previous answers, does the Minister not accept that it is, at the least, unfortunate that at this time when we are increasing our international profile we should have been held to account by the ILO (International Labour Organisation) for an employment law which does not respect accepted codes?

Senator P.F. Routier:

Every jurisdiction has the ability to pass laws which they feel are appropriate for their jurisdiction.  We have done that and the Transport and General Workers’ Union and the Deputy are trying to hype this up to some unreasonable amount.  The ILO continues to review laws across the whole of the world.  Out of interest, Members may like to know that this is case 2,473 of which they continue to ask jurisdictions to review their position, and they do so on a request basis, and this is aspirations which they have for jurisdictions to have.  Every jurisdiction has the ability to decide a law which is appropriate for themselves.

2.3 Deputy J.A. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding estimate of working population:

Given that at the time of the Strategic Plan 2005/2010, it was estimated that one per cent of the working population equated to approximately 500 jobs, would the Minister advise whether that figure has risen?

Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):

The first States’ Strategic Plan was agreed in 2004 and set against the position in 2003.  It was always expected that changes in working population would vary from year to year and the target of one per cent was set as an annual average over the period of the plan.  At the time the Strategic Plan was presented to the States, one per cent of the workforce corresponded to an average increase of approximately 500 workers per annum.  The Statistics Unit informed me that more precisely one per cent of the workforce at that time was, in fact, 515 workers.  From figures presented in the labour market for December 2006 report, published by the Statistics Unit earlier this year, one per cent of the workforce in 2006 corresponded to 525 workers.  Over the period from 2003 to 2006 the workforce has increased at an average annual rate of about 0.44 per cent which is below the rate - well below the rate - specified by the Strategic Plan.

2.3.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Would the Chief Minister give an indication as to whether or not the current policy then of allowing up to one per cent is more than adequate and is something that we have been right to set and indeed it is the correct figure that we do not need to exceed in the future?

Senator F.H. Walker:

I see no reason to change the figure at this point as I have made clear, not only today but at other recent sittings.  The figure does vary of course over the period of the plan and it was not that long ago that the figure was decreasing, and the average over the 5-year period is what is important.  But I see no reason to change the ceiling figure at this juncture.

2.3.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Does the Chief Minister not accept that actual growth in the job market amounted to over 1,500 jobs in 2006 or 3 per cent of the market and that he is not, in fact, in control of the economy and job growth but it is racing out of control?  In particular, would he state what figures he expects to see in 2007 and 2008?  Is it of the order of 3 per cent or one per cent?

Senator F.H. Walker:

I confirm the Deputy’s arithmetic, that there was indeed, as has been previously reported, an increase of 1,540 on the previous December which is a 3 per cent rise.  But I do not in any way agree with him that the economy is out of control.  The whole basis of the Strategic Plan in order to minimise taxation increases, or any form of new taxation, was to achieve economic growth and that is exactly, to the benefit of all Islanders, exactly what we are achieving.

2.3.3 Deputy J.A. Martin:

Yes, I fully understand what the Chief Minister is saying - economic growth.  Is he also discussing the growth of the dependents?  I am reading here a written question by Deputy Southern from the Chief Minister and it says of the 200 “j” categories that were awarded last year, and 40 per cent were not time limited so basically permanent, there are 170 children under the age of 15 years.  Well, to me, Sir, if that continues would not the Chief Minister agree that he should be in very urgent talks with the Education Minister and maybe other social services, because I do not know if this was planned for in the Strategic Plan?

Senator F.H. Walker:

I go back to my overall point, that the average over the period of the plan is well below target and that is the important figure.  Of course the Education Minister is well aware of all the figures as are all Ministers and indeed as are all Members of the States because they have been put very clearly in the public arena. 

2.3.4 Deputy G.P. Southern:

For clarification, could the Chief Minister indicate what average he expects to occur over the coming 2 or 3 years?

Senator F.H. Walker:

No, I cannot do that.  The States have agreed a target in the Strategic Plan and that will obviously be continuously reviewed as it is and I would remind the Deputy, and indeed the House, that a major report - and it will be the most major report ever published - on population will be presented in September followed by a lengthy period of consultation, followed of course by a States’ debate where the House will be able to take the most informed decisions ever possible on the population make up of Jersey.  Of course it is not just migrant workers, there are other issues relating to aging population, the need to maintain a percentage of the population who are active and contributing to our tax revenues.

2.4 Deputy J.A. Martin of the Minister for Housing regarding applicants in rental sectors awaiting allocation of 3-bedroom accommodation:

Would the Minister inform Members of the precise number of applicants in both States and private rental sectors currently awaiting the allocation of a 3-bedroom States’ rental or Housing Trust property?

Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing):

As from June 2007 there were 25 families currently living in the private sector accepted on the States rental waiting list awaiting a 3-bedroom property of which 3 were in group one.  As from 1st June 2007 there was a total of 80 families currently living in States’ rental accommodation accepted on the department’s transfer list for a 3-bedroom property, 19 of those applicants awaiting for 3-bedroom properties have already been made at least one offer.  These figures need to be taken in context with other transfer list figures.  For example, there are 23 families living in 3 and 4-bedroom homes that require only one or 2-bedroom properties.  There are 89 individuals and couples occupying 2-bedroom properties who need to move to one-bedroom units.  The stock, Sir, is being blocked completely as there are not sufficient one-bedroom units for us to cater for our aging population.  Also, Sir, the issue is 3-bedroom homes are refused on a regular basis in places like Clos de Roncier because either they need refurbishment or they are unsuitable for families because of the lack of amenities such as lack of buses, lack of shops and issues like that.  So really the whole issue is the largest problem we have got is releasing and being able to unblock some of these units.

2.4.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Is the Minister aware that in certain States’ departments there is an appeal going out to current employees as to whether they know of any accommodation whatsoever below a rental of around £1,000 per month suitable for the accommodation of States’ public employee “j” categories in the market because they cannot be found for love nor money?

Senator T.J. Le Main:

That has got nothing to do with the questions I have been asked, Sir.  I just wonder where the Deputy is coming from.

The Bailiff:

It is, broadly speaking, related to housing issues, Minister, I think.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

The answer to the question is no, I am unaware of it.

2.5 The Connétable of St. Helier of the Minister for Economic Development regarding powers in relation to purchase of C.I. Traders and implications of sale for retail strategy:

Does the Minister have any powers in relation to the purchase of C.I. Traders by a private equity company and what implications, if any, does the purchase have for the retail strategy?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):

I can confirm that CI Traders does not have a beneficial ownership clause as the company was created prior to the implementation of RUDL (Regulation of Undertakings Development Law) controls including beneficial ownership clauses.  Any powers I have in relation to the purchase of CI Traders by a private equity company are limited to a request under Article 6.4 of the Competition Regulatory Authority (Jersey) Law for that body to examine any acquisition.  While I am framing an Article 6.4 request on the retail strategy in the context a number of operators, I do not propose to do so in the context of the proposed scheme of arrangement.  At the scheme of arrangement that is published on the CI Traders website states that the acquisition is conditional upon, among other approval, receiving JCRA (Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority) approval under the Competition (Jersey) Law.  The JCRA has authority to refuse its approval if it concludes that the acquisition would substantially lessen competition in Jersey.  As far as the retail strategy is concerned, implications for the retail strategy depend on what the new owners would do.  These are not yet known.  The retail strategy is a framework document that establishes guidelines for the retail development of the retail sector in Jersey.  I remain of the view that consumers would benefit from a third operator and I will continue to keep the retail strategy under review and I restate my commitment to keep St. Helier as the heart of retailing in Jersey.

2.5.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:

I thank the Minister for his answers, but would he comment on the proposed development of a large retail operation both at the Waterfront, which of course is against guidance of the Supplementary Planning Guidance and also the alternative location in the area of the Town Park?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Well, those would be, I suppose, reasonable questions for my colleague to my right as the Planning Minister.  It is he that decides location on planning matters.  But the Constable will have also been part of a briefing of the St. Helier taskforce and he will be aware of the nature of the proposals that are developing on the Waterfront.  Also he will be aware that the retail strategy does state very clearly that there is not going to be any other new supermarket which is going to dominate over the size of the existing operators in the Island.  There is an issue with the number of operators, there is an issue of the actual quantum of retail space, they are not necessarily the same.

2.5.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Two points of clarification if I may?  Could the Minister briefly outline to Members what he meant by the beneficial ownership clause under RUDL I believe it was?  Secondly, since he mentioned the JCRA potential study of retail on the Island, can he assure Members that the terms of reference given to the JCRA will be at least as rigorous and wide-ranging as those laid out in the report accompanying the request that he do so?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Well, in respect of the first question the beneficial ownership clause is something that was introduced as a result of the Regulation of Undertakings (Jersey) Law that was brought to this Assembly in the early 1970s.  Obviously CI Traders as a company predates the Regulation of Undertakings.  It is the case that some RUDL licences do have beneficial ownership clauses in them, in other words, the owners of a business are required to seek approval by the Minister for Economic Development for changes in beneficial ownership under various different criteria.  That exists for some companies, it does not exist in relation to CI Traders.  In relation to the Article 6.4 request, I am in discussion with the Economic Advisor and my own officials in respect of an Article 6.4 request and it will be on the subject of whether or not the market would benefit from additional operators as opposed to additional floor space.  The competition conclusions of competition authorities across the world - Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and elsewhere - say that a market needs 3 operators to have proper competitive dynamism.  That is what I am going to ask the JCRA to advise me further on. 

2.5.3 Deputy J.A. Martin:

Just a clarification what the Minister said on the Retail Strategy framework.  Is he putting it on hold until we discover what is happening to CI Traders because it could be sold off?  We may have 3 operators, we may have more than 3 operators, we do not know.  The question basically is, is it on hold until we absolutely find out what CI Traders are going to do with the 2 big supermarkets that they have under their remit at the moment?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

The Retail Strategy is not on hold and the Deputy, as a member of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel that has apparently scrutinised this, will be aware that it is a framework document and it was designed in order to prepare myself and the Minister for Planning for applications that would come to us.  The Deputy is aware that there have been applications from other supermarket chains, both from the United Kingdom and France, and I have made that public that there were applications for potential new operators in the marketplace.  I cannot prevent those applications coming to me.  What I do need to ensure is that I am properly equipped with the proper data, with the proper information in order to determine those applications under Regulation of Undertakings. and also that the Planning Minister may be properly informed to make informed decisions concerning planning matters.

2.5.4 Deputy G.P. Southern:

The Minister in one of his answers last session suggested that he was already aware that the JCRA were already in favour of 3 operators at least.  In doing so has he not pre-empted the search for evidence that the JCRA might undertake to investigate this matter?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

We will come later to a statement by the Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel as to whether or not matters are predetermined.  I am asking - I cannot tell the JCRA what to do.  The JCRA are a properly independent body who will come to their own conclusions.  I just draw the Deputy’s attentions to the conclusions of other competition authorities across the developed world in terms of competitive dynamism.  I would expect that the Competition Authority would carefully analyse the Jersey market and make their conclusions known to us independently.  I cannot tell them what to do but I simply restate the issues of the conclusions of other competition authorities across the world.

2.6 Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding actions following upholding by I.L.O. of complaint about Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 2007:

What actions, if any, does the Chief Minister propose to take to restore any damage to our international reputation caused by the International Labour Organisation’s (I.L.O.) upholding of the complaint that the Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 2007 and its associated codes were in violation of the principles of the freedom of association?

Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):

The comments of the ILO Committee of Freedom of Association were only received last week and are therefore still being considered.  However, I believe that the thrust of the question and the reaction of the Transport and General Workers’ Union significantly overstates the issue.  I do not consider that the current ILO views are detrimental to Jersey’s international reputation.  The States has set out its commitment to introducing a range of employment legislation which is proportionate to the needs of the Island.  This is a positive step forward in terms of labour relations and the rights of individuals and employers.  Some of the comments made by the ILO reflect their views on existing legislation in other countries, including the U.K., and we will consider these comments very carefully in the light of what we believe is best practice elsewhere.  I believe it is helpful to recognise that it is not unusual for an ILO Committee to make a number of recommendations which the state party, the country concerned, may or may not decide to accept.  This is well understood in the international community and that is why I do not consider there has been any damage to our international reputation, nor do I consider that any action is necessary.

2.6.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Does the Chief Minister concur with the statement by the ILO to seek to ensure that labour standards are respected in practice as well as in principle in the Island?

Senator F.H. Walker:

I repeat that Jersey will take a decision for Jersey which is proportionate to Jersey and which protects the rights of all concerned.

2.7 Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of H.M. Attorney General regarding legislation relating to the Magistrate’s Court not being subject to human rights audit:

Will H.M. Attorney General advise Members of the reasons why the Loi (1864) réglant la Procedure Criminelle, the Criminal Procedure (Connétables and Centeniers) (Jersey) Law 1996 and the Magistrates Court (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 1949 which all relate to the running of the Magistrate’s Court were not subjected to a human rights audit?

Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C. (H.M. Attorney General):

Following the passage of the Human Rights Law in 2000 the Policy and Resources Committee of the day set up a Human Rights Working Group which looked at the different laws, policies and administration across the States.  The decision taken in that group was that each department would be responsible for reviewing its own legislation and its own administration to ensure that there was a human right’s compliant process.  That decision, as far as I am aware, although my department was represented on the working group I was not on it myself, was taken on the grounds mostly of cost but also, linked to cost, the time that would be taken to review the entirety of the statute book.  That, I understand, are the reasons for the decision that was taken at that time.

2.7.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

The Attorney General will recall that in March 2003 he met with the former Home Affairs Committee to discuss, among other things, the Rutherford Report including Recommendation 4 regarding the role of Centenier in the Magistrates Court.  Did the Attorney General carry out, or his department carry out, any specific audit or prevention audit on legislation pertaining at that time to the running of the courts and the role of the Centeniers?

The Attorney General:

I think the answer to that is no, as far as I recall.  The administering responsibility for the courts would be the Court Service.  But, having said that, I fully accept that the prosecution should have spotted any major errors if there were any major errors and, of course to that extent, if there are any I would take responsibility for that.

2.7.2 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Could I just ask another supplementary, Sir?  The Attorney General in his answer mentioned about one has to look at costs when one considers Human Rights Law.  Would it be fair to say that really at the end of the day, if Human Rights Law has to be complied with, it is down to the State to ensure that it has the cost to meet the Law or the requirements of the Law?

The Attorney General:

No, I am sorry, what I think I said was that cost was a feature in the methodology that was adopted for reviewing what needed to be done.  I quite agree with the Deputy to the extent that he says that cost is no answer to making sure that your administrative and legal systems are human rights compliant.

2.8 Senator B.E. Shenton of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding control over parking and public parking charges on the Waterfront:

Would the Minister confirm whether his department will have control over the provision of parking and public parking charges on the Waterfront and if not, can he explain how this fits in with the Integrated Travel and Transport Strategy?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):

Yes, Sir, the Transport and Technical Services Department through its car park trading account will have control over those parking facilities within the Waterfront development that the department either owns or leases.  It is envisaged that the current Esplanade car park, which from memory holds some 500 cars, will be replaced, but it has not yet been decided whether there will be any additional public car parking in that area.

2.8.1 Senator B.E. Shenton:

When the Minister says that the car parking will be replaced, is he therefore saying that this government will be investing in new parking on the Waterfront?  My main concern is that the privatised parking will double the parking charges for the public on the Island and is this the road he is going down?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

Essentially, given some sight of the early plans for the Waterfront development, there will be a large 2- storey underground car park replacing the current Esplanade site with a potential for capacity of at least, on current figures, 1,400 vehicles and possibly more.  It is of course potentially open to the Transport and Technical Services Department to use its car park trading account to buy up additional spaces, but obviously there will be a demand from the development itself and its users for private car parking spaces.  That particular balance has yet to be determined and at this stage I have no direct say so on private companies who operate their own car parking spaces and are essentially free to charge whatever amount they see fit.

2.9 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel regarding advice intended to be sought from H.M. Attorney General:

In a written answer tabled on 19th June 2004, the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel’s Vice-Chairman stated the former Panel had agreed to meet the Attorney General privately but its intention was not to discuss the Cooper opinion.  If that was the case, will the Chairman explain what advice it intended to seek from the Attorney General and advise whether the meeting has now taken place?

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence (The Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

In answer to the second part of the question, a final minuted private and confidential meeting between the Panel and H.M. Attorney General took place on Wednesday, 13th June 2007.  As for the first part, the Deputy will be aware that at a private meeting held on 4th June 2007 the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel gave consideration to meeting with the Attorney General.  Following a suggestion from their advisor, Deputy Hill, as Chairman of the Panel at that time, telephoned and spoke to the Attorney General.  The Panel subsequently understood from Deputy Hill that the Attorney General had asked for a private and confidential meeting with them.  The emphasis of the Panel’s meeting of 4th June shifted then.  Consideration of the Attorney General’s request for a meeting with them took precedence over their own earlier consideration to meet with him.  The Panel agreed by a majority to meet with the Attorney General and soon afterwards the Panel meeting of 4th June ended, following Deputy Hill’s resignation as Panel Chairman on 6th June, arrangements were confirmed for a formal meeting with the Attorney General.  Correspondence for those arrangements established that the meeting would cover procedure and identify whether there were any process issues to consider.

The Bailiff:

Deputy, I am sorry but your time expired now, in fact rather more than time expired.  Do you have a supplementary?

2.9.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

The Chairman will recall that at her request the particular meeting on 4th June was recorded and could I ask will the Chairman confirm that recording does make it clear that the meeting was going to be private, confidential and for States’ Members only and there was no mention whatsoever of that particular meeting being minuted or formal?  As such, it was unprecedented for that former Panel.  Would the Chairman now agree that obviously subsequent to that meeting that they have now had a change of mind and now as a result of that change of mind has now met and had a formal meeting, whereas the other one was to be totally informal and unminuted?

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian:

I do not believe that is correct, Sir.

2.9.2 Senator J.L. Perchard:

Would the Chairman of the Panel agree with me that this is a complete waste of States’ time and ask that Deputy Hill, through the Chair, lets it go?

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian:

I am not sure whether a response is needed to that question, Sir.

The Bailiff:

This is question time…

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian:

In that case, Sir, probably, yes.  [Laughter]

The Deputy of St. Martin:

Would you allow a supplementary, Sir?

The Bailiff:

Final supplementary.

2.9.3 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I think Deputy Mezbourian and I know full well that at the end of the day they are probably of the misunderstanding about the meeting.  I know in my own heart the meeting was to be not minuted and informal.  Will the Chairman agree that if she checks the recording that my understanding of the meeting will be accurate?

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian:

I am surprised that the Deputy feels that I would come here this morning not having listened to the recording of the meeting and I distinctly remember when I listened again to that recording that the Panel was unclear from what the Deputy told us as to the reasons that the Attorney General had asked to meet us.  However, I also remember distinctly hearing myself question whether it was to be a formal minuted meeting with officers present.  As far as I was concerned by asking that question I was making it clear that that would be my understanding of it.

2.10 Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding valuation of the former Jersey College for Girls site and negotiations for sale:

Would the Minister advise Members of the outcome of the valuation prepared by Donaldsons, a U.K. surveyor, of the former Jersey College for Girls’ site and also of any further negotiations with regard to the sale of this site?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

I suspect that some Members may not be aware of Donaldsons, but this firm is a market leader in the U.K. on advising public bodies on all property matters.  It has a Europe-wide operation.  It has valued the JCG (Jersey College for Girls) site with the existing planning permission at £2,129,000.  This valuation and a similar valuation previously received from Drivers Jonas who have considerable local experience, confirms for me in my intention to pursue negotiations with Grange Developments Ltd with a view to securing a deal which will secure a minimum land price of £1.8 million, plus a share of sales values above a certain figure, otherwise known as an overage payment.  Such overage deals are not uncommon and are being used, for example, in respect of the Waterfront development.  I believe that this agreement for JCG will bring a total return to the public in excess of £3 million.  I intend in the near future to present a report to the States which sets out the reasons why I intend to proceed with the sale of the JCG site subject to a further assessment of risk.  At the same time I intend to make a new Ministerial Decision varying my decision of 16th February as a result of the legal advice I have taken to examine the terms of the development agreements to minimise the risks of entering into an overage agreement and, in particular, to ensure that the £1.8 million base price is at no material risk at all.  Sir, the valuation report is a large document and, rather than sending it to Members, it is available to see on request.  But I will make a full copy available to the Connétable of Grouville for the benefit of the Scrutiny Panel which he chaired, as well as a summary of the legal advice which I hope to receive shortly in respect of the contractual risks.

2.10.1 The Connétable of Grouville:

Would the Minister please advise me whether in fact he would put this out for tender in order to establish a price?  I am not happy at all with £2.1 million.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I have followed to the letter the recommendations of this Scrutiny Panel.  They requested that we obtained an independent valuation on certain terms.  We adhered to that request, Sir, and I am complying with that formula.  I do not intend to take any further action such as the Connétable suggests.

The Bailiff:

Final supplementary, Connétable.

2.10.2 The Connétable of Grouville:

It is well known, Sir, that the actual valuation of a property or asset relies on the price that somebody is willing to pay for it, and I would suggest to the Minister that perhaps he would try a tender process of some type in order to establish the true value.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I suspect that what the Connétable is really saying is he does not like the professional valuation which has arisen.  I am afraid, Sir, I have taken the advice and I am going to use it.

2.11 Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the contracting of a U.K. company to produce Jersey Brand logo:

Would the Chief Minister inform Members why a U.K. company and not a local firm was contracted to produce the Jersey Brand logo?

Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):

The comprehensive process of identifying a brand development agency - and it was, of course, a brand, not just a logo - for Jersey began with the development of a short list of agencies who met the key criteria of having experience, and who would demonstrate its success in international destination branding.  This is a very specialist area of expertise and no local agencies with this experience were identified during the short listing process.  As the brand progressively develops, however, a considerable amount of work will be given to local companies.

2.11.1 Deputy S. Pitman:

Could the Chief Minister inform Members how many local agencies were invited to tender for the contract?

Senator F.H. Walker:

Not off the top of my head, but I do not believe that, as I have said in the answer, any local agencies met the basic criteria.  But I do reiterate, and this has already been shown to be the case, that there will be a considerable amount of work for local companies as the brand develops.  If Members care to take a walk down to the Albert Terminal, they will see the first example of extensive use of the brand, all of which was undertaken by a local company.

2.11.2 Senator B.E. Shenton:

Does this not just sum up everything that is wrong with this Government at the moment in as much as we are bringing more and more U.K. consultants that do not really understand Jersey at all?

Senator F.H. Walker:

I think that was a cheap shot and it is entirely wrong.

2.11.3 Deputy J.A. Martin:

I do not expect the Minister to be able to supply these figures today, but having now attended the logo presentation and been assured many times that the £250,000 was spent more on just the flying “J”… the logo - flying something, Sir.  Could the Minister undertake to give us a breakdown exactly how much time this company has spent with local people, and a breakdown of this £250,000, because we keep being told it is more than just the brand.  I have now seen the presentation, Sir, but I really would like to see the breakdown in figures on paper.

Senator F.H. Walker:

Yes, Sir, that, of course, is no problem at all.  The breakdown was included in the presentation and I will pass on a copy to the Deputy.

2.12 Deputy S. Pitman of the Minister for Housing regarding criteria for the identification of States-owned properties for sale:

In view of the fact that one of the priority issues within the Social Housing Property Plan is to increase ownership among States’ tenants, what criteria was used to identify which States-owned properties will be sold?

Senator T.J. Le Main: (The Minister for Housing):

Can I just say that I am very, very proud of our highly experienced and professional staff who have an in-depth knowledge of the clients and the estates and everything?  As for the criteria for selection of homes to be sold, we could not sell one-beds because we do have a huge issue, as I keep explaining to the Assembly - I hope you are listening - about ageing population and the need to adapt our accommodation for those things, so we cannot sell one-beds.  So that left the Housing Department with 2 and 3-beds which we could part-sell.  The issue is, Sir, that we need to break up the concentrations of social housing, mixing tenures, and the department officers spend a considerable amount of time on numbers and mix and locations and working with tenants’ associations and whatever, and residents, and came up with a definitive list of numbers on specific estates; not particular homes.  Now I can just explain, Sir, briefly, and I know Deputy Le Hérissier has been one who has been working very closely with me on this, is the huge density and overpopulation of children at Les Cinq Chênes, for instance.  It makes sense, Sir, that we should sell off in that estate, make home owners of tenants in that estate, and create some new homes on the land adjoining this, now a H3 or H4 site and to break up these concentrations of a huge amount of social homes in one go.  It also gives us a great opportunity to work with the residents in future by creating home owners in these estates.  It also allows the home owners to get involved with residents’ associations.  We are having difficulty in many of these issues at the moment.

The Bailiff:

Minister, I am sorry, your time has run out.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

I could go on for an hour on this one, Sir.

The Bailiff:

I know you could, yes [Laughter] but you are not going to.

2.12.1 Deputy S. Pitman:

Could the Minister confirm that none of the properties that have been identified for sale are not the most difficult properties to maintain by his department?

Senator T.J. Le Main:

I did not hear that, I am sorry.

The Bailiff:

Could you repeat it, please, Deputy?

Deputy S. Pitman:

Could the Minister confirm that none of the properties that have been identified for sale are not the most difficult properties to maintain by his department?

Senator T.J. Le Main:

I do not understand that question really, but the issue is that you take places like Clos de Roncier, Sir, which is 83 homes sitting in the middle of the countryside with no buses, no buses after 6.00 p.m.  We have a concentration of families there; social housing tenants.  We have families that have no cars, no transport, there are no shops for the children to go, no community facilities, and it makes sense that you create some home ownership in these kind of estates where those kind of people that are going to be a homeowner have more opportunity of having a more disposable income to be able to have transport and otherwise.  So, it makes commonsense to look at all the issues - the issues about concentration and all that - when determining where we want to sell property.  Also, Sir, many tenants are ringing up asking us why their home is not for sale; why they cannot buy from their particular estate.  The issue is that at the moment they may be, and the issue is that we rather hope that we are going to give as much opportunity to as many tenants as possible over the next 10 years.

2.12.2 Deputy J.A. Martin:

I am not going to go off the Housing Plan, but twice now the Minister for Housing has mentioned Clos de Roncier stuck out in the middle of nowhere.  It may be he has sold it; it may not be, but is it beyond the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Transport to get together and get a bus like the 18 that goes now to Le Squez every 20 minutes to town?  Why is this going on?  I would like the Minister for Housing to at least undertake this so that the people up there do have a bus and that he is in urgent talks with the Minister for Transport.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

No, I have not spoken to the Minister for Transport, but the issue has been going on for a number of years that we have 83 homes at Clos de Roncier and the issue of laying on buses until 11.00 p.m. or 12.00 p.m. at night for only a few people otherwise is just, patently, absolutely nonsense.  The best way out of this, Sir, is to try and create home ownership on that estate which allows those kinds of people to be able to do the things that perhaps some of the lower income families cannot do otherwise.

2.12.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Point of clarification, Sir, could the Minister clarify whether there is a serious social problem on this estate, or is it only a matter of a few people, and does he consider that home owners do not need to take a bus?

Senator T.J. Le Main:

The issue is quite clear: there is not a social issue on that estate.  What I have been saying, they do have a very good tenants’ association run by a Mrs. Annette Brown up there and the issue is, quite clearly, that there is a lack of facilities.  There used to be a youth club alongside, which was demolished and built houses upon, and the Parish of St. Clement are always having issues in relation to minor social issues.  But the issues are quite clearly when you are going to create homes for rental, particularly for low income families, you need community facilities, you need the shop alongside where people can go daily to get their pint of milk, their paper, their loaf of bread, and other issues like that, and it needs a regular bus service.  It would not pay for the bus service to be running for just 83 homes on that issue.

The Bailiff:

Final supplementary.  Deputy Huet.

2.12.4 Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier:

Would not the Minister agree that originally when Clos de Roncier was built there were only about 18 houses, so there were no problems then?  It is only because of - dare I say - previous planning allowing these extra houses to go up in the countryside, which was not obviously a good idea.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

Well, originally, it was built in 3 phases with some flats following.  But, generally, many years ago there was quite a regular bus service.  There was a shop down the road by the church.  As I say, there was a youth club and the church alongside.  It had lots of facilities and now it does not have the facilities, and I have to say that those who are able to afford to buy a home, or a home owner, has more opportunity, through our experience, in being able to ferry their children around than perhaps some of the low income families that do not have that ability to have a car.

2.13 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding process for the modification of route structure of scheduled bus service:

Is the Minister satisfied with the process currently used to determine whether to modify the route structure of scheduled bus services?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):

No, Sir, I am not.  This Minister is very rarely satisfied, and Deputy Le Hérissier can sit down with my Chief Officer and senior officers at any time of his choosing, and they will tell him exactly the same.  I am constantly striving to improve methods, and how we regulate the buses is one of them.  However, what I can say to give some assurance to Members who may now be having a rather gloomy turn of mind at this response is that the way we do things now is infinitely preferable to the way things used to happen before.  One of the advantages of the new Connex operation as a service operator relationship is that we have open book policies.  I, of course, know precisely what the fares are, because the fares are paid directly to the States via the department and, indeed, we have a much clearer idea - a better idea than ever before in the Island’s history - about how our public transport service operations work.  So, in general terms, I am pleased with the levels of information that I get.  It gives the department a much better oversight of the efficiency of operations, but that is not good enough for me, through the Chair, Deputy, I strive to achieve higher and better results, and year by year, we are getting them.

2.13.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Notwithstanding the excellent services the Minister has introduced and for which we are eternally grateful, would the Minister not acknowledge that there is still a somewhat confused and irrational system?  Does he, for example, Sir, sit down at a point in the year with a budget and say: “This route is not making money, I will therefore shift resources elsewhere”?  In other words, there is a holistic approach taken - is that how it is done - or does he wake up in the middle of the night and just sort of say: “There are too many people on this route, I must stop”?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

Well, I do both and, regrettably, I do perhaps a little too much waking up in the night with sheer concern and worry about how the efficiency of the public service operation is being carried out.  But in reference to the other technique, which is a favoured one, I am about to sit down with my officers to prepare ourselves for the new winter schedules to consider whether K route operations should be continued or discontinued, to look in detail, in fact at the same time, at the efficiency of the school services, which also should come under scrutiny.  They are subsidised at twice the level of the main scheduled network at £2 per student per trip.  It is an expensive operation; one I intend to look at closely, and I will be taking advantage of the summer break, when I will not be getting one, to look at both [Members: Oh!] - thank you for your sympathy - when I will be taking the opportunity to look at all the services.  We now have, thanks to the details that were given to us by the Wayfarer computerised fare operations, a much, much clearer picture what routes are performing and which are not.

2.13.2 Deputy J.A. Martin:

Yes, as I did not get an answer of the Housing Minister - and I am sorry if this might add to his very, very long workload - could I get an assurance that the Transport Minister will look at the route that goes now to Le Squez - the 18 - every 20 minutes?  Could it not be extended up to Clos de Roncier, maybe making it a 30 minute run?  But it is a 6 day a week bus service and could he add that to his list with urgency?  Even if these houses are sold, I am told, and this House has been told this morning, we have many people stranded up in this area without any transport.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I would like to refer the Deputy to the bus timetable for the Summer 2007 period, which displays not only the main schedule summer network, but also the new integrated Island Explorer network and she will see that the new Explorer Green service goes very close to the area she is talking about and, indeed, it is very heavily used and is the highest frequency of Explorer services.  I regret - and it is a matter of regret - that I simply do not currently have sufficient funds to seriously extend services across the Island into the evening.  I would dearly like to and, indeed, have conducted experiments that were well publicised in the past to see if we could achieve this.  Frankly, it is just not going to happen because there is no more money available in the budget, and the only other serious way that I could probably get money is from an environmental tax and that in itself is looking fairly unlikely in the short-term.  So while I am very sympathetic to the Deputy’s view, at this stage I simply do not have the available cash.

2.13.3 Deputy C.J. Scott Warren of St. Saviour:

I think the Minister has probably answered that he does not know, because I was going to ask the Minister when he believed he would be able to plug the public perceived gaps for the scheduled bus service.  I appreciate it is linked to money, and I just wondered - obviously an environmental tax has been mentioned - does he have any idea of whether we are talking about 2, 3 or 5 years’ time?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

Well, frankly speaking, Sir, and this is primarily the experience of my very good colleague the Minister for Planning and Environment who mooted the idea of a tax link to power exhaust emissions.  The idea of environmental taxes so far does not appear to have played very well or, as it were, struck a chord with the public.  So it seems that we have some way to go, firstly to convince the public that environmental taxes are necessarily a good idea and, secondly, to establish precisely how those extra revenues might operate.  This leaves me with a difficulty in that the only way I can now improve services perhaps in directions that it ought to go in, is by putting constraints on existing levels of service elsewhere in the system.  That is something I am going to be looking at over the summer period to see, with the entire fleet at my disposal - which includes the school buses - how this might be reorchestrated in order to increase commuter provision at peak times and also to see to what extent we can improve evening services and, indeed, Sunday services, which are also currently, in my view, dismal.

The Bailiff:

One last concise question and answer, please, Deputy Le Hérissier.  [Laughter]

2.13.4 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Could the Minister assure us when he is engaged in this re-evaluation during his one day off in the summer, will he be consulting the public?  Will there be a public call for evidence?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

The answer is, bluntly, not necessarily.  If I am introducing experimental routes to see how things may or may not work, and we have tested evening routes, we have tested circular routes and, indeed, the current summer Explorer service is a result of successful experiments, there is no requirement on me to consult the public.  However, if I am to make permanent changes in the schedules, and I want to issue this comment as an assurance to Members, I am required by law to consult the public.  So, I regret, it is 2 answers to the Deputy, Sir: one is yes, I have to, and the other is: not necessarily.

2.14 Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the acquisition of Le Mont de la Ville, South Hill Battery, St. Helier for development:

Would the Minister advise Members whether he has any plans to acquire Le Mont de la Ville, South Hill Battery, St. Helier, the annex to Fort Regent and an important heritage site for development by the States as luxury flats?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

No, Sir, I have no plans to acquire this site for development by the State as luxury flats.  The site is owned by the Parish of St. Helier, but I cannot speak for the Parish.  While I am exploring opportunities to redevelop the publicly-owned South Hill site and, in particular, that part of the site at lower level adjacent to existing States’ offices, this land is currently shown as an H4 site in the Island Plan and is currently zoned for Category A housing.  The Battery site, which is at a higher level, does not form part of that plan.

2.14.1 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I am heartened and delighted to hear that reply, Sir.  As this is an important Fort, forming as it does a part of Fort Regent and part of Jersey’s heritage once holding over 20 cannons overlooking the St. Helier Harbour, this wonderful Fort and park area must be preserved for future generations, does the Minister not agree?  [Laughter]

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

That, Sir, is a matter for the Planning Minister and a matter for this House to debate within the Island Plan, Sir.  I share the Deputy’s sentiments, but that is not for me to decide.

2.14.2 The Connétable of St. Helier:

I share the questioner’s pleasure in the Minister’s reply.  Could the Minister confirm that if any proposal were to be brought forward that would affect the Parish land in the vicinity it would have to go to a Parish Assembly?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I cannot confirm, Sir, what goes to Parish Assembly: that is for the Connétable to decide, but certainly I would happily talk to the Connétable about any developments which might have a common benefit or common difficulties.

2.14.3 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I wonder whether the Minister is of the view of this particular site - so accurately described by Deputy Lewis with its spacious German bunkers and enormous Napoleonic fortifications - might perhaps fit into our extremely successful historic fortification’s holiday lettings project.  [Members: Oh!]

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

That may well be good use of the site, and I suggest that the Minister consults with the landowner of the Parish of St. Helier to see if that can be developed.

2.15 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding a fundamental review of Education, Sport and Culture Department spending:

Would the Minister explain why it is not possible to carry out the recently announced fundamental review of the department’s spending using existing States’ resources?

Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):

Many things, of course, are possible but the purpose of this review will be to consider the appropriateness of Jersey’s current investment in Education.  As such it will be important to draw comparisons with other jurisdictions and to consider the relevance and implications of these comparisons in setting future levels of spending on education in Jersey.  This work, in my opinion, is best carried out independently as it is vital the review is regarded as unbiased and independent.  However, I anticipate that it may be co-ordinated and monitored by a steering group made up of representatives from appropriate States’ departments.

2.15.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Minister not acknowledge that with the use of appropriate advisors, for example, that bodies such as a Scrutiny Panel or bodies such as a Comptroller and Auditor General could well make a vital contribution?

Senator M.E. Vibert:

I agree, they may make a vital contribution, Sir, and the Comptroller and Auditor General, at my invitation, is already looking at some of our processes, but I repeat that I believe that such a fundamental review needs to be independent so it can be regarded as totally unbiased.

2.15.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Minister not acknowledge that there is a great danger that this exercise is basically an exercise in self-justification of current and future spending levels?

Senator M.E. Vibert:

Yes, Sir, exactly why I want it to be independent.

2.16 Deputy K.C. Lewis of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding recommissioning of the swimming pool at Fort Regent:

Further to reports that Jersey will bid for the 2015 Island Games, will the Minister be seeking to recommission the swimming pool at Fort Regent?

Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):

No, Sir.

2.16.1 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Supplementary, Sir?  As the Island Games involve many thousands of competitors and supporters, will the Minister be seeking to redevelop and modernise Fort Regent as a place of sporting excellence, and as swimming features quite heavily as it does in Greece at the moment, where will he be seeking to hold the swimming events?

Senator M.E. Vibert:

As regards the swimming events, Les Quennevais swimming pool has proved to be an excellent venue for swimming galas, and would provide an excellent facility for any swimming events in an Island Games.  If we were successful in bidding for an Island Games, we would look at all the facilities we required, including Fort Regent’s, and see what, if any, improvements need to be made to them.

2.16.2 Senator J.L. Perchard:

I am motivated to ask about the swimming pool at Fort Regent, Sir.  Being that the Minister sees no likelihood of recommissioning it by 2015, or for 2015, should the Island be successful in acquiring the Island Games, what does he see as the future for the Fort Regent swimming pool?

Senator M.E. Vibert:

The Fort Regent swimming pool and the area around there is currently the subject of an EDAW study, and I am awaiting their views on it.  A number of suggestions have been made in the past.  It is difficult to pre-empt the EDAW study but, certainly, it is well timed that a decision was made on the future of the building that housed the now well passed sell-by date and unusable swimming pool, and that although I think something should go there, I hope it is going to be - and I am sure the Planning Minister will insist - somewhat more aesthetically pleasing than the current building.

2.16.3 Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade:

The Minister says that he hopes to bid for the 2015 Island Games, where does he expect to find the funds for this?

Senator M.E. Vibert:

I expect the States to be wholeheartedly behind hosting such a prestigious event in showing that we are committed to the Island Games.  We have over 120 competitors currently competing in Rhodes.  I believe the Island Games is one of our premier sporting events, and something the Island should be very proud of.  We hosted it very successfully in 1997, and it did the Island a power of good.  I would be hoping and wishing and believing the States would get behind any bid for the Island Games in 2015 if it succeeds. 

2.16.4 The Connétable of St. Helier:

I note the Minister’s comments about the alternative facilities to Fort Regent pool present in the west of the Island.  He was silent about the adequacy of the facilities which replaced Fort Regent, that being the leisure pool.  Would the Minister, with the benefit of hindsight, give us his views on the adequacy of the leisure pool, and whether the financial package stacked up as well as it was supposed to?

Senator M.E. Vibert:

The Minister brought a proposition to this House about the future of Fort Regent some 9 years ago now, which included a swimming pool in Fort Regent.  The House, while supportive, refused to give funds for that redevelopment.  Therefore, alternatives by the then Committee, which I was not President of, had to be found and the States decided to develop the Waterfront pool, with a competition pool in.  The pool is performing well.  It was always understood that there would be difficulties with the pool making its own way and paying for itself.  No public swimming pool, to my knowledge, operates without a subsidy.  The question is the level of the subsidy.  I believe the management at the Waterfront swimming pool are working very hard, because it is in their interest to ensure it is used as much as possible.  Of course it has strictures placed on it by the States such as restricting the letting of it for private parties so that the Constable, and others, can use the pool when they wish.  This, of course, will adversely affect their income, but they are working hard on it.  Unfortunately, a public pool will have to have a subsidy and it is a question of how much that subsidy is.  It has been more than was envisaged in the arrangements that were agreed by the States at the time, but the Committee I was a member of - the Sport, Leisure and Recreation Committee - did issue warnings about the level of subsidy.

3. Questions to Ministers without Notice - The Minister for Planning and Environment

The Bailiff:

I think we must move on to questions without notice, bearing in mind the second question period involves the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture.  The first question period is of the Minister for Planning and Environment.

3.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:

I wish to ask the Minister for Planning and Environment about his views on the state of the Ramsar site at La Collette.  Given the admission by Health Protection that there has been leaching of the ash at La Collette into the sea, does the Minister believe that there are implications for the Ramsar site, and would he further give his view about the possible extension of the La Collette reclamation site into the Ramsar site to accommodate the fill that may be created if its proposals to sink La Route de la Liberation ahead?

Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):

The report I received yesterday in relation to the allegations that ash has contaminated the area certainly does not support that contention.  It appears from my first reading of the report that there is no significant case to answer.  As far as the Ramsar site is concerned, the spoil from the sinking of the road and the development of the Hopkins’ master plan on the Waterfront, there clearly will be an impact in that you have to put the spoil somewhere if you dig out a 2-storey basement car park.  But we need additional car parking, we need a first class Waterfront, and that is a natural consequence.  The effect of the spoil will be to reduce the life of La Collette 2.  There clearly will be implications in that if you extend to La Collette 3; one of the areas that may be considered is in the Ramsar area, that, very clearly, needs to be negotiated, but it would clearly be better if an alternative location could be found, but I doubt that that will be the case.

3.2 Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:

I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether he has had any discussions with the tourism industry with regard to the amount of build that is envisaged on the Waterfront and the surrounding area.  The question was asked of me yesterday, and I would be grateful for an answer.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I have not had any direct discussions with the tourism industry.  I have certainly had a number of private discussions with individuals who own hotels and other tourist-associated investments.  I am not quite sure what the Deputy is looking for in the answer, but all I can say is that a wonderful Waterfront, correcting the problems of the past and delivering buildings from which Islanders derive pride, can only be positive for the tourist industry as a whole.  I would also add that the delivery of a national gallery is a central part of that aspiration.

3.3 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Building on that question, would the Minister tell us whether by building on the Waterfront that the quid pro quo of not building on Greenfields is still holding firm?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

One of the advantages of building on the Waterfront is that it enables us to do everything possible to protect the countryside, and the protection of the countryside must be one of our imperatives.  Very clearly, there is a significant demand for housing and the more appropriate housing that we can put on the Waterfront within the constraints of reasonable living, et cetera , the better because it reduces the strain elsewhere.

3.4 The Deputy of St. Martin:

At a recent meeting at which the Minister considered a number of planning matters, it appears that some applicants or appellants were granted the right to appear and put forward their case, but others were not.  Would the Minister advise Members of his policy in dealing with appeals, particularly where some appellants are not given the right to appear?  If so, does he think that is human right compliant?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I have recently made the decision that while the Law does not require me to do so that it is appropriate that all my decisions should be taken in public with objectors having the opportunity of addressing the hearing.  We are currently in a transitional phase, and the current expectation is by the end of July I will have that entirely in place, and therefore all applicants will be able to address the hearing and all objectors, similarly, will be able to do the same.

3.5 Senator B.E. Shenton:

One of the problems with the Waterfront is it has lacked continuity of presidents of Planning.  The cinema complex was passed in detailed permission by Mr. Nigel Quérée; Harbour Reach, Maurice Dubras; and the Waterfront Hotel by Senator Philip Ozouf.  In order to provide continuity does the Minister intend to stay as Planning Minister for more than a 3 year term?  [Laughter]

Senator F.E. Cohen:

Firstly, I would like to correct one point: my predecessor Senator Ozouf was not responsible for the Waterfront Hotel: all he did was to sign off the variations at the end.  There was a very long process and he is certainly not responsible for the result.  As regards how long I will stay, to some extent that depends on when the Chief Minister gets sick of me, and to some extent it depends on when the House gets sick of me.  I certainly would like to stay at Planning as long as possible, but I am well aware that the position of Minister for Planning is a very precarious position and, one mistake, and you are gone.  [Members: Oh!]  One significant mistake.  I would also add that I have made it very clear that my career as Minister for Planning and Environment does depend on being successful in relation to the Hopkins’ master plan.  I believe that if a Minister engages in such a significant project and then fails to get the approval of his colleagues in the States that it is appropriate to go.  So I will be doing my best to stay, but I cannot give any guarantees.  Thank you.

3.6 The Connétable of St. Helier:

The Minister and I are both well aware of the timetable for the EDAW master plan for St. Helier which has been commissioned by his department.  A number of detailed proposals in the EDAW master plan are giving grave concern to members of the public, particularly in St. Helier, and I would appreciate the Minister’s personal view on 2 such detailed proposals.  One is to drive a road across People’s Park towards the bottom of the hill to connect up with Westmount Road, and the other is to make the current section of Parade Road, which is available for parking for people using doctors’ and dentists’ surgeries, to pedestrianise that road and remove the parking.  Does the Minister himself support either of these detailed proposals?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I have to be a little bit careful here, because this could, of course, lead to an application at a later stage, and I do not want to be seen to be predetermining an application.  All I can say is there are certain proposals within EDAW which I think perhaps were jolly good ideas but, with the benefit of the response to the public consultation process, I think that they will not be progressed and 2 of those are the 2 that the Connétable of St. Helier has just mentioned.

3.7 Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity:

Two weeks ago the Minister brought in the Water Law.  Does he think that this was premature?  [Laughter]

Senator F.E. Cohen:

A very interesting question because my wife asked me exactly the same question as we were driving in the rain only the other day.  My answer was that I think I was lucky with the weather because I doubt I would have got it through if it was 2 weeks’ later.

3.8 Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John:

A question in a similar vein: the Minister in recent times has said that he perhaps has too much power.  He also now has command of control of the Meteorological Department.  Consequently, Sir, I wondered if with such considerable powers he was able to do anything about the current most unseasonable weather?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I think that is more an appropriate question for the Dean.

3.9 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I wonder if the Minister could clarify how planning applications are dealt with as regards those that go to himself and those that go to the Planning Applications Panel.  Does he make that particular decision and, if so, in terms of those that go to himself, what is the robust appeal procedure in terms of those particular decisions?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

Weekly I sit with my Chief Officer, with the Assistant Minister, and with other officers as relevant.  I go through the planning applications and I decide which ones I am particularly interested in.  Those are the ones that I call in.  They tend to be large commercial developments with which I have a particular interest or, in some cases, they are applications where there could be considered to be some conflict if the matter was dealt with by the Planning Applications Panel.  The appeal now, of course, is twofold: from the applicant’s perspective an appeal against my decision is to the court, and now from the perspective of an objector, the third party appeal process allows also an appeal to the court, so my decision is not final.

3.10 Senator J.L. Perchard:

How does the Minister propose that the development of a national gallery be funded - and the maintenance of the national gallery - and has he any suggestions on how a viable and serious youth facility on the Waterfront could be funded?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

The national gallery is at an embryonic stage.  We have not yet determined the precise way it will be funded, and a number of options will be considered.  At the time we bring the matter forward a complete funding package will be presented, both in terms of the capital cost and in terms of the running cost.  So I am afraid I do not know any further details at this time.  I have already, on a number of occasions, said that I have instructed my department to carry out an audit of the Waterfront from the perspective of youth and families.  That audit will be a written document, and it will be circulated to States’ Members.  One of my priorities is to ensure that the Waterfront is a good place for families and young people to go to 24/7.

3.11 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Returning to the planning appeal process, it has become apparent to me, in following a particular case, that appeals by neighbours are heard in public.  Then the final stage is held in private which leaves Members objecting to a particular development feeling somewhat frustrated as to what the decision might be, or why a decision has been made if it goes against them.  Does the Minister consider that holding the final decision meeting in public would be a useful move, and is he prepared to amend the relevant regulations or laws to enable that to take place, or is he happy for me to put it on my list of things to make to amend?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I have already said that I have committed to making all decisions in public.  It is a question of working out the mechanism to do so, but my department have assured me that this will be in place by the end of July.  Without being specific and referring directly to the development to which the Deputy refers and mentioning its name, I can say that my intervention, I am quite confident, resulted in a far better scheme that is traditionally designed down to the last detail, and I will be holding my position to ensure that it is a first class development.  So I think that my intervention and decision was right and proper, and I would make the same decision again.

3.12 The Deputy of St. John:

Could the Minister advise as to exactly when his recently published changes to the requirement to seek planning permission for certain structures will take effect and what, if any, similar changes he has in mind for the future?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I am not entirely sure I understood the question.  The exemptions that I have put in place are already in effect and apply from the date that I published the Order.  As far as I am aware, people are taking advantage of the exemptions, in fact, I know of one case.

3.12.1 The Deputy of St. John:

Does he have any other similar changes in mind for the future?  The second part of the question.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

Sorry, Sir, I did not answer the second part of the question.  I would like to.  I struggled to deliver these exemptions.  My predecessors had been through a similar process, I think in 2002 or 2004, and the department were reluctant to increase the level of exemption, so I had rather a struggle getting agreement.  I would like to exempt more development and to concentrate on the important development to better utilise the resources in the department, but it is a slow process.

3.13 Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:

Could the Minister confirm that in actual fact partial funding has already been committed to youth facilities on the Waterfront, not least by a party which one of the previous questioners is a director of, and would he also commit again to the fact that he will encourage and ensure that youth facilities are an integral part of any development on the Waterfront?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I am not sure what I am expected to confirm in terms of existing funding and, therefore, I cannot answer that part of the question.  All I can say is that part of developing a successful Waterfront, holistically designed with synergistic architecture throughout the remaining areas, requires that it be a suitable place for families to live and young people to have fun and enjoy themselves.  [Interruption]  That will be the subject of the review I have previously mentioned in answer to an earlier question, and it will be published and made available to the public and to States’ Members.

4. Questions to Ministers without Notice - The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture

4.1 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Further to my earlier question regarding the swimming pool at Fort Regent, Sir, and notwithstanding the restricted covenants that applies vis-à-vis the Waterfront pool which prohibits the States of Jersey from operating a covered pool within a certain radius, and notwithstanding the Minister’s reply that we have Les Quennevais pool - I am sure he is aware of the traffic implications of going east and we are trying to cut down on our carbon footprint - does the Minister think that St. Helier will benefit from an Olympic size swimming pool?

Senator M.E. Vibert:

An Olympic size swimming pool, for example, is a 50 metre swimming pool which would be prohibitively expensive and which normally will serve populations of several millions.  In fact, there are only a few, and a handful in the whole of the U.K. and Australia and things like that.  So I think, although it would be desirable from some swimmers’ points of view, from a community point of view it would be very hard to justify the outlay that we would require for an Olympic size swimming pool.  In fact, when we last looked into the matter and we talked to some people, and one of the newer 50 metre swimming pools had been built in Australia, the reply was: “Well, 90 per cent of the time we have a boom across the middle dividing it into 2 25 metre pools because people find the 50 metre pool for normal swimming too long” so the Olympic size pool, no.  There are a number of swimming pools in St. Helier: there is a Waterfront pool; we also have pools around and about in schools which were used for various things, including Haute Vallée and Langford.  I believe, again, we had a survey done and for a swimming pool open for leisure swimming and competition swimming, Jersey is very well catered for.

4.2 Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter:

Would the Minister inform the House of what and why there is a delay on the St. Peter’s School development, when can we expect the contract to be awarded, and when the work, indeed, will commence?

Senator M.E. Vibert:

At St. Peter’s School, the demolition is now completed; it is currently out to tender.  We are also finalising lease arrangements for Field 649 for use by the school.  It is a complex situation.  We now are interested parties, but a lot of the work is carried out by Property Holdings, but I am pushing for the project to be kept on track so that we can have a new school delivered for St. Peter as soon as possible.  But I am pleased to say I visited the temporary school, and the temporary classrooms, and it is operating very well indeed and, in fact, the comments I received most were that the temporary classrooms we put in there were larger and better than the classrooms of the old school which were being developed.

4.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Can the Minister confirm that some schools are finding extreme difficulty in finding accommodation at a reasonable level, either to rent or to buy, for teachers coming to the Island to take up posts?

Senator M.E. Vibert:

The housing of new staff coming to the Island - and we try to keep them to a minimum, because we always try to appoint locally if we can - has been an ongoing issue for a number of years.  I have not had reported to me particular problems more than usual, but I can understand that at times there will be issues; there will be problems.  We try to help out as much as we can but we no longer provide such accommodation and that people have to take their chances in the market.  Now, perhaps in the future when we are redeveloping and looking at various ways of housing there may be ways in which we can look to support what are known in the U.K., for example, as key workers’ accommodation, but that is something for the future and has to be developed in conjunction with the Minister for Housing.  But at present, yes, there is always an issue of people finding suitable accommodation on coming to the Island - not just for teachers, but for anyone - and we try and help as much as we can.

4.4 Senator B.E. Shenton:

The Minister employs 166 “j” category teachers within his department.  What action is he taking to try and reduce the dependency on bringing in “j” category labour?

Senator M.E. Vibert:

That is correct.  As supplied in written questions the complete list of “j” category staff that we employ - that is 166 out of nearly 1,500 employees, and as I just said in the reply to Deputy Southern - we always advertise and try and fill posts locally if we can.  For example, we have not - certainly, in my experience - ever appointed a primary head teacher from outside the Island for at least 10 years, probably considerably longer, but I am talking about my experience of it.  We always try to employ locally.  One of the things that is always an issue is when there is a shortage of specialist subject teachers, particularly at secondary school level.  Certainly, I am sure, everybody would want to ensure that we have sufficient specialist subject teachers to provide the curriculum that we have to provide for the benefit of our young people.  This, on occasions, does mean that we have to employ “j” category teachers from outside of the Island because we have no demand and no reply to adverts from the locally qualified specialist teachers in certain subjects.

4.5 Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:

I was under the impression that all property was being transferred from individual departments to Property Holdings.  Could I ask the Minister to confirm whether or not the Fort Regent pool has been part of that transfer?

Senator M.E. Vibert:

I can confirm that Education, Sport and Culture is one of the departments that has transferred all its property, including Fort Regent, as agreed by the sort of planning we had to Property Holdings.

4.6 Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

A quick 2-part question: yes or no, Sir.  The Minister has made great mention of the review to justify even more expenditure, has this been approved by the Council of Ministers?  The Minister stated that he asked the Comptroller and Auditor General to review financial planning and management in his department,  is he sure of his facts on this, as this is not my understanding?

Senator M.E. Vibert:

A quick answer to the questions: first of all, to correct the question, the review is not to justify even more expenditure; that is the Deputy’s interpretation, wrongly, of the independent review.  The independent review is to look at the level of funding for education, compare it with other jurisdictions so as we can judge it against other jurisdictions and how well we are doing in the Island.  Yes, the Council of Ministers is aware of my request, and I am in discussions with the Treasury and Resources Minister about how such a review could be carried out.  The second part of the question - which I am desperately trying to remember - oh, yes, I believe it is minuted.  At a Council of Ministers’ meeting I wished, and asked, that the Comptroller and Auditor General carry out a review.

4.7 The Deputy of St. John:

I wonder if the Minister could advise the House as to what, if any, process he has in place that provides a forum for his senior head teachers, particularly in the secondary schools, to discuss policy issues with him.  In other words, does he have planned regular meetings with them and, if not, does he think he should?

Senator M.E. Vibert:

We have a Head Teachers’ Association; we also have regular meetings within the department - of which I have attended on occasion - of primary head teachers and secondary head teachers.  But also we have 2 other bodies: one is the Consultative Council, which I chair and meet regularly, which represents teachers’ unions and teachers’ associations, and the other one is the Consultative Council which involves head teachers and other teachers, representatives from schools and other parts of the educational establishment, which I meet with regularly, who give advice on all aspects to do with education.

4.8 The Deputy of St. John:

Is the Minister satisfied then that all head teachers are perfectly happy with current policies that his department is putting forward?

Senator M.E. Vibert:

I would be frankly amazed, Sir, if all head teachers were happy with all the policies put forward in my department.  I met with a representative of secondary heads and primary heads very recently to discuss the problems caused in schools by the savings that I had to insist on schools making to meet the latest pay increase for 2007, which I very much regretted having to do.  I explained to them the difficulties, and part of the reason for wanting an independent review is to convince and to assure everyone that the spending that we are doing in Education is an investment in the future, and we should be looking to increase that investment if we believe it is the right thing to do, and not decrease it because the problems through that will not arise next year or the year after, but 10 to 15 years’ time, and we should be looking that far ahead.

4.9 Deputy J.A. Martin:

Families now who are on a low income and are in receipt of a HIE (Health Insurance Exception) card are able to get either a free or a reduced Active card for the whole family.  Could the Minister inform the House what protection his department has put in place to make sure this scheme carries on when the new income support scheme takes place?

Senator M.E. Vibert:

It has been my wish, and it is minuted from a long time ago, even when I was President of the then SLR (Sport, Leisure and Recreation) Committee, and then the Education Committee of which, of course, Deputy Martin was a valued and esteemed member, that it has always been our intention - and still is - to ensure that people who are currently qualified for Active cards through HIE and other social and financial need continue to do so.  In fact, I would like to extend it, and I am in consultation with the Social Security Department as to how this can be achieved.  It all goes along with trying to keep our population as healthy as possible in ensuring that anyone is not deterred from using our excellent facilities for sport and health through financial deprivation.

4.10 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

With the advent of the Skills Executive, would the Minister tell us whether there is a shift in his budget, places like Highlands and other vocational training areas, from the academic to the vocation?

Senator M.E. Vibert:

We are currently reviewing the funding regime for Highlands; we are in the throes of setting up a Skills Executive, and once that is completed we will have to see whether we need to apply for more funds, or use funds from Economic Development in a different way if they are involved in this issue.  I will be dealing with this in conjunction with the Minister for Economic Development.  But, certainly, what we want to do is to react to need and the Island’s requirements for the future, and that means supporting both the academic side and the skill side.

4.11 Deputy D.W. Mezbourian:

It is a follow on, in a way, from the question asked by Senator Shenton about the employment of “j” category teachers, and I note from the written answer that we have a very high proportion of “j” category teachers employed at secondary schools, my understanding is that we have graduates who want to come back to the Island to work as primary school teachers, and they are unable to find work.  How is the Minister addressing the fact that he is employing a very large number of secondary school teachers when our own graduates are unable to find work over here as primary school teachers?  When students apply for university grants…

The Bailiff:

Deputy, I am sorry to say that there will be no time for an answer, unless your question comes pretty quickly to an end.

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian:

Sorry, Sir.  I will leave it at that, then.

Senator M.E. Vibert:

The Deputy answered her own question.  Our vacancies are in specialist subjects in secondary schools, and where we have people waiting, local people waiting for posts, is in primary school and the only way, unfortunately that we would offer to help would be through retraining into specialist subjects in secondary school.  Unfortunately, you cannot just appoint a primary school teacher to a specialist secondary school subject.

4.11.1 Deputy D.W. Mezbourian:

Could I have a supplementary, Sir?  Why does the department not offer incentives to university students to train as secondary school teachers, rather than primary school teachers?

Senator M.E. Vibert:

We offer incentives for young people to go on to higher education including teacher training in the subjects that they wish to pursue, and the difficulty with something like that is we could have a similar problem in the future the other way round, with too many specialists in certain subjects, if we encourage them too much.  People have to make their own decisions.  We advise them but it is a free society; they make their own decisions.

The Bailiff:

That concludes the second question period.  We come now to Statements on a Matter of Official Responsibility.  The first statement is by the Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel.

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY

5. The Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel regarding Draft Price and Charge Indicators (Jersey) Law 200-

5.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

The Panel has recently considered the draft Price and Charge Indicators Jersey Law 200-.  Despite having the structure of an enabling law which requires regulating to specify the exact price marking requirements, the Panel notes that within this law appears a presumption that the amount of G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) will be included within the marked price of goods and not made clear separately.  The Panel is aware that this matter has been the subject of much public interest and debate, not least from the Jersey Chamber of Commerce and its individual members, and the Jersey Consumer Council, on behalf of the Island’s consumers.  The Panel therefore wishes to examine this law and the assumptions behind it and will exercise its powers under Standing Order 72 to have the draft law refer to it if the States agree the principles on 17th July.  The Panel will then undertake a review to be completed by the fourth meeting following 17th July 2007, that is 23rd October 2007.  It will also lodge amendments, should it consider them to be necessary.  The Panel will, as ever, conduct itself in a timely and efficient manner so as not to affect the timing of the introduction of G.S.T. in April 2008.

5.1.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Would the Panel Chairman confirm that he was invited to a briefing on this Price Marking Law and he turned down that?  In other words, he was given the opportunity of scrutinising it before 17th July.  Does he also accept that his decision to invoke the power of referral to the Panel will mean that it is unlikely that we will resolve the issue of inclusive or exclusive pricing prior to the implementation of G.S.T. in April, as any decision must be made before summer break in order to give retailers the certainty that they need to plan for the tax?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

In answer to the Minister’s first question, yes, I was aware that I was invited to come and discuss it.  I was busy discussing it with my own Panel to see which way forward we were going, and to suggest that scrutiny can be done in a matter of weeks is not my version of Scrutiny, although it may be his.  So, that was not possible.  If there are, indeed, problems relating to retailers and those doing business then I will certainly engage with them at the earliest possible opportunity to ensure that such inconvenience is minimised, if at all possible.

5.1.2 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Has the Chairman taken any soundings to date from representatives of the retail industry as to the timing it might take for them to change their systems in order to implement these arrangements by April 2008, when the law has to come into place, given that we are unlikely to debate this before something like November of this year?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

I refer the Minister to my previous answer.  I will engage.

5.1.3 Senator M.E. Vibert:

I wonder if I could call on the Deputy to explain why, when this was lodged on 5th June, the States are only being informed today of when it is on the agenda to be decided on the debate, why it is only being informed today that this Panel has decided, and whether he feels that by invoking Standing Order 72 that it is using a procedural device to add further delay, because though it is the fourth meeting following 17th July, it does, of course, encompass the whole of the summer break.  I just wondered why the Deputy thought it could not be done more quickly, because if it was normally the fourth meeting it would not encompass a summer break and would have to be done in a much shorter timeframe.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

My Panel has been busy with many issues during the last 3 weeks; has had 2 meetings, the second of which considered this particular aspect and decided on it in pretty short order that we were going to have a look at this particular law, and it was done in the swiftest possible timescale.

5.1.4 Senator B.E. Shenton:

Would the Deputy agree that it is important that this Chamber makes the right decision, rather than making a decision in haste?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Absolutely, I could not agree more.

5.1.5 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Would the Panel Chairman be willing to take soundings within the next 24 to 48 hours on the issue of implementation, and if he can be shown evidence and if he can be informed by retailers that they need the certainty of inclusive versus exclusive pricing before the summer break of the States adjournment, will he consider changing his mind?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

I do not intend to change my mind however, as I said earlier, I will consult as a matter of urgency with retailers.

5.1.6 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Can I press the Chairman?  I have a copy of Hansard where, of course, this matter has already been partially discussed by the Assembly under the debate of Article 94.  Would he confirm my understanding that in fact his mind has already been made up in terms of exclusive versus inclusive pricing?  Would he confirm that he is of the view that there should be exclusive pricing, and would he admit to the Assembly that all this is doing is really wanting to delay the decision, and would he accept that he is denying this Assembly a decision on the issue of inclusive versus exclusive pricing?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

I do not accept the inference in the Minister’s statement.  I deny that I have already made up my mind in that, everybody in this Chamber, if the Minister will let me answer, has political opinions, and I am very careful to put my political opinions to one side when I look at evidence and when I examine evidence and when I call witnesses, as part of the Scrutiny Panel.  My professionalism in that respect is, I believe, of the highest order.

5.1.7 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Would the Deputy give us an understanding whether or not he is aware that it has been muted that some of these implementations are so complex that it might fall upon the businesses to charge their systems in excess of 6 figure sums to introduce these taxes, and by delaying this issue, which is, I believe, a political issue, by a Scrutiny process that he suggests where one really is quite already aware as to what the issues are, he is, in effect - although I personally do not believe in it - but he is, I believe, putting in danger the deadline for introducing G.S.T., and thereby will be, if he fails, harming the businesses he claims to represent, by following this route.  Will he also let us know what date it was that he was invited to meet with the Minister and when he refused?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

I do not have the date at my fingertips but I will look it up and supply it to the Deputy if he so wishes but no, I do not accept this is a political issue at all.  I think it is a matter of serious public concern, which deserves the spotlight of Scrutiny placing on it in the shortest possible timescale.

5.1.8 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Would the Chairman reiterate his comments in the final paragraph if he wishes to ensure that G.S.T. is implemented in April 2008 and will he, on that basis, in consulting with retailers, agree to reconsider his timetable if need be in order to ensure that that date of April 2008 can be achieved perhaps by bringing his report back in shorter timeframe than he is presenting suggesting?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Absolutely.  I will endeavour, I will strive, to bring back a report in the shortest possible timescale I possibly can, certainly by 9th April.  I doubt that I can do it by the end of September, but I shall try.

5.1.9 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I wish to press the Chairman.  I have the copy of Hansard before me, of his remarks on Article 94, and I quote: “I think that if we are going to charge this consumer tax we should hold our hands up and have it clearly indicated at the till, this 3 per cent is being paid.”  How can the Deputy justify his remarks in going into a Scrutiny review with an open mind with a clear statement of support of exclusive pricing, a clear support of Deputy Breckon’s proposition?  How can we believe him when he says one thing to this Assembly and I read something from Hansard from another Deputy?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

I have an entire Panel to review the evidence that is put in front of them.  If the evidence suggests that my political position is wrong, I will own up to that and put my full weight behind the recommendations that my Panel come out with, if the evidence suggests that.  The Minister has difficulty, I think, sometimes, separating his political dogma from what his actions should be.  I am perfectly clear that I can do that and that I will do that, because that is the professional way to behave and I intend to do so.

5.1.10 Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:

Would the Deputy confirm that the members of his Panel have independent views and that the Panel’s decision is made democratically based on those independent views?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Absolutely, and I have got a good team behind me with their independent views and that we thrash things out on the basis of the evidence.  That is what we should be doing.

5.1.11 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

Would the Chairman confirm that the introduction of G.S.T. in April 2008 is dependent on the fact that we have an approved and detailed income support scheme in place?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

That, I believe, is true but is not part of the remit of this particular Panel.

The Bailiff:

That completes the period allowed for questioning the Chairman.  We come now to a statement to be made by the Chairman of the Economic Scrutiny Panel, a further statement.

6. The Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel regarding the establishment of a Sub-Panel to investigate money laundering

6.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

The Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel has been seeking a suitable topic to investigate in order that it may fulfil its duties in respect of scrutiny of our largest industry, the financial services sector.  It has noted with interest the provisions of the draft Money Laundering (Jersey) Order 200-, which has been developed from the Money Laundering (Jersey) Order 1999, in response to new directives from the financial action task force on money laundering.  In particular, it is aware of the adoption of a risk-based customer due diligence approach, which has been the subject of some debate.  The Panel is aware of the need to rigorously protect the reputation of the Island and its financial services industry.  Consequently, the Panel has agreed to form a sub-Panel to conduct a Scrutiny review into aspects of the implementation of this measure and other developments on the preservation of the Island’s integrity.  The 2003 inspection by the IMF (International Monetary Fund) recommended additional resourcing requirements for the enforcement of the regulatory regime.  Therefore, my Panel will undertake an independent assessment of how these requirements have been delivered prior to the forthcoming inspection by the IMF due to take place in the second quarter of 2008.  Terms of Reference are currently being drafted and the Panel will make every endeavour to limit the scope of the investigation so that it can report back to the Assembly by the end of January 2008.  The sub-Panel will consist of myself, Deputy Ferguson, Deputy Breckon, Connétable Jackson and Deputy Lewis. 

6.1.1 Senator J.L. Perchard:

Will the Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel inform the Assembly if Jersey’s arch critic, Mr. Richard Murphy, had any involvement or indeed any input into the drafting of the draft Terms of Reference for this review and, if so, why?  Why would the Deputy seek the assistance from someone who so actively tries to destroy our finance industry, the very person who was the primary author of the document from the Tax Justice Network which was a catalogue of lies about Jersey’s finance industry?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

May I first of all assure the Members that I do not intend to apply for the post of Environmental Chairman in Scrutiny.  I am quite happy to stay as the Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel.  I will repeat that the Terms of Reference are currently being drafted, have not been finalised, and state that, yes, the issues are the subject of intense debate, internationally and nationally, and not least by organisations like Tax Justice Network.  They are equally the subject of debate within the industry and the subject of intense focus.  It is, I believe, appropriate that we do examine these changes at this moment now in between 2 IMF reports so that we can fulfil our remit within the financial services sector.

6.1.2 Senator J.L. Perchard:

Can I ask for clarification of the question I asked?  I asked the Deputy if Mr. Richard Murphy had had any involvement or indeed any input into drafting the draft Terms of Reference of which I have seen a copy.  Has Richard Murphy - yes or no - had an interest in assisting the Chairman in drafting the draft Terms of Reference?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

I can frankly say that I have had discussions with the Tax Justice Network on this subject.  [Members: Oh!]

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Shame on you.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

And repeat that the issues raised are the focus of both local and international interest.

6.1.3 Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:

Bearing in mind the fact that Scrutiny prides itself on being the voice of the people and representing the people, could the Chairman confirm to us how many individuals have contacted the Panel and requested that this review be undertaken, or how many individuals representing organisations whose views are well known?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

This review has not been brought about by public demand.  It has been brought about by our desire to look at and examine aspects of our major industry.  The Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel cannot, after 18 months, I believe, continue without having examined aspects of our major industry and examine aspects of what are relatively minor industries on the Island.

Deputy I.J. Gorst

So, can I take that as that no individuals have requested this review?

6.1.4 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Just as I as Minister must disclose all correspondence between various different bodies, would the Chairman agree to disclose the correspondence that he has had between Mr. Richard Murphy and himself and his Panel, in respect of drafting the Terms of Reference?  Would he also please confirm what were the second and third topics of investigation that he was considering carrying out for financial services, as in the first sentence, he says he has been trying to find suitable topics.  What were the other topics which fell short of the first slot?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

The first slot might have included examining Jersey Finance Limited and its funding, but that has been put on the back bench.  In terms of releasing documentation, I have no problem with that.

6.1.5 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

My question really follows the last question much along the same lines.  What aspects of the International Monetary Fund and the last report were examined by the Scrutiny Panel before they decided to choose this particular line, and why did they choose this particular line?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

The 2003 IMF report made many suggestions, many of which have been acted upon but, in particular, it made recommendations about the level of staffing and resource that were required by the Financial Crimes Unit and we shall examine whether that level of resource was indeed delivered and how effective it has been delivered.  As to the reasons why, this is an ongoing consultation by the finance services industry about changes recommended by an international body which have serious repercussions for the way in which we conduct business on the Island, and it is appropriate, and I think the timing is right, so that we can fit this investigation in and report back in time for the forthcoming IMF inspection.

6.1.6 Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:

Firstly, could the Deputy please confirm the Members of the sub-Panel that he is going to set up?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

For the sake of those who have missed it, the sub-Panel will consist of myself, Deputy Ferguson, Deputy Breckon, Connétable Jackson and Deputy Lewis.  So, it is the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel with one addition, the distinguished Chairman of PAC (Public Accounts Committee).

6.1.7 Deputy J.A. Hilton:

A follow-up question; it is a question I would have liked to have asked the Deputy previously.  From the names that he has given, it would appear that 3 members of both those Panels looking into those issues are either members of the Jersey Democratic Alliance or have had a previous association with that party - Deputy Breckon, Deputy Lewis, and Deputy Southern, so my question is, I would like the Deputy to tell the Assembly and also the public of Jersey, how he is going to produce a completely unbiased and transparent report into these issues.

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Can I just point out that I am an independent and not a member of any party?

Deputy J.A. Hilton:

Deputy Lewis was a member of the Jersey Democratic Alliance before he stood for election in 2005 and then transferred to the Centre Party.

The Bailiff:

We must allow Deputy Southern to answer the question that has been put.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

I believe that, yes, I am a member of the Jersey Democratic Alliance as, I believe, Deputy Lewis was for a short while before he was elected, and that membership of a political organisation does not preclude anybody in any jurisdiction anywhere from fulfilling the duties, professional duties, attached to Scrutiny in an independent and rigorous manner, in any way whatsoever, and I stand by that.

6.1.8 Senator F.H. Walker:

I would like to ask the Chairman how, when it is so well known that the Tax Justice Network, not just Mr. Richard Murphy, is dedicated to bringing down Jersey’s finance industry, how he can justify appointing him as an allegedly impartial adviser to assist in the drawing up of the Terms of Reference?  Who else, Sir, also has advised the Chairman and, indeed perhaps, the Panel on the Terms of Reference and do the Panel have any plans to appoint Mr. Murphy or any other representative of the Tax Justice Network as an advisor during their deliberations?  Finally, does the Chairman not think that they are, in effect, trying to pre-empt the IMF and this assessment should be left to the hands of the real experts, who are the IMF?  Finally, is it not the case that any review which has any association with Mr. Richard Murphy or Tax Justice Network will lack any credibility whatsoever?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

There is no question of me appointing any advisors at this stage.  We are looking for a forensic accountant to assist us with our duties, obviously.  I have not appointed Richard Murphy as my advisor.  I have had conversations with Richard Murphy and I have  [Interruption]

The Bailiff:

I think that comment, Senator Perchard, must be withdrawn please.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

I will withdraw that comment.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Thank you.  I intend to rigorously and independently look out for the interests of Jersey in doing Scrutiny, performing Scrutiny, on this vital and important issue.  Nor will I be unduly influenced by any pressures or any considerations coming from Tax Justice Network.  I will maintain, and I believe I can, a rigorous impartiality and examine the evidence.  However, it must be admitted that the issues that we will be looking at involving money laundering are serious ones that the financial services industry itself has under constant supervision and vigilance.  It is an important issue and I believe we should and can do this in a proper manner.

Senator F.H. Walker:

The Chairman has not answered my question.  I did ask does he or the Panel intend to appoint any representative of Tax Justice Network as an advisor, not whether they have, whether they intend to.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Well, that is a Panel decision, but it is not my intention at this stage, or nor would it be in the future to appoint any member of Tax Justice Network to be an advisor to that Panel.

The Bailiff:

Very well.  That completes the time allowed.  I am sorry, Deputy.  We have more than extended the period permitted by Standing Orders.  We come to a statement to be made by the Comité des Connétables.

7. The Chairman of the Comité des Connétables regarding the Island-wide rates figure

7.1 Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:

I rather hope that my statement is less controversial.  I wish to inform Members of the cost to ratepayers across the Island of the Island-wide rates for 2007, which has been determined in accordance with the Rates (Jersey) Law 2005.  The 2007 Island-wide rates figure is achieved by using the 2006 figure of £9,368,416 increased by the Jersey Retail Price Index for the 12 months to March 2007 of 4.4 per cent, resulting in a sum of £9,780,626.  In accordance with the Rates (Apportionment) (Jersey) Regulations 2006, 55 per cent of the annual Island-wide rates figure is to be met for the domestic ratepayer, and 45 per cent of the annual Island-wide rates figure is to be met from the non-domestic ratepayer.  Having rounded the figures to 2 decimal points, the resulting rates will be .63 pence per quarter for domestic ratepayers, an increase of 1.6 per cent; and 1.15 pence per quarter for non-domestic ratepayers, an increase of 3.6 per cent.  The apparent inequality of the percentage increases in rates is due to the fact that a 3 per cent increase in domestic quarters has been achieved, and only .52 per cent increase in non-domestic quarters.  The apportionment of the 55/45 split is of the £9,780,626 which needs to be raised, not determined by the number of quarters.

The Bailiff:

There are no questions for the Chairman of the Comité des Connétables. 

PUBLIC BUSINESS

8. Environment Scrutiny Panel: Vote of No Confidence (P.85/2007)

The Bailiff:

We move on to Public Business, and the first item of Public Business is Projet 85, Environment Scrutiny Panel: Vote of No Confidence in the name of Deputy Baudains, and I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of the opinion that they have no confidence in the Environment Scrutiny Panel.

The Bailiff:

Before I open the debate, I wonder if I might respectfully remind Members that there is a very long list of matters for debate under Public Business, and I hope that Members will try to be a succinct as possible in their speeches to the Assembly. 

8.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Could I endorse your comments there?  I have only brought up a couple of sheets of scrap paper with me to note what Members say, so I hope they will be concise and brief.  Also, Sir, may I say, I hope I made it clear in my report that this proposition is about the performance and the working practices of the Panel as a whole.  It is not about the enthusiasm or commitment of its Chairman, which it has been alleged by some, because I have to say that I have worked with the Chairman for a number of years in various forms of the government, on Committees, et cetera, and the effort and commitment that Deputy Duhamel puts in is without question.  Rather, Sir, today we are dealing with the issue of whether that commitment translates into achievement, whether that Panel achieves what we expect it to.  Sadly, in my view, it does not, which is why we have this debate before us.  Timing, Sir.  Firstly, I would like to address the issue of timing.  Some Members have asked me why now?  Well, Sir, there are several reasons.  Firstly, in retrospect, perhaps this proposition should have been brought some time ago.  The Members will recall that Senator Perchard toyed with the idea but did not then carry it through.  Then when I resigned from the Panel earlier this year was probably the time to bring the no confidence debate, but I had a feeling it would seem like sour grapes, so I did not do that.  Maybe I was wrong not to do so.  Then we had the debate to remove the Deputy from the Chairmen’s Committee.  When that came along, I thought to bring a no confidence proposition around that time could have seemed unfortunate.  It would have seemed like kicking somebody when they were down, so again I did not proceed.  But to put it off any longer, Sir, than I already have would mean that the matter then would not be addressed until after the summer recess, meaning yet further delay and, in my view, another 2 or 3 months of semi inaction by this Panel.  When is the right time to bring a proposition like this?  After all, it should come as no surprise to the Chairman.  The Panel have had any number of clear the air discussions with him about working practices or lack of them.  Then there is the Chairman’s assertion 2 weeks ago at the last sitting that his long awaited, very long awaited I have to say, reports are imminent, insinuating there is really no problem.  Well, Sir, leaving aside the fact he has been saying they are imminent since June of last year, does that mean we should allow the Panel to continue in its present dysfunctional fashion?  I hope not.  The issue of reviews; usually, in order to be efficient, Scrutiny Panels and their sub-Committees have several reviews running simultaneously, all at different stages.  So, interrupting such a process at any time could be disruptive.  However, in the case of the Environment Scrutiny Panel, timing is not an issue, because at present the Panel does not have any work to do; 18 months ago it decided to carry out 3 reviews - planning process, Design of Homes, and an update on the extensive work done by the shadow Scrutiny Panel on Waste Management.  The Planning Process, of which I was lead member, was completed last year and published this January.  The Design of Homes Review has, in my estimation, gone completely off the rails.  As I understand it, and maybe the Chairman can clarify, a report will not be made now in the usual manner, but instead a position paper will be created, which collates the research to date.  The waste management update - well, we have seen this morning it has just been published.  It is a pity it took this debate to squeeze it out of the Panel.  I hope Members will reflect on the time that this small piece of work has taken - 18 months - and I hope Members will ask themselves whether they are prepared to endorse a Panel that works so incredibly slowly.  With the planning review done and no new reviews started or contemplated, the Panel now has nothing to do, so if ever there was an appropriate time to make changes, now is it.  Just while I am on the Waste Review, Sir, with the document that we had this morning, I have not yet had time to study it - I briefly flipped through the pages - but sadly it is not the waste update we urgently needed but an attempt to address the single issue of recycling.  When I referred a moment or 2 ago to the Design of Homes review I stated the situation was, as I understand it - a deliberate choice of words - which highlights another, as I see it, failure of the Panel.  This Panel relies chiefly on old updates, vague updates.  In the case of the Waste Review, Sir, continual assurances from the Chairman that everything is running smoothly but without evidence to support that.  I know from experience that Panel meetings can be more like a chat room than a decision-making process with, at times, little tangible progress.  Finding out what the Panel is doing or the progress of a particular review is difficult because information is not freely available from the Panel.  It is not even freely available within the Panel.  I will not bore Members with detail, and I do not wish to go over the time when I was frustrated on the Panel before my resignation, but no doubt the Chairman will refute my allegations and tell us everything is running smoothly and to schedule.  I have to say, Sir, this is not the case, because one has to ask why Panel members found it necessary to ask the Chairman on frequent occasions during the last 12 months when the waste report was going to be published.  I note these requests are continuing under the present constitution.  The minutes show only last month the same question was asked yet again, and yet again the same answer was given, as has been for the last year: “Do not panic, it will be ready in a week or 2.”  The second issue, Sir, is the Chairman going off and meeting all sorts of people and making numerous arrangements, usually without reference to the Panel.  This has happened on several occasions.  The work with David Mason Architects when the Panel knew nothing about what was going on until he arrived at a Panel meeting one morning.  The glass imploding machine - I was not quite sure what relevance that had to the work in hand - but, again, Panel members were not kept fully informed.  I did inquire at the time about insurance issues - what was going to happen to the product that was produced, et cetera - and we simply did not, basically, know.  Then, the waste research involving the Parish of St. Helier, of which the report we have seen this morning is a product.  In my view, the collaboration with St. Helier over the waste trial was a moving target, disorganised.  No one really knew the arrangement, progress, risk analysis, or anything.  I found that especially disturbing, when one considers that we did have a Consultant employed, and yet Panel members knew nothing whatsoever about the work that he was doing, we presume he was doing some work.  Though the Panel had met this particular Consultant on a previous review, on this particular review the Panel never even met him.  I do not know what he did, nobody seems to know what he did, I cannot, unless I have missed it, see any reference in the minutes to what he did.  Working practices, Sir, third issue.  Scrutiny is supposed to hold the Executive to account - that is its purpose.  It does this by examining process, policy and decisions.  It cannot be effective if a Panel is bogged down in detail, wasting valuable time that could otherwise be more productively spent looking at the bigger picture.  I would use as an example, Sir, an occasion when the Panel wished to place an advertisement in the Evening Post.  I cannot remember the exact number, but I think it was something like 7 drafts this advertisement went through - should it be narrow and tall, or should it be bigger, how much does it cost, we want a cheaper one, what font should we use?  It really was getting quite irritating.  Surely, the answer is to instruct an officer to place an advertisement in the Evening Post and get on with the job.  It should take 5 minutes.  A Panel should work as a team.  In shadow Scrutiny, we had one year to complete our work before we ceased to exist.  In shadow Scrutiny we managed 4 reviews - Agri-environment, Trust Port, Water Resources, and Waste Management, and the latter was a monumental piece of work.  We did this by delegation using our Panel members to collate information and make decisions.  But the present Panel works in a completely different way.  While the Chairman does an enormous amount of work himself, the other Panel members are not so fully involved.  They appear to exist mainly to legitimise his actions.  Then we have a concern about financial rigour.  Proper business analysis of reviews, or work-in-hand, are never carried out, resulting in ad-hoc requests to sanction funds, as the Panel goes along.  It did get so bad at one time that I found it highly embarrassing when the Greffier, in his position of Accounting Officer, was obliged to come and address us on the matter because we were not performing according to procedure.  Then, Members will recall the shambles that occurs on occasion when this Assembly suggests referring something to the Environment Scrutiny Panel.  The Panel is not quite sure whether it wants to take it or whether it does not want to take it.  It will perhaps be guided by the House.  There is no clear decision.  Then, of course, there is that occasion of the bizarre interpretation of Standing Orders.  I notice with embarrassment, as a previous member of that Panel, none of the other Panels seem to be in such a muddle.  The whole purpose of Scrutiny is to collate and publish information, but this one does appear to be more like a secret society.  It collects lots of information, loads and loads of it as the minutes of the Panel will show, but it keeps it to itself and, I believe, in so doing it is failing to discharge its duty.  I liken it to a black hole; loads of things going in, nothing ever comes out.  I am sure the Chairman, Sir, during the last fortnight, has been busy networking his way around Members, as is his want, telling them the valuable work he has done and how it all is at the brink of fruition.  Well, we have seen one report rushed out this morning.  He cannot see what all the fuss is about.  Well, Sir, if he has, I believe he has missed the point.  I hope Members who may have given assurances to him will reflect on those assurances as a result because we have been told that the Chairman has these interesting private chats with Ministers - nothing wrong with that.  We know from the minutes that the Ministers of Planning, and Transport and Technical Services have met with the Panel to discuss work planning.  Indeed, Sir, the Panel minutes show all sorts of interesting subjects have been discussed but I have to ask, what has it achieved?  Well, nothing.  Where are the reviews?  Where is the collection of evidence?  We have a Planning Review.  That, in my estimation, desperately needs updating in light of the many changes that have taken place since the completion of the Planning Review at the end of last year.  The Shadow Panel Waste Review is likewise in desperate need of updating, because so much has changed since its publication in 2005.  Instead, Sir, the present Panel has spent 18 months on a Recycling Review that essentially does little more than analyse the contents of a Jersey dustbin.  I do not believe that is efficient working.  The Design of Homes Review was originally intended to examine room sizes, because today some rooms are built that are so small standard furniture will not fit.  Somebody buys or leases a flat, goes to wherever, buys furniture and finds the wardrobe cannot fit, the bed does not fit, because the showplace that they saw had specially made undersized furniture fitted, and they were not aware of it.  It was to look into things like that.  It was to look into space about properties - was it sufficient?  What about parking, is that adequate?  These were the issues that that Design of Homes Review was supposed to look into.  But, Sir, there was then a lack of discipline and the review went off in all sorts of interesting directions, dozens of different directions, and completely lost focus.  I did fail to see the relevance of some of the trips the Panel made, not forgetting some of the money spent in the process.  For instance, Sir, I found the trip to London produced very little of relevance to Jersey.  I know some Panel members were excited, for example, about container city.  In my mind, nothing more than a heap of welded together shopping containers converted to living accommodation, but I am not sure that is the sort of plans that we should be introducing to Jersey.  In the back of my report, Sir, in the appendix, I have listed the extensive area under the Panel’s remit, none of which are really being addressed.  I have to ask, and I have asked for some time, why the Panel is not looking at an energy policy?  Bio fuels are much in the news; Brazil has been using bio fuel for decades.  Perhaps that would solve some of our agricultural and environmental concerns simultaneously.  Research that is potentially an enormous amount of work, but it is not being considered because, if the minutes are a true reflection of what the Panel has decided, the Panel has decided not to undertake any new reviews at the present time.  A review takes time to set up, Sir, for those not involved in Scrutiny.  I would advise that there are terms of reference to be determined - we have heard about those this morning.  There are specialist advisers to be chosen, if in fact they are needed; and hearings to be organised; it has to be publicised; one has to wait for that information to come in, people will send in written evidence; hearings will be held where those who have written in might be further questioned, or people who simply wish to give oral evidence - it takes time.  So, it is therefore usual, Sir, for a Panel to re-examine its priority list of subjects which it might wish to hold reviews on, and choose which subjects it is going to address long before a current review is finished, so that the work can be started so that once one review is finished, the work on the other one is underway.  To do otherwise means you have a gap of maybe 2 months, where the Panel is basically doing nothing except deciding the shape and size of the advertisement to go in the Evening Post.  Now that this Panel has finished its work or virtually abandoned it in the case of the Design of Homes, and with no new reviews initiated, Sir, one can only presume that the Panel intends taking an extended summer break, which, in my view, is outrageous, given the amount of work waiting to be done.  Looking through the Panel’s minutes and comparing them with other Panels’ work, one is struck immediately by the difference.  Other Panels are occupied with analysing the work of those departments falling within their remit.  There are reviews going on, 2 or 3 reviews simultaneously, others in the pipeline waiting.  Recommendations are made when those reviews are published the research is made available.  Not so, Sir, on the Environment Panel.  It discusses all sorts of interesting subjects at its fortnightly meetings, often in great detail, but as I said a few moments ago, what does this achieve?  Does it inform Members as to whether a Minister’s strategy is right or wrong?  Does it better inform the public as to what is going on?  The answer in both cases is no.  An awful lot of effort but no result.  I have been particularly disturbed by the, in my view, outrageous delay in updating the Shadow Scrutiny’s Waste Report.  As I understand it, and you have to be a little bit of a mind reader where this Panel is concerned, the plan was to analyse the contents of Jersey’s rubbish bins so we knew what was able to be recycled.  From this a calculation would be made as to possible recycling percentages compared with what the department have said is possible.  Leading on from that, it will be possible to demonstrate that higher recycling would make a new incinerator of the type preferred by Transport and Technical Services unworkable.  Presumably, Sir, the Panel would then expect everybody to stop and start all over again.  Well, I have warned for over a year now that such a strategy is completely doomed to failure.  The Scrutiny Panel will have let the Island down by not doing its job in a proper and timely manner.  The crude replacement incinerator being proposed will be out of date within a year or 2 of being built, as was the one we have now, and like the previous comments made by Deputy Southern, Members will note I have an opinion on this.  Members may also care to note that when I have been on Scrutiny in the past, if somebody can prove me wrong, my opinion changes.  Also, the view of a Panel is, as Deputy Southern said, the collective view.  When you see the evidence, you fall in behind the evidence.  I merely thought I would point that out, as Senator Ozouf seems to think that members of Scrutiny are not allowed to have an opinion in this Chamber.  The proposed incinerator will possibly be out of date within a year or 2, so instead of trying to be in opposition, the Panel, in my view, should have ensured everyone was well informed about the alternatives, so that everyone could engage in a reasoned debate - members of the public, States’ Members alike.  As it is, only Members from the previous shadow Scrutiny Panel are fully aware of the viable alternatives.  Clearly, what was needed was a presentation for States’ Members, and the public too, of the alternatives.  That was needed some time ago.  Having complained about this for some time, the Panel eventually agreed in January of this year that some of the firms who gave us presentations in 2005 - that is why I say it needs updating, much has happened - some of those firms would be asked to attend and the exhibition planned for March.  I am quoting here from the minutes: “would be combined with the launch of the Waste Report.”  So, the Panel minutes of 25th January tell us that invitations for this exhibition were: “to be sent shortly” and that the Waste Report was in final draft and could be expected imminently - that was 6 months ago.  It has only been rushed out today because of the no confidence debate.  The assertion by the Chairman then that the report was in final draft was clearly not true, as later minutes demonstrate, and the manufactured delay has scuppered the proposed presentation to Members of alternatives.  Indeed, I have not noticed any further reference in the minutes to the proposed presentation, which was to be held last March, 4 months ago - something else that simply has not happened.  It has been suggested to me that it may suit some Ministers to have a rather limp, ineffective Scrutiny Panel, it would be in their best interests, because that way they would never be troubled with the prospect of criticism of any kind, and it keeps things nice and quiet.  I believe, Sir, my opinion is that such thinking, if in fact it does exist, is misguided.  Certainly, it is not shared, I know, by the Minister for Planning.  Scrutiny can and should add value to government.  It cannot do that if it is disorganised, lacking focus, and preoccupied with detail in minutiae.  Neither does it help if work cannot be done because the Panel is in court.  Looking through the minutes of the Panel since I resigned from it, I see that Members now apparently slip in and out of meetings as if it was a coffee shop.  It is not a question of somebody arriving late or somebody leaving early.  My understanding of the minutes is that it is a coming and going situation most of the time.  Twice in a month, business has had to stop through lack of a quorum.  That is not conducive to effective working.  It also detracts from good government.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Could the proposer tell us which month it is that he is referring to please?

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

If the member of the Scrutiny Panel would have a little patience, I am just coming to that.  Take the Water Resources Law.  The Panel agreed at its meeting on 8th March that it would put the draft Water Resources Law on the next agenda, presumably so it could formulate its contribution to the forthcoming debate.  The following meeting on 22nd March was adjourned at 10.00 a.m. because it became inquorate.  I presume it started at 9.30 a.m. - it does not tell us.  So, the Water Resources Law was never discussed.  Consequently, apart from a few words by the Chairman during the debate on the Water Resources Law, the Panel made no contribution to the debate.  In fact, the most contribution, I believe, came from Deputy Southern, who is not a member of the Panel.  In my view, that lets down both the States’ Members and the public.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Could the proposer point out which month we were inquorate on 2 occasions?

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I have just mentioned that both occasions were in March of this year.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

And the dates please?

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I will see if I have got a battery for his hearing aid.  Perhaps if the Deputy insists, and Members bear with me, I will just go through the minutes.  No, I am not going to waste any more time.  They are both in March of this year, and I have the minutes with me.  I am not going to interrupt my speech to find them.  The total lack of business planning is another issue, Sir.  I note as recently as last month a telephone meeting was organised to ratify a trip to France.  It appears the Chairman had organised it because I can find no reference to it in previous minutes, and the sum of £150 was mentioned.  Six days later another telephone meeting was called where the Chairman advised that £1,000 was needed to cover unforeseen costs.  This sort of financial chaos cannot be allowed to continue.  The trip involved was in relation to the Waste Review.  It was about recycling, so that also casts doubt on the Chairman’s insistence the previous January that the report was imminent.  Here they are in June collecting further information.  The work of the Planning and Environment and Transport and Technical Services Departments, which comes under the remit of this Panel, affects almost every member of the public.  It is therefore important that the policies and actions of these 2 departments are scrutinised in an effective and professional manner.  At present, they are not.  The previous cajoling of the Panel to mend its ways has met with no success, Sir.  It therefore seems unfortunate to me that there remains only one option - to replace the Panel with one that is prepared to operate in an efficient and more businesslike fashion.  I therefore recommend the proposition to Members.

The Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded?  [Seconded]

8.1.1 Senator F.E. Cohen:

This is quite a difficult issue for me to respond to and to speak on as it involves, effectively, 2 members in whom I have a great deal of respect - Deputy Baudains, who I hold in high esteem, and similarly Deputy Duhamel, who I also hold in high esteem.  But I can only speak as I find, based on the relationship that I have developed over the last 18 months with Deputy Duhamel as Chairman of the Scrutiny Panel.  I can say that Deputy Duhamel and the Panel have provided some extremely useful suggestions to the department over this 18 month period.  When I began I had no political experience and I was not used to conventional scrutiny.  Therefore, I suppose that we jointly fell into an unconventional scrutiny process based on mutual understanding and trying to ensure that we furthered the objectives of the department in the best possible way, and particularly in relation to planning where there is a simple imperative - to produce better buildings.  Scrutiny came up with some, as I have said, very useful ideas, that significantly improved the workings of the department.  They did not make a fuss, they did not ask to wait for a report to be produced and they did not wish to claim the ideas as their ideas.  They were concerned merely to improve the process and it was for that reason that, without fuss and without publicity, their ideas were implemented as swiftly as was possible.  Over the period, I have developed great respect for the Chairman; he is a very honest person.  He has unconventional views often but they are deeply held and they have been held for a long time and he lives his convictions.  We meet regularly and I have told him much of what goes on within the department.  Never once has he broken a confidence.  I have provided him with information that could, if used in a particular way, have been damaging to me and he has never once taken the opportunity of passing this information on to anyone else.  I agreed to go on the Panel’s trip to Vienna.  I make no bones that when I agreed to go I was not convinced that it would be particularly useful.  However, I found it to be extremely useful.  We viewed eco schemes, we used high-density developments and I learnt that these developments could be used in a relevant way in Jersey, the principles of these developments, in a relevant way in Jersey, in a way that I would never previously have imagined.  I would not have had the benefit of that experience had it not been for Deputy Duhamel and for the Panel.  I cannot comment on the internal workings of the Panel and my comments therefore are based entirely on my discussions with the Chairman as an individual but as the representative of the Panel.  So, in conclusion, I support the Panel, I support the Chairman and I will be voting against this proposition.  Thank you, Sir.

8.1.2 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I think it is probably wise for me to speak now rather than wait until everybody else has had a go because we are coming for lunch break and we need some time, really, to consider what has been said and also a relatively short speech at this time in relation to this.  I joined the Panel on 22nd February and the Constable of St. Helier joined the Panel in March.  The proposition that has been brought to us today by Deputy Baudains has more to do with the workings of the last Panel than of this Panel.  The responsibilities in relation to the issues that we are reviewing are quite lofty and quite heavy when it comes to the taxpayers of this Island, in relation to the waste management and also the design of homes for the future.  Both issues of waste and the needs of dealing with waste and also the design of homes and the facility for housing in Jersey are probably next to schooling and medical, at the top of our priorities.  In fact, many issues in relation to health and schooling are dependent upon good health from proper waste facilities and good housing.  I have eagerly been awaiting an opportunity to become a member of the Environment Scrutiny Panel and I did ask the Chairman if I could be a member of his Panel when we first set out on this new form of government.  It was explained to me that he thought it was better that other members who had not had Scrutiny experience were given an opportunity to become a part of the Panel and that, at that time, he did not feel he was able to invite me on to the Panel but he did say that I was sitting on the bench as first reserve.  I have been extremely keen on environmental issues and have met with the Environment Minister in private, as a States’ Member, on occasions to discuss issues that have concerned the environment.  There may be a lot more to do with personality in this proposition than the actual workings of politics and that is extremely unfortunate.  The Panel has met on a number of occasions.  I do not see in the minutes or have not experienced where it has become inquorate, on 2 occasions in one month.  That is not borne out by what I have witnessed and not what is minuted either.  On no occasion did either the proposer or the seconders of this motion approach me or any of the Panel to ask us at what stage the reports were in.  So when Deputy Baudains says that he is unable to establish what has happened and he needs to be a mind reader to decide what is going on with the Panel, then obviously that is where he is failing, not us, because there is a process called communication and if one communicates with the member of a Panel or the Chairman, then it is understandable if they communicate back.  Nobody has ever asked me, at any time, what was happening.  When Deputy Sean Power, who had undertaken the actual fact-finding trips involved with Design of Homes, moved on to new grounds with the Environment Minister, the Committee decided at its next meeting, which is minuted, to appoint a lead member in this important regard.  As I was keen to help press forward the business, I volunteered to review the material and, as Deputy Baudains points out, the job of Scrutiny is to review, collate and publish the material so I agreed to review and collate the material and then I agreed to publish it.  Because of the secondment of an officer to the telephone masts, that information did not reach me in its entirety until late May, early June at which time I decided, as the lead member, with the Panel that the best way forwards in this regard would be to ask Deputy Power to present his findings from his visits, not mine, his visits to these places, so that we could accumulate a report and lodge that report on 17th July.  As with this Waste Strategy Recycling Report that is lodged on Members’ desks today, it was the decision that we took before we knew anything about the vote of no confidence and in fact, as I have stated, none of us knew anything about the vote of no confidence except for the Chairman who received a telephone call the night before.  Now, how is it possible, I ask Members, to support a vote of no confidence whose premise is based upon a past Panel that is no longer in situ and the workings of a Panel that the member that is proposing this vote of no confidence has no knowledge of?  Because, as the lead member for Design of Homes, he certainly did not make any attempt to communicate with me.  Had he have done so at any stage I would have more than happily sat down with him and discussed what progress was being made.  The Deputy went on to say: “If somebody can prove me wrong, I will change my view.”  Well, perhaps that he could have been proved wrong was why he did not bother to talk to us.  The issues of energy policy; an energy policy has to be produced to be scrutinised.  The setting up of the examination of the energy issues has already been discussed at the Panel and an invitation to the Constable of Grouville was extended and received in person and, again, on a later date, to examine the issues of renewable energy.  The Panel is already reviewing issues of renewable energy and it was preparing itself to work in that area.  It has already conducted reviews in relation to the transport policy and had spent a large portion of its time in relation to the recent environmental tax issues that were recently withdrawn.  It is important, Sir, to be right but in fact there is something worse than being wrong and that is being right and not having people believe you.  It is the curse of Cassandra who jilted Apollo and his punishment to her was to give her perfect foresight but also with the curse of never being believed, and there is nothing more painful than seeing the future, knowing what is going to happen and in failing to convince your colleagues and if they are not convinced, Sir, it means you did not communicate properly.  Perhaps there is legitimate criticism in the communication of this past Panel and the work that it has been doing and is currently doing.  But that needs to be countered.  The accumulation of such evidence has to make us rethink the purchasing of a £90 million capital piece of kit down at the La Collette site, has to be backed up by more than just a belief.  It has to be backed up by robust evidence.  The Zero Waste Trial in St. Helier in district No. 1, which was conducted with my participation, involved 200 homes and instead of achieving a recycling rate of 32 per cent, we demonstrated that we were able to achieve a recycling rate of 54 per cent.  54 per cent of what we are throwing away and burning needs no longer to be burnt.  The consequences of burning are, as we know, the production of ash and all that goes with that and the land reclamation that is needed there.  The point of communication; the Panel has, before I joined, and since, striven to engage with the public.  It was the Panel before me, including Deputy Baudains, who was innovative in going around the Parishes and holding Parish meetings to communicate what it was doing.  It set out a stall at Fort Regent; it attended and was enthusiastic with the recent Eco Active launch of the Environment Minister.  We have finished the research into the Waste Recycling Review, which has been on Members’ desks today, which was promised in our minutes, to be produced by 17th July.  We have produced it today to demonstrate that it was ready.  It contains a lot of recommendations and a lot of evidence and it is something that I would very much look forward to, as the Panel does.  Visiting the Parishes and the schools and politicians to talk about and engage the community on how we can reduce the need for huge capital expenditure by looking at waste in a different way.  It is a valuable resource and the work that this Panel has been engaging in is to give evidence to the fact that we need not spend money and we can save money while improving our environment, which is what the Environment Scrutiny Panel is.  As I say, Sir, unfortunately I believe that this proposition has more to do with the workings of the past Panel than it has to do with the current Panel.  I certainly have not sat around any meeting to discuss font sizes of a Jersey Evening Post advertisement.  I will remind Members that I joined the Panel on 22nd February and the Constable, in March.  We have not been at these issues for 18 months.  I am extremely keen to drive forward in these important issues and work with the Ministers respectfully in trying to come up with solutions, as we did try to come up with in relation to the compost site which, when we identified £6 million of land saving, £4 million of capital cost on the sheds and £670,000 a year on operating costs that could be done in the countryside, we thought we were on the right track.  These suggestions and these investigations may not necessarily be taken up by Ministers but it is important that they consider them before they dismiss them out of hand.  I would ask Members to listen to what the Chairman of the Environment Scrutiny Panel has to say and I would ask Members to also consider whether or not they can support a vote of no confidence in this Panel, given the terms set out for the reasons within the report itself.  The reasons for a vote of no confidence should not be something we introduce to the States Assembly willy-nilly.  It is an important discussion, a vote of no confidence, it takes up a large portion of time and it also means that any changes that come about because of it have to come about because of it due to the fact that you can agree to meet the rationale and the reasoning behind the vote of no confidence in the first place.  Unfortunately, I believe, personally, that a lot of this has boiled down to personality.  Deputy Baudains says the work of the Panel is finished.  On the contrary, it has just begun.  The evidence is in our hands.  We need to make sure, now that we can communicate that with the Ministers and the public, and collectively we can start to meet the needs of our future without compromising the needs of the future.  I ask Members to seriously consider whether or not this is a vote of no confidence in the current Panel or whether or not it is a vote of no confidence in the past Panel, which Deputy Baudains was a member of.

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:

Could I propose the lunchtime adjournment because I would like to speak for more than 2 minutes?

The Bailiff:

Does any Member wish to speak briefly?  Very well, Senators agree.  We will adjourn until 2.15 p.m.

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

PUBLIC BUSINESS (…continued)

Environment Scrutiny Panel: Vote of No Confidence (P.85/2007) (…continued)

The Bailiff:

Does any Member wish to speak in the debate?

8.1.3 Deputy C.J. Scott Warren:

I will not be supporting this vote of no confidence.  Firstly, this Panel has 2 new members, only within the last few months, and I do not believe there are members better placed than Deputy Duhamel and the Connétable of St. Helier to chair and be a member of this Panel respectively.  The Connétable of St. Helier was President of the Public Services Committee for many years.  His knowledge is therefore a huge asset to this Panel.  Deputy Duhamel has a science background and knows far more, dare I say, than the average States’ Member on the many complex environmental issues that we as a government face.  Both these States’ Members have promoted and have achieved an excellent increase in recycling and the public has shown it is very willing to become actively involved, and including even me, Sir, with 2 small green boxes in my kitchen.  The Connétable of St. Mary brings his knowledge of parochial, rural issues and concerns to this Panel.  Deputy Le Claire was an active key member of a Public Services Committee I was on, Sir, in the beginning of my States first term of office.  For years Deputy Le Claire has championed environmental issues affecting St. Helier and the neighbouring urban areas.  I am not excluding it just to that but particularly he has been interested throughout on environmental matters.  I would like, Sir, to clarify that it was Deputy Le Claire who brought a verbal report of ash blowing off site at La Collette to my attention in my capacity, standing in for Senator Stuart Syvret, the Minister for Health, while he is currently indisposed.  Sir, I believe it was certainly right for me to ask Health Protection to investigate the question of the handling of ash and it is thanks to Deputy Le Claire that this has happened.  Sir, we do know that Deputy Baudains sincerely believes that there is no need for the recently passed Water Resources Law and, with all due respect to Deputy Baudains, Sir, I would suggest that his utter displeasure at the imminent introduction of this Water Resources Law is, in my opinion, a factor in his criticism of this Environment Scrutiny Panel.  In other words, Sir, I would go so far as to say I believe this could be at least one major reason why we are here today, debating this proposition.  Sir, I will not be supporting this vote of no confidence and I urge Members to reject this proposition and to let this Panel continue with its work.  Thank you, Sir.

8.1.4 Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

By way of background, I would remind Members that Scrutiny is just finding its feet.  There may be a few growing pains as there are 8 very strong characters on the Chairmen’s Committee.  It is a new process and it is unlikely that the process and procedures will develop without a few hiccups.  It is for this reason that we are currently conducting a review of working practices in Scrutiny.  I appreciate Senator Cohen’s comments but Scrutiny have a duty to this Assembly as well as bringing Ministers to account a meeting with them.  The duty to the Assembly and to the public is to report on policy and the validity of the decisions taken.  Scrutiny should provide the information to enable this Assembly to discuss policy intelligently and to enable the public to understand the ramifications of what we are trying to discuss intelligently.  If we do not have reports, we are debating blindly.  It is not satisfactory.  The refutations, that I received by email last night, stated that a meeting was held with the Minister of TTS (Transport and Technical Services) regarding the transport plan.  Where is the report for all Members so that we understand what the implications are?  You know, we are missing it.  We have a considerable volume of work already produced by Scrutiny and it is obvious that Scrutiny has really got stuck into reviewing policy, pointing out the inconsistencies and producing reports.  These reports, I would add, are of a very high quality and they are produced within very tight time constraints.  I would remind Members yet again that Scrutiny is the business of evaluating the quality of decision-making of the Council of Ministers and producing timely reports, which ensure that there are informed debates on policy.  Scrutiny is not there to propose alternative policy.  It might force a rethink if the quality of evidence supporting policy is substandard and it is certainly not there to provide opposition.  In other words, Scrutiny is there to make sure that the decisions of this Assembly are well thought out, thoroughly debated and represent the best possible approach for the Island.  The environment is perhaps one of the most significant issues facing this Assembly and we need timely and objective reports to enable us to make informed decisions and it is for this reason that I am supporting this vote of no confidence.

8.1.5 Deputy J.J. Huet:

When the new system of Ministerial government was being developed it was, obviously from the start, that for the Council of Ministers to be able to succeed and to be able to gain the approval from this Assembly, for major policies, an effective form of peer review or Scrutiny, as we know it, has got to be essential.  Now we did, Sir, enter a period of Shadow Scrutiny, which we are all aware of, which was the time for all Members to understand their responsibilities and their respective roles and to develop an effective system of Scrutiny to serve both this Assembly and the Island.  It is true that some of the Shadow Scrutiny Panels found it difficult to strike the right balance between critical review of policy and clear opposition to proposals being put forward by then the Committee Presidents.  Sir, that was when we should have all learnt very valuable lessons during that period then.  When the Ministerial government did start, I myself was really hopeful that the Environment Scrutiny Panel would look objectively at the Transport and Technical Services, our Business Plan, and pick up on any new areas for review.  The Transport and Technical Services Minister has a wide - we all know that from the back of this here - has a wide range of responsibilities and there are many opportunities for the Environment Scrutiny Panel to get involved at the early stages of policy development so that we could all work together with them and not in opposition.  Unfortunately, Sir, the Environment Scrutiny Panel decided to go back over old ground and review, yet again, the Waste Strategy.  That was in early 2006 and we are still awaiting their views and final report.  It is not exactly a great performance, Sir, I do not think.  We then had the Environment Scrutiny Panel teaming up with non-scrutiny members carrying out their own review and I mention 2; the Compost Review by Deputy Le Claire and the Parish of St. Helier Zero Waste Trial headed up by the Connétable of St. Helier.  These 2 reviews, Sir, were mainly carried out without any dialogue with the Transport and Technical Minister or our department and officers.  The position became so unclear that the Minister ended up inviting the Scrutiny Panel to our meeting, in an attempt to try and enter into some form of meaningful discussion.  On 16th July 2006, the Waste Strategy Steering Group invited the Environment Scrutiny Panel to its meeting to discuss progress on their review of the Waste Strategy and, in particular, to hear from Deputy Duhamel on his research into the 3 alternative technologies he was investigating.  On that day, Sir, Deputy Duhamel attended on his own.  No Panel.  An advisor said the rest of the Panel would not be attending; only him.  During the discussion it was evident that the Deputy was not in a position to provide any form of report and he agreed - this is it - he agreed to put it on his list of priorities and bring it to the top.  Well, Sir, I am not sure how long his list was and what he meant by “bring it to the top” but it was not until 23rd October 2006 that we received from Deputy Duhamel a single sheet of paper that, frankly, said nothing new whatsoever.  It was merely a repeat of what had been considered in the past from previous reports prepared by the department and its advisors.  When Deputy Le Claire was developing his composting report, in conjunction with the Environment Scrutiny Panel, again the Waste Strategy Steering Group had to invite him to attend our meeting.  It was an attempt to understand how their work would help in progressing the overall objective of providing the Island with a new, modern, enclosed compost facility to deal with the Island’s green waste.  Had we progressed that, Sir, the compost plant, as this Assembly originally agreed, back in July 2005, this summer would have seen the new enclosed compost plant in operation and the smell problems for the Havre des Pas residents would be a thing of the past.  But no, Sir, where are we today?  No compost plant and no likelihood of getting one for some time yet.  The strange thing is, Sir, that, following Deputy Le Claire’s report on compost, we have been out to see what other land is available and appear to be coming down to a list of sites that is very similar to those reviewed many times before.  Sir, in fact, every time the issue of compost locations rears its head we appear to go off on a wild goose chase and come back to where we started off.  Not very good progress.  Sir, I have to say I want Scrutiny, and I know our officers do, and I know our department does.  We want it to work, to be effective, to provide the role of being the Minister’s critical friend.  But, Sir, I am afraid that this Panel has not developed itself into that role.  The Minister attended a Scrutiny Panel to discuss the department’s 2007 Business Plan to ensure that they were aware of the range of policies being developed by the department.  For example, the Travel and Transport Plan, the Liquid Waste Strategy, to name but 2, in an attempt to engage them at an early stage.  Sir, unfortunately, despite our efforts we do not appear to have made any progress and I feel, Sir, that the time is now right for a new approach, a new team at Environment Scrutiny, so that we can work together for the good of this Assembly and the Island.  As I said at the beginning of my speech, Sir, I will be supporting Deputy Baudains.  Thank you very much.

Deputy C.J. Scott Warren:

Could I point out that 2 of the people who have signed this proposition are not in this Chamber?  In fact, I believe I am right in saying that one of them has not been here for virtually all of the debate so far and I find that very odd that it is signed by people that cannot even be here to attend.

The Bailiff:

I do not know if Deputy Duhamel wishes to speak?  Otherwise I am going to call upon Deputy Baudains to respond.

8.1.6 Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Deputy Baudains said that he was saddened to be bringing this report because I was so much of a friend.  I am saddened that he feels that, as a friend, he has to be putting in the knife and turning it.  Most of the comments that we have heard today, Sir…

The Bailiff:

Deputy, may I just interject to say that I must say that I thought that Deputy Baudains was scrupulously careful to say that this was not a personal matter, that he was bringing his vote of no confidence in the Panel itself?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

If that is how friends behave, Sir, I would take your advice.

The Bailiff:

That is what the Deputy said.  I think it is important to bear that in mind.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Most of the comments we have heard here this morning and this afternoon, Sir, do not make the case and the case for this debate is that the Deputy of St. Clement has no confidence in the Committee, as constituted since March and February, when he came off.  A number of Members have told the House, quite rightly, that there appears to be… well, the majority of evidence, if we can call it evidence, is really based on comments of the Deputy’s time on the Committee when it is fair and it is true to say that we did not see eye to eye on every single issue, as you would expect for any Panel.  But to go a stage further, Sir, and to bring forward the debate which I see as effectively trying to sabotage the efforts of Scrutiny is to do something which I think undermines the whole purpose. The comments of the last speaker, Sir, are not only wrong but they are misleading the House.  The Environmental Panel has attempted and has engaged with the Transport and Technical Services officers and, indeed, the Minister on many occasions and, indeed, it is fundamentally wrong, Sir and any person who has taken the time to read our minutes, speak to our officers, speak to any members on the Panel, will be able to see quite clearly that we have been to the department, as I said, on many occasions, the last of which was to discuss the Integrated Travel and Transport Plan, strategy, policy, call it what you will, which is yet to come to this House.  One of the difficulties we have with the Ministerial government at the moment is that there is a fault line, as has been reported in the media, running down the… well, not necessarily down the middle of the Chamber but certainly in between the Council of Ministers and those Members who are not or do not have any Executive responsibility.  I do think that Scrutiny should be promulgated in the form of a critical friend and apparently it would appear that that is upsetting a number of Members.  In discussing the Integrated Travel and Transport Plan and not doing a full review because the Panel at the time had undertaken to do 3 very long reviews and we did not have the administrative staff or indeed the wherewithal to carry out more than 3 large reviews at the same time, decided that the best course of action was to talk to the Minister and to set out our comments.  I remember the meeting quite clearly and, at the end of it, the Minister, contrary to what we are told by Deputy Huet, was quite complimentary in what we had put forward.  The Constable from St. Mary was there and will vouch, as indeed do the minutes and the other papers, supporting papers, that the things that we put forward, in order to value add, to assist in the policy making function for the Integrated Travel and Transport Plan, the Minister turned around and he thanked us warmly, I must admit, for our efforts and comments and, when I asked what would happen to those comments, suggested very strongly that they would be integrated into the new Integrated Travel and Transport Plan before it comes back to this Chamber and waits for our support or not, as the case may be.  Likewise, representations were made by myself and Deputy Le Claire on the composting report.  Members must realise that when we started off the Environmental Scrutiny Panel we had a number of headstrong members, as indeed under the previous system, and the way of dealing with business in order to allow the more headstrong among us to have a chunk of the action, so to speak, and to deliver whatever they were able to deliver in a manageable format, it was decided, and it is minuted in the minutes, that we would go for 3 very large reviews.  In hindsight, Sir, this has not been the working management style or practice that indeed a number of the other Scrutiny Panels have worked under, but nevertheless this was something that had worked in the shadow phase of Scrutiny and indeed Deputy Baudains makes reference to its success.  It was thoroughly thrashed out and we all agreed, around the table, that 3 long reviews would be undertaken.  Now, it is the nature of Scrutiny, Sir, that we do not have a working definition as such and it is interesting to note also that within the annual report that was produced for this House by the Privileges and Procedures Committee on 24th April 2007, itemising the ‘state of the nation’, if you like, for the previous year, in 2006, has a number of paragraphs which were appended to my forward because I was then still the President of the Chairmen’s Committee, that while a section of the report looks at performance indicators, both of quantitative and qualitative status, it is worth nothing, this quote from a centre of public scrutiny discussion paper entitled “The NAO and Parliamentary Scrutiny: New Audit for the New Times” which asserts that: “Scrutiny gives the public the capacity to know what the government is doing.  What the public want from Scrutiny arrangements varies over time.  Perhaps reflecting changing levels of trust and citizens’ concerns also change.  Not surprisingly therefore, there is no single agreed way to provide Scrutiny that is timely, relevant and cost effective.  Nations evolve their own Scrutiny mechanisms and these both differ from each other and change over time.  However, although we cannot assess Scrutiny arrangements against some absolute standard, we can assess them against their own intended outcomes.”  This, Sir, strikes at the heart, I think, of why we find ourselves in this Chamber this afternoon discussing a vote of confidence.  We have heard from the new President of the Chairmen’s Committee tell us that she thinks that policy is not the main draft of what we should be looking at.  There is no definition, exactly, of what Scrutiny is. Section 4.2 of the Working Practices of the Annual Report went on to say that, apart from regular meetings of the Panels, a majority of which are held in public, and we have followed that through from day one, the fact that the public do not always attend is neither here nor there.  Our doors are not bolted and Members may come along and listen quite freely and openly to what is being discussed, within reason.  Just to recognise that Panels are free to develop their individual working practices in order to carry out their Scrutiny function.  This was part of the review that we did for the first year and if Members do not agree with the things that we put in then perhaps we should be bringing forward not a vote of confidence in the Environment and Scrutiny Panel but a vote of confidence in Scrutiny as a whole.  It goes on, on page 32, to say that research has been undertaken into other jurisdictions regarding their means of measuring the success of Scrutiny functions.  Now, we are told time and time again by Deputy Baudains that we have not been timely and we have not been efficient.  As I said earlier, Sir, a number of Panels have decided to do short reviews.  There are short reviews; there are medium term reviews; there are long reviews.  Our Panel, rightly or wrongly, and I think rightly in this case, decided that it wished to embark on 3 long reviews.  If it is the intention of this House, by voting for a vote of no confidence, that no such long reviews should be undertaken, because they inevitably will take a long time to do, then I think we do Scrutiny and this House and the Island Government a huge disservice.  In the annual report going on for the Environment Scrutiny Panel, we stated that, under Waste Management Review, the States debated 4 separate projets connected with the Waste Management Review during 2006.  People have to realise that the environment is a constantly changing field and this is one of the difficulties.  When does Scrutiny get in and when does Scrutiny get out of a particular review?  It is a political judgment in as much as an administrative judgment and the 2 have to be in balance.  Although the Environment Panel did not present the projets before, that were separately debated in this House, on waste management issues, nevertheless the work in these areas that was undertaken did enable the Panel to make a significant contribution to the debate and how States’ Members viewed the issues.  Now, we are being told here, Sir, that we did not do anything.  We have done, in that context.  We had issues over composting down at La Collette, we had issues over other issues but on every occasion we have done work behind the scenes and otherwise and our comments have been made known.  The Parish of St. Helier ran a Zero Waste Trial and Members will be able to read in our report, which has been brought to the House after an enormous amount of work from the officers, and I thank them for the help in bringing forward what we said we were going to do on 14th June.  But we have been told by Deputy Baudains that we only brought this report because he had lodged a proposition.  That is clearly false.  If Members read the minutes, and I am not sure that he has or indeed many other Members have, but if you read the minutes, it does clearly state on 14th June that one of the decisions taken, one of these few decisions apparently that we do take, was that the reports would be written as soon as possible and delivered to the House by 17th July and indeed, Sir, I made my comments known to the House when we were discussing the ordering of business.  What has happened in between is that we have had to bring forward those reports but the body of the work has been undertaken and done and Members will be able to judge at a later stage when these reports are discussed in the right place.  The Waste Management Review was not intended to be a 5 minute job.  Had it been intended to be a 5 minute job then the report would quite clearly have been written in an earlier timeframe.  The department and the Panel, and I must admit the Members who are signing this proposition, were at least, in part, members of the Panel and agreed that we would make moves to assess, by way of terms of reference as far as we were able to, with the parish of St. Helier to try and determine whether or not there was any public interest in assisting with recycling larger quantities of the Island’s waste.  In order for a report of that undertaking to carry any weight, it had to run for a particular period of time.  It was not a 5 minute piece of work, it had to be organised by the Parish authorities.  The difficulties that always appear with any scheme that is being undertaken had to be ironed out before we were in a position to be able to add weight or accept the weight of the results that were coming out from the report.  The report was written up in March this year.  But I digress a little.  I am just coming back to the major point; at the end of 2006 we stated in our report that the report for this review, the Waste Management Review, is due during the first quarter of 2007.  We also said, under the Planning Process Review, there was no date of the delivery of that particular report because it was not finished.  Some comments have been made as to the commitment of members to the Environmental Scrutiny Panel and I would just ask Members to listen to one or 2 points about the attendance record of Deputy Baudains.  I could go on and mention the attendance records of everybody but I do not want to bore you too much.  If we followed from meeting number 25, we had apologies from Deputy Baudains, meeting number 26, apologies from Deputy Baudains, 27, 28 and 29, Deputy Baudains attended.  Meeting 30, Deputy Baudains was absent; meeting 31 Deputy Baudains was present; meeting 32, Deputy Baudains was absent; 33 present; 34, 35, 37, 39 absent.  Now, this is at a time when we were hoping that Deputy Baudains, as the lead member, would be bringing forward the final report for his Planning Process Review, of which he was a lead member.  Myself and the Constable of St. Mary, on the other hand, have attended virtually all meetings.  I have attended all the meetings, as one would expect, as chair of the Panel and the Constable of St. Mary is very, very close behind.  So it is fundamentally wrong, Sir, for any Member of this House to stand up and try to paint a picture which is clearly false.  I will give another instance which annoys me intensely; we have been told by Deputy Baudains that the new Panel, as constituted in March, has been inquorate on 2 occasions but the import of that statement is that this is symptomatic of the Panel being inquorate on many occasions because people do not wish to be busying themselves doing the work.  The 2 meetings that the notion of being inquorate came up was on 22nd February and that was a very short meeting.  22nd February, that was to discuss 3 items and, as frequently happens with some meetings, at the end of the… I beg your pardon, I do not wish to mislead the House, it was 22nd March, sorry, with the new Committee and the 2 new members.  On 22nd March the meeting was from 9.30 a.m. to 10.00 a.m.  During that time we tabled 4 items.  The meeting would have gone on to discuss one or 2 items but, for whatever reasons, as sometimes happens from time to time, a number of members had to leave.  But the bulk of the work was achieved in the half hour period.  Now, what is the import of the message coming from the Deputy of St. Clement, or what I am telling you now?  It is how you read it, how it is told and I feel sorry for a number of Members who have not wanted to or had the time to go through our minutes and check out all the statements laboriously, as you would do, in any Scrutiny issue, to check out whether or not what is being said can be matched up by proper evidence.  That is the way we do our job and it just has not been done.  On the second occasion, Sir, and perhaps we are to blame, we should have picked up on the language skills of the officers who were taking the minutes and queried them when the minutes came back but I do not really like being in a position where we amend minutes.  It should not be done, it is supposed to be an independent function.  On 22nd February, the second time that the Committee or the Panel were inquorate, we met at 9.30 a.m.  At 1.50 p.m. it was recorded the Panel became inquorate.  But the number of items done between 9.30 a.m. and 1.50 p.m. was the bulk of the day’s work so what is the implication?  Are we being negligent?  Are people showing a lack of commitment towards the work?  No, I do not think so, Sir, and it is wrong for any Member of this House to try and imply that that is the sense of the meeting.  I had some comments from Deputy Power.  Deputy Power, as we all know, is on the APF (Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie) (International Assembly of French-Speaking Parliamentarians) conference in Gabon but he was particularly disturbed at being roped in, if you like, to the comments that Deputy Baudains was making and he sent a note to me suggesting that if I have the opportunity would I be kind enough to put right, in his absence, a couple of the points because he was quite clearly upset that he could not be here to tell the House himself.  He says he would like to comment on the proposition and some erroneous impressions that are being given in proposition P.85.  It was always agreed - this is Deputy Power talking or writing: “It was always an agreement between myself and the Chairman of the Environment Panel that when I had concluded SR12 the review into P.6, the Housing Property Plan, that I would help to conclude Design of Homes while outside the Panel, but nonetheless assisting in a positive way.  I offered to use my access to the Planning Department and I have the approval of the Planning Minister and the Assistant Planning Minister in this wish to complete Design of Homes.”  Second point: “I would like to say that the Design of Homes Review is a focused review [we have had assertions from Deputy Baudains that it is not] and it is my privilege to be asked to assist the Environmental Panel to complete it in July.”  So we are being told that there was a completion date, which is slightly different to what Deputy Baudains is telling the House: “I am also happy to confirm to the Assembly that the Chairman of the Environment Panel has agreed that I will be the link between the Panel and the Planning Department.  There was only one occasion, at the Café Des Artiste that I met other Panel members without Deputy Duhamel.  That was as much to do with the discussion on the unwillingness of the other members of the Panel, including Deputy Duhamel, Deputy Baudains and Deputy Le Hérissier to support my wish to circulate an electronic questionnaire on behalf of the Design of Homes Review.  The plan was to use the internet systems for the larger employees and financial and accounting institutions for this and then to circulate a paper questionnaire to targeted postcodes.  The inference in the proposition is wrong; that there were many other meetings.  That is not so.  Two visits - to London and Vienna - were planned and carried out by the Design of Homes Review in consultation with a local well-known and respected architect.  It is my understanding that the trips were planned and executed professionally and that there was nothing wrong with the funding of these trips.  There were some last minute alterations to the plan that had a cost implication.  Some members dropped out when the Panel had hired a driver and mini bus and we were unable to change to a car.  I asked for and received a copy of the draft waste review and read it.”  This House is told by Deputy Baudains that, at his suggestion, bearing in mind that the previous waste review documents were fairly weighty, particularly with technical issues which are not everybody’s cup of tea, that he had suggested that everybody nevertheless read it, that we all declined.  Deputy Power states that he asked for and received a copy of the draft waste review and read it.  “Deputy Baudains is wrong to state that all the members of the Panel declined to read it.  That discussion never took place.  Deputy Baudains should remember that I led a discussion last November on the replacement of the Avonmouth incinerator with another plant and quoted the fact that the Royal Navy had also elected for that particular plant in Portsmouth.  I circulated photocopies of the profiles of the incinerators and they had an uncanny resemblance to the new proposed EFW (Energy-From-Waste) plants at Jersey.  Of course there were differences on the Environment Panel, as everybody would expect.  That is the nature of the business.  We do not sit there and just tick boxes and agree with each other.  There has to be robust debate.  There is sometimes disagreement, there is sometimes support.  It goes backwards and forwards.  That is the nature of the beast.  I was refused the go-ahead on 3 occasions, to circulate a questionnaire on the Design of Homes Review.  However, for the most part, the Panel met and all Panel meetings were conducted in a good natured and professional way.”  So, not cosy chats, not sitting there not deciding or doing anything, just having cups of tea.  “I am a 100 per cent confident that design ideas seen in the U.K. and Austria will be incorporated into Jersey housing in the not too distant future.  These areas will include the re-use of commercial office buildings for residential purposes, co-operative and community housing projects, sheltered housing designs, specifically an exciting scheme for Belle Vue, sustainable housing, carbon neutral design and zero energy developments.”  All things, Sir, that both I and Deputy Power went to visit in London and in Vienna: “I am saddened to see that Deputy Baudains has brought this proposition to the Assembly and had I been there, I would have voted against it.”  Sir, I think this sums up that this is an active Member who for, not for the reasons that are being stated, wanted to jump ship because the ship was about to go down, decided that perhaps there were other areas that he would like to get involved in but, nevertheless has retained strong links with the existing members of the Panel and indeed is still working with them to finish the reports that we said were going to be finished by 17th July.  On other matters, Sir, I think Deputy Scott Warren has mentioned that maybe the bee in the bonnet of Deputy Baudains is that he has not had his own way on the water.  That might well be the case.  But nevertheless contrary to what we are being told that I did nothing, I said nothing, no other members did anything, again read the minutes.  There have been countless instances where the Panel over the last 18 months have discussed water issues.  Indeed in the report to this House on our first year’s work we stated under Other Matters: “Panel members have worked on deep groundwater involving research with French authorities and divining of streams between Jersey and France.  The Panel decided that this work was a follow up to a review done during the shadow period with Scrutiny and will not initiate a further review.”  I am told, Sir, that I keep on bringing things back and back and reopening them.  Deputy Huet just said this is the style of management that we bring to the department.  On the water issue it is, in fact, Deputy Baudains who has been so insistent on bringing back the discussions on this review.  It is wrong to say that it has not been looked at.  We have looked at it because I like to have open meetings where if people have got an issue and they feel that there is merit in discussing it then they should have the opportunity to discuss it.  We have to open up our books to everybody.  It is not fair to come down on one side or another or to say: “Sorry, I am going to frustrate any attempts to discuss this.”  So I think for the first year, contrary to the picture that has been painted, we did a lot.  The retiring chairman of the Shadow Public Accounts Committee, Mr. Tim Dunningham, also said in his final report that the role of Scrutiny is not the role of opposition.  They should focus on ensuring that the policy has been properly formulated, all alternatives properly addressed and valid reasons given for why particular courses of action have been followed.  That is what we do, that is what we are doing, that is what we will hope to continue to do.  The Committee should be addressing the quality of the decision-making rather than the decision itself.  In his view, he states it is vital that the Scrutiny Panels do not become the opposition to the government.  It could be said, Sir, that my demise as president of the Chairmen’s Committee is heightened by this move for a vote of confidence in a Panel that I chair and as the saying goes “No smoke without fire”.  I think that there are differences of opinion among all scrutineers as to what Scrutiny is.  As I said earlier, Sir, the jury is still out.  If this House wishes to have a formulaic approach to scrutineering or to Scrutiny work and we have to produce so many reports every year and so many pages, looking at so many things, then fine.  But I do not think it will be the type of scrutiny that we all envisaged when we backed this particular form of government.  We have to allow the individual flares and thought processes of all members on each individual Scrutiny Panel to be brought to the fore, to do the best job, to assist in the decision-making process.  To try and put everything into a little box or to constrain it by straightjacketing methods I think is going to run the risk of only seeking to promote the type of oppositional comments that are beginning to be noticed by the public, and to fall in line with suggestions that there is a fault line running down the centre of this House.  Scrutiny is there to be a critical friend and being a critical friend it must not be too fettered, it must be able to talk to the friend on any occasion it sees fit about whatever it wishes to discuss.  By engaging with the public it has to be mentioned, Sir - in passing I think this is worthwhile - there have been good examples of good practice with Panels taking their meetings out into the community at Parish Halls.  Not all Panels.  We started the practice and attended various exhibitions such as the Lifestyle Exhibition held at Fort Regent; not all Panels - the Environment Scrutiny Panel.  There were also joint Scrutiny meetings held specifically to consider the Strategic Plan and that was while I was President of the Chairmen’s Committee.  So all these initiatives really I think have been coming predominantly from the Environmental Scrutiny Panel.  That is blowing our trumpet a little bit.  I do not really like to blow the trumpet and maybe that is part of the problem.  Looking at the record and going back to the comments I made about the size of the work undertaken, at the end of 2006 we had comments particularly from the Chief Minister that some Panels had not produced anything.  They had been sitting there for 12 months doing nothing, twiddling their thumbs.  The method of judging whether or not they had done anything was to count up the number of reports that had been submitted.  Not to attend the Panel meetings, to tot up the number of times things had been discussed, the number of minutes doing things, the number of meetings held or whatever but just on the number of reports.  The President of the Chairmen’s Committee mentioned that this is our big yardstick for determining how effective Scrutiny is.  I do not think it is.  It is one dimensional.  It is only one way of looking at things.  But, nevertheless, if we look at what we did last year, at the end of 2006, other than the 191 full meetings of each Panel, of which Environment was 33 - we are on a par with everybody else - the number of reports issued under the SR series was 7.  I mean is it 7 big reports, 7 little reports, 7 medium reports, 7 what?  Seven reports.  So if you look at it and say: “Gosh, shocking.”  Environment: none, Corporate Services: 4, Economic Panel: 2, Social Affairs Panel: 1 - 7 reports done.  So you say: “Well that is shocking because that means obviously that Environment Scrutiny Panel has done nothing.”  But we had a whole load of sticks in the fires, we had indicated in the report.  Anybody reading the rest of the report would know what we have been doing.  Anybody reading the report if they had any concerns could have come and banged on our door and said: “Hey, what have you done, what are you doing, what are you going to do?”  That has not happened.  So you read as to what the reports are and you note that there is a huge variation.  It is not just a report.  It is a big report, a little report or whatever.  You have to have some measurement to gauge how much work goes into whatever it is you are looking at.  So Age of Consent for Corporate Services who did 4; that was a short one and it came out of Members of the House wanting something to be done in order to assist in the debate.  Financial Framework for the Strategic Plan, that was a sub-Panel work; G.S.T. (Interim), Review of the Zero/Ten Design Proposal (Interim), Review of the Zero/Ten Tax Design Proposals (Ongoing) and Overseas Aid but the last 2 are carried over into 2007.  So of the 4, 2 of them were interim reports.  So it means that there is still work going on.  Why is there still work going on?  Because they are difficult issues to be getting into.  We have heard just this morning comments about what is happening on finance fronts and whether or not the Economic Development Scrutiny Panel should be getting into talking about money laundering issues or whatever.  Really, really, big meaty issues; things that cannot be done in 5 minutes.  Going back though, Sir: Corporate Services; of the 4 and they did the best - hats off to them - 2 of them were interim reports.  We could have done the same thing.  Had I realised that people were going to be judging us or wanting to judge us on number of reports I could have issued 3 reports and called them all interim reports and carried on this year.  Then everybody would be saying: “Well, what a wonderful Panel that is.  We have got 3 interim reports.”  Then what happens?  Conditions change in between and the work that is perhaps undertaken, something else breaks out as has happened in our particular area because it is very, very fast moving perhaps unlike other Scrutiny Panels.  We would have had to have gone back and said: “Well, although we said this 2 months ago or whatever, we are not quite ready to do something else.  Here we go again.  We better put that one on the back burner.  Things have changed.  Shelve that one and come forward with our new interim report because we are still not ready.”  Then we have a whole succession.  It is absolutely ridiculous.  As I said before, Sir, we are not applying a proper qualitative analysis - and those are the jargonistic words - of the work that is being undertaken.  Some jobs will take a long time to do.  The reason they are going to take a long time to do is because they are fundamentally important to this House and the Island.  The time taken to deliver them is not the issue.  It is whether or not having delivered we have added to the process, as mentioned by the Planning Minister, and assisted in the policy formulation period or whether or not we have held the department and the Minister to account if things are found to be thought about in a finished off fashion.  Social Affairs, exactly the same thing.  I mean they did one better than us.  Yes, they had Income Support (Interim).  Do I make my point, Sir?  I think we have done an awful amount of work, an enormous amount of work.  People would realise if they took the opportunity to bang on our door and talk to us.  We can show them what we have been doing.  I have almost finished.  We had comments from Deputy Baudains that this was not a report on Waste Recycling.  I just ask the Deputy to remind himself, as indeed other Members of the House, of our terms of reference.  They can be found in the first couple of pages in our Scrutiny Report No. 13 placed on Members’ desks today.  It is all about Waste Recycling.  It is not about incinerators or replacements.  It may well be indirectly, but those were not the terms of reference.  Deputy Baudains and Deputy Le Hérissier who have signed this motion agreed at the outset so they should know.  I do not think the case is made, Sir.  I am hoping that Members will bear my comments in mind.  If we want quick reports and a formulaic approach, fine.  Get rid of the Environment Scrutiny Panel, right, and put another set of people in.  But I think what is going to happen if we move in that direction is that we will effectively be telling this House and the Island that we do not want to allow Scrutiny to take place except in a particular way, according to a set plan.  I think we will stifle all the good work and thinking that goes on behind the scenes.  I will not be supporting this proposition [Laughter].  Two last comments, they are right up to date.  This morning Deputy Southern: “Scrutiny cannot be done in a matter of weeks.”  Absolutely right, it cannot be.  If it takes a number of months, fine.  Judge on the reports at the end of the day and do the thing properly.  We have one from Senator Shenton: “It is better to make the right decision slowly than to make the wrong decision in haste.”  I think those 2 things must be thought about before we come to vote.  Thank you, Sir.