STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 9th MARCH 2010

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1.1 DEPUTY J. MAÇON OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE REVISED DISCLINATY CODE FOR THE CHIEF OFFICER OF THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE:

1.2 DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING LEGISLATION DEALING WITH DANGEROUS DOGS:

1.3 DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING PARISH REGISTERS OF DOGS:

1.4 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE NUMBER OF STATES EMPLOYEES SUSPENDED OR EXCLUDED FROM THEIR EMPLOYMENT FROM 2006 TO 1ST MARCH 2010:

1.5 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN OF THE CHAIRMAN OF PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING CONTRAVENTIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

1.6 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING INSTRUCTIONS TO THE LAW DRAFTSMAN REGARDING P.175/2009:

1.7 DEPUTY T.A. VALLOIS OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY:

1.8 DEPUTY A.K.F. GREEN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING CHILD CYCLISTS FIGURES FOR 2005 TO 2009:

1.9 SENATOR A. BRECKON OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE SUSPENSION OF 2 SENIOR POLICE OFFICERS:

1.10 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING THE ELECTORAL REGISTER:

1.11 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE ESTIMATED COSTS OF ANY REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS:

1.12 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE RESULTS OF REVIEWS OF INCOME SUPPORT AND REDUCED TRANSITIONAL PROTECTION PAYMENTS:

1.13 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING TARGETS FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE SPENDING REVIEW:

1.14 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING MEASURES TO PROTECT THOSE ELIGIBLE FOR ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE:

1.15 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING A SPEED LIMIT REVIEW:

1.16 SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE NUMBER OF AMBULANCE SERVICE EMPLOYEES SUPPLIED WITH MOBILE PHONES:

1.17 SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE NUMBER OF FIRE SERVICE EMPLOYEES SUPPLIED WITH MOBILE PHONES:

1.18 SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE LUCAS REPORT:

1.19 SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE COST OF THE THIRD PARTY APPEAL IN RESPECT OF WESTMOUNT QUARRY:

1.20 SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE MINISTERIAL REGISTRATION AND LISTING ADVISORY GROUP:

2. Oral Questions

2.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the nature of an incident involving a Flybe airliner on 23rd February 2010:

Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

2.1.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

2.1.2 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

2.1.3 Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:

2.1.4 Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:

2.1.5 Connétable P.F. Hanning of St. Saviour:

2.1.6 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

2.2. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the attendance of Economic Development staff at the Enterprise Awards on 26th February 2010:

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

2.2.1 The Deputy of St. John:

2.2.2 The Deputy of St. John:

2.2.3 The Deputy of St. John:

2.3 Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the suspension of 2 officers from the States of Jersey Police:

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

2.3.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

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

2.3.3 Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:

2.3.4 Senator J.L. Perchard:

2.3.5 The Deputy of St. Martin:

2.3.6 The Deputy of St. Martin:

2.4 Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier of the Minister for Housing regarding flooding of houses at Nicholson Close:

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

2.4.1 Deputy S. Pitman:

2.4.2 The Deputy of St. John:

2.4.3 Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:

2.4.4 Deputy S. Pitman:

2.5 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the implementation of the recommendations contained within the Verita report:

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

2.5.1 The Deputy of Grouville:

2.5.2 Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:

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

2.5.4 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

2.5.5 The Deputy of St. Martin:

2.5.6 The Deputy of St. Martin:

2.5.7 The Deputy of Grouville:

2.6 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the strengthening of dangerous dogs importation legislation:

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

2.6.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

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

2.6.3 The Deputy of St. John:

2.6.4 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

2.7 Deputy D.J. De Sousa of the Minister for Economic Development regarding ‘gazumping’ within the property market:

Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

2.7.1 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

2.7.2 Deputy T.A. Vallois:

2.8 Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chief Minister regarding

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

2.8.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

2.8.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

2.8.3 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

2.8.4 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

2.8.5 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

2.8.6 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

2.9 Senator B.E. Shenton of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the accountability for legal costs in planning matters:

Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour (Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment - rapporteur):

2.9.1 Senator B.E. Shenton:

2.10 Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the proposed use of the proceeds from the sale of the former Jersey College for Girls site:

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

2.10.1 The Connétable of Grouville:

2.11 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding the impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review on benefits administered by his department:

Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement (The Minister for Social Security):

2.11.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.11.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

2.11.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.12 Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the current status of the Tourism Development Fund:

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

2.12.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.12.2 The Deputy of Grouville:

2.12.3 The Deputy of Grouville:

2.12.4 Deputy S. Pitman:

2.12.5 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

2.12.6 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

2.12.7 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.13 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding the introduction of a universal ticketing system for all arts locations which receive public funding:

Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):

2.13.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

2.13.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

2.13.3 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

2.13.4 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

2.13.5 The Deputy of Grouville:

2.13.6 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

2.13.7 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

2.14 Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the level and grade of medical staff required to bring the Renal Dialysis Unit up to the correct level:

Deputy J.A. Martin (Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services - rapporteur):

2.14.1 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

2.14.2 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

2.14.3 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

2.14.4 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

2.14.5 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

2.14.6 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.14.7 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.14.8 The Deputy of St. John:

2.14.9 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

2.15 Senator B.E. Shenton of H.M. Attorney General regarding the total cost of providing legal advice to the Planning and Environment Department in 2009:

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

2.15.1 Senator B.E. Shenton:

2.16 The Deputy of St. Mary of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the level of bed stock below which the tourism industry would not be viable:

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

2.16.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.16.2 The Deputy of St. John:

2.16.3 The Deputy of St. John:

2.16.4 Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement:

2.16.5 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

2.16.6 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.16.7 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

2.16.8 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.16.9 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.17 Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding 1(1)(k) tax status:

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

2.17.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

2.17.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

2.17.3 Deputy S. Pitman:

2.17.4 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.17.5 Deputy I.J. Gorst:

2.17.6 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

2.18 Deputy D.J. De Sousa of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the buy-out of Kleinwort Benson:

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

2.18.1 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

2.18.2 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

2.18.3 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

2.18.4 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

2.19 The Deputy of St. John of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding delays in connecting homes at La providence on the Beaumont/Sandybrook site to a mains pumping station:

Deputy R.C. Duhamel (Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment - rapporteur):

2.19.1 The Deputy of St. John:

2.20 Deputy S. Pitman of the Minister for Economic Development regarding funding allocated to the tourism industry as part of the Economic Stimulus Package:

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

2.20.1 Deputy S. Pitman:

2.20.2 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

3. Questions to Ministers without Notice - The Minister for Treasury and Resources

3.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

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

3.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

3.3 The Deputy of St. John:

3.4 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

3.5 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

3.6 Deputy S. Pitman:

3.6.1 Deputy S. Pitman:

3.7 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

3.7.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

3.8 Senator J.L. Perchard:

3.8.1 Senator J.L. Perchard:

3.9 Deputy G.P. Southern:

3.10 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

3.10.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

3.11 Deputy G.P. Southern:

3.11.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

4. Questions to Ministers without Notice - The Chief Minister

4.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

4.1.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

4.2 The Deputy of St. Martin:

4.3 Deputy D.J. Sousa:

4.4 Deputy S. Pitman:

4.5 Deputy G.P. Southern:

4.6 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

4.7 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

4.8 Deputy G.P. Southern:

4.8.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

4.9 The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey:

4.10 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

4.11 Deputy G.P. Southern:

4.11.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

4.12 The Deputy of St. Martin:

PUBLIC BUSINESS

5. Compulsory Wearing of Cycle Helmets (P.4/2010)

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

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

5.2 Compulsory wearing of cycle helmets (P.4/2010): amendment (P.4/2010 Amd.)

5.2.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

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

5.2.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

5.2.4 Deputy J.A. Martin:

5.2.5 The Deputy of St. John:

5.2.6 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

5.2.7 Deputy A.K.F. Green:

5.2.8 Deputy I.J. Gorst:

5.2.9 Senator J.L. Perchard:

5.2.10 Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:

5.2.11 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

5.2.12 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

5.2.13 Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:

5.2.14 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

5.2.15 The Deputy of St. Mary:

5.3 Compulsory Wearing of Cycle Helmets (P.4/2010) - resumption

5.3.1 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:

5.3.2 The Deputy of St. John:

5.3.3 Deputy J.A. Martin:

5.3.4 Deputy J.B. Fox:

5.3.5 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

5.3.6 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

5.3.7 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

5.3.8 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

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

5.3.10 Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

5.3.11 Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:

5.3.12 The Deputy of Trinity:

5.3.13 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

3.5.14 Senator P.F. Routier:

3.5.15 Deputy G.P. Southern:

ADJOURNMENT

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

[9:37]

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1.1 DEPUTY J. MAÇON OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE REVISED DISCLINATY CODE FOR THE CHIEF OFFICER OF THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE:

Question

When will the Minister bring to the States for ratification a revised Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police and, if he has no proposals to do so, could he state why not?

Answer

Following the announcement by the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police that he is due to retire, I will shortly be bringing a proposition to the States to appoint a successor.  In advance of the appointment, it is my intention, in conjunction with the States Employment Board, to revise the Disciplinary Code to the extent that it will affect the next Chief Officer.  It is not my intention to bring the Disciplinary Code to the States for ratification, as that is not in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974, as amended, which states:

“The Chief Officer shall be appointed by the States on such terms as to salary and conditions of service as the States Employment Board may from time to time determine.”

I also intend to review and bring amendments to the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 in respect of the terms and conditions of appointment (including the disciplinary provisions for Chief Officers and Deputy Chief Officers of the States of Jersey Police).  As members will be aware, however, changes to legislation take time, and whilst the Disciplinary Code will be amended before a successor to the current Chief Officer is appointed, it will not be possible for the changes to the Law to have been implemented.

1.2 DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING LEGISLATION DEALING WITH DANGEROUS DOGS:

Question

In light of his response to an oral question on 1st December 2009 concerning the importation of dangerous dogs, would the Minister consider amending the Dogs (Jersey) Law 1961, in order to address the following specific matters and, if so, what would be the likely law drafting costs and timescales involved?

(a) giving the Court power to specify control measures in respect of particular dogs;

(b) creating a small number of new criminal offences in relation to dogs on private property without permission;

(c) giving the Court powers to confiscate dogs;

(d) conferring power on police officers to seize dogs which are out of control in a public place;

(e) making dogs owned by young persons the legal responsibility of the head of the household in which the young person lives.

(f) removing certain breeds from being kept in Jersey or admitted to the Island by visitors?

Answer

I indicated in my response to Deputy Power’s oral question on the 1st December 2009 that I would not be seeking to amend the Dogs (Jersey) Law 1961, as I believe that the current measures that are in place in relation to dogs are sufficient.  Subsequently, I met with Deputy Power and with a representative of the Jersey Animal Shelter in order to discuss the relevant issues.  I am awaiting a further communication from the Jersey Animal Shelter in the eventuality that they continue to have concerns in this area.

Under the Customs and Excise (Import and Export Control) (Jersey) Order 2006, a licence is required to import or export any of the following breeds of dog:

As Minister for Home Affairs, I am responsible under that Order for granting the requisite licence to enable a person to import or export such a dog, and I have no intention of granting any import licence in respect of these breeds of dog.  This covers question (f).

Police officers are empowered under the Dogs (Jersey) Law 1961 to seize and detain dogs which are, or which they believe to be, stray, pending their return to the owner on payment of a fine.  It is also an offence under that same Law for any dog to worry livestock.  This covers question (d)

In respect of dogs that are not being kept under proper control, or that are found to be dangerous, Article 11 of the Dogs (Jersey) Law 1961 provides:

Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Magistrate’s Court, on a representation made by any person, that a dog is dangerous or is not kept under proper control, the court may make an order relating either –

(a) that the dog shall be kept under proper control; or

(b) that the dog shall be destroyed

If a dog owner subsequently fails to comply with an order that the dog be kept under proper control, they are guilty of an offence.  This covers questions (a) and (c).

Under Article 2 of the Policing of Beaches (Jersey) Regulations 1959 it is an offence for a person to ‘permit any dog of which the person is in charge to rush at, worry or otherwise interfere with the safety, comfort or convenience of any other person on the beach’.

In relation to question (b), this suggestion would effectively create an offence of a dog owner in relation to the dog trespassing on private property.  I do not think that this is necessary and believe that issues relating to straying dogs are already adequately dealt with. 

In relation to question (e), I believe that the head of household would normally be treated as the responsible person in relation to a dog which was owned by a young person.

Therefore, I do not see the need to amend the Dogs (Jersey) Law at this time, as I believe there to be sufficient safeguards already in place within that Law, and other pieces of legislation.   Moreover, as I made clear at the time of responding to Deputy Power’s question, I have a large number of major pieces of legislation that I wish to progress and, as Members will be aware, that there is currently a shortfall both in the law drafting programme and in the ability of the Minister and his Department to complete these matters within the life of the current Assembly.

1.3 DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING PARISH REGISTERS OF DOGS:

Question

Would the Chairman advise the Assembly whether all Parishes keep registers of all the dogs within their respective Parishes; whether the conditions of the Dogs (Jersey) Law 1961 are being met and enforced, particularly in respect of mandatory identity discs, and can he also advise the Assembly how anyone who was injured by a dog could access the information held by the Parishes?

Answer

Each Parish maintains a register of dogs for which an annual licence has been purchased.

The Dogs (Jersey) Law 1961 requires all dogs over 6 months old, other than those trained to assist visually or hearing impaired persons, to be licensed and requires every dog while on a highway or in any other public place to wear a collar with the name and address of the owner inscribed on the collar or on a plate or badge attached thereto. The law is enforced and where the Connétable is made aware of an infraction then the appropriate action will be taken.

A person who is injured by a dog should report the matter to the police so that the matter may be investigated. The Dogs (Jersey) Law 1961 also makes provision for the Magistrate’s Court, where it is satisfied on the representation of any person that a dog is dangerous or is not kept under proper control, to make an order that the dog shall be kept under proper control; or that the dog shall be destroyed.

1.4 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE NUMBER OF STATES EMPLOYEES SUSPENDED OR EXCLUDED FROM THEIR EMPLOYMENT FROM 2006 TO 1ST MARCH 2010:

Question

(a) Will the Chief Minister inform Members of the number of States Employees, including Police Officers, who were suspended or excluded from their employment for each of the years from 2006 to 1st March 2010?

(b) For those employees, including police officers, who were suspended or excluded as at 1st March 2010, would the Chief Minister inform members -

 (i) which Departments they work in?

 (ii) what was the commencement date of their suspension or exclusion?

 (iii) what are the reasons for the continuing exclusions for each of the employees?

 (iv) what is the cost to date for covering the salary of each of the employees and that of additional staff to cover the employee’s absence?

Answer

(a)          The number of States Employees, including police officers, suspended in each of the years 2006 to 1st March 2010 is as follows:

(b)          The number of States Employees, including police officers, suspended as at 1st March 2010 is three.  

The Department in which each individual works, the date of commencement of their suspension or exclusion, the reason for their continued suspension/exclusion and the cost of the suspension, including the salary of the suspended individual, for each of the three is as follows:

1.5 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN OF THE CHAIRMAN OF PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING CONTRAVENTIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

Question

Following her response to a written question on 30th June 2009, regarding Human Rights cases before the States of Jersey Complaints Board, will the Chairman inform Members whether the Privileges and Procedures Committee has discussed the matter and, if so, what was the outcome of those discussions?

If no meeting has taken place, will the Chairman inform Members of the reasons for this and advise whether it still the Committee’s intention to meet the Members of the Complaints Board?

Answer

In my answer to the Deputy Le Hérissier last June I indicated that the Committee was waiting for the States of Jersey Complaints Board to be re-constituted, which happened on 11th September 2009.  A meeting is being arranged, either at the end of March or in April, for the members of the Panel to meet the Committee so that it can welcome the new members and discuss matters of mutual interest. When PPC meets the members of the Complaints Panel it will be keen to discuss the extent to which the Panel should be alert to human rights issues that are raised by complainants even if it is only to know when further information or advice on matters raised should be sought.

As I said last June, it is important to stress that the complaints system is a way for complainants who are aggrieved by a specific decision of a Minister, Department or person acting on their behalf to have the complaint reviewed and it would not therefore be possible for a Board to consider human rights matters unless they were directly relevant to a particular decision. It would be inappropriate for the Complaints Board to operate as a kind of Human Rights Tribunal, as this is not the reason why it was established by Law in 1982. However, if Human Rights issues arise while reviewing a complaint about a specific decision, a Board will look into them, and if appropriate, seek legal advice.

1.6 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING INSTRUCTIONS TO THE LAW DRAFTSMAN REGARDING P.175/2009:

Question

Will the Chief Minister inform Members when he submitted the brief/instructions to the Law Draftsman for the amendments to P.175/2009 (‘Employment of States of Jersey Employees Law: Proposed Changes’) following States approval on 18th November 2009; the date when the draft amendments were returned to him from the Law Draftsman, and will he provide the Assembly with a copy of the brief/instructions submitted to the Law Draftsman?

Answer

The initial brief/instructions were submitted to the Law Draftsman on 1st December 2009.

There have been a number of drafts and the final draft was dated 19th February 2010. 

The initial instructions to the Law Draftsman were taken from the States minute on this issue which I attach for information.  The States Employment Board considered a draft amendment at its meeting on 22nd January 2010, at which it decided that, in order to ensure that the policies and activities of the Board remain part of Executive Government, whilst at the same time including a greater breadth of States opinion, further clarification was necessary in two areas:

1)     The two non-executive members on the Board will be recommended to the States by the Chief Minister and that

2)     The quorum for a meeting of the Board will consist of at least two Ministers/Assistant Ministers, one of whom may be the Chief Minister himself. 

The final draft was approved by the Board and lodged on 1st March 2010.

STATES MINUTES 18th November 2009

633

Employment of States of Jersey Employees Law – proposed changes P.175/2009

THE STATES commenced consideration of a proposition of the Deputy of St. Martin concerning proposed changes to the Employment of States of Jersey Employees Law. The States, in accordance with Standing Order 26(8), agreed to reduce the lodging period of an amendment to the amendment of the Chief Minister, so that his amendment to paragraph (a)(i) of the proposition read as follows –

‘that in sub-paragraph (a)(i), for the words “one other Minister” there should be substituted the words “2 other Ministers or Assistant Ministers”, and agreed that the remainder of the amendment (‘for the words “and 2 elected members of the States who are neither Ministers nor Assistant Ministers elected by the States.” substitute the words “and 2 elected members of the States, who are not Ministers, to be nominated by the Chief Minister.”) should be disregarded.

THE STATES, adopting an amendment of the Chief Minister, as amended, agreed that in subparagraph

(a)(i), for the words “one other Minister” there should be substituted the words “2 other Ministers or Assistant Ministers”.

Members present voted as follows –

STATES MINUTES 18th November 2009

634

THE STATES, adopting paragraph (a)(i) of a proposition of the Deputy of St. Martin, as amended, agreed that the Employment of States of Jersey Employees (Jersey) Law 2005 should be amended as necessary to provide that the composition of the States Employment Board should be amended so that it was comprised of the Chief Minister as Chairman (or another member of the Council of Ministers nominated by the Chief Minister in his or her place) together with 2 other Ministers or Assistant Ministers appointed by the Chief Minister and 2 elected members of the States who were neither Ministers nor Assistant Ministers elected by the States, Members present voted as follows –

1.7 DEPUTY T.A. VALLOIS OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY:

Question

With reference to the numerous reports completed by the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority in respect of the Telecommunications Market, could the Minister provide the following details with regard to the recommendations of the Regulaid and LECG reports (57 and 9 recommendations respectively) -

(a) the number of recommendations that have been or will be implemented and how they  will/have been implemented?

(b) a timeline for the implementation of the recommendations?

(c) who will be responsible for the implementation of recommendations?

Answer

The JCRA has not completed major reports of the telecommunications market itself.  The LECG Report was commissioned by my department, as a consequence of the findings of the steering group and Oxera report that looked into the potential privatisation of Jersey Telecom. The review was also recommended by the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel. One potential area of concern identified at that time was with regard to the powers of the JCRA to act as an effective telecommunications regulator of a privatised JT. The LECG Report specifically addressed this aspect of the JCRA’s functions

The Regulaid report was carried out on behalf of the JCRA, pursuant to its 2009 Aims and Objectives – to review JT’s wholesale access provision and separated accounts methodologies.  The purpose of this review was to facilitate greater access to JT’s fixed-line access and thereby promote greater choice and competition in the provision of fixed-line telecommunication services in Jersey. 

(a)          the number of recommendations that have been or will be implemented and how they will/have been implemented?

Concerning the JCRA’s implementation of the LECG recommendations, since the publication of the LECG Report the JCRA has:

• published procedural guidelines on telecommunications regulation;
• revised its annual Aims & Objectives into a Strategic Plan;
• adopted KPIs for competition law enforcement;
• broadened its statistical analysis of Jersey's telecom markets; and
• consulted on the publication of JT's separated accounts.

These tasks were all completed by the JCRA in 2009.  For 2010, the JCRA Strategic Plan committed it to consider adopting and publishing case management timelines, based on international best practice. 

Concerning the recommendations in the Regulaid Report, the JCRA is currently working on a number of initiatives:

i) a review of significant market power in telecommunications markets (per Regulaid Recommendation 8.1).  A public consultation on this recently closed, and a decision on the way forward is expected by May;

ii) the publication of JT's separated accounts (Regulaid Recommendation 4.5, also recommended by LECG).  Again, a public consultation on this recently closed, and the JCRA expect to make a decision by May;

iii) in co-operation with the telecoms operators, the JCRA is currently considering the potential implementation of a series of wholesale access remedies (Regulaid Recommendations 5.1, 5.7, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.17, 5.18, 5.19, 5.20 and 7.1-7.7).  This analysis is being conducted on a Pan-Channel Islands basis, in cooperation with the Office of Utility Regulation;

iv) the JCRA recently invited JT to implement the structural changes recommended in the Regulaid Report (Regulaid Recommendations 6.1-6.4, 6.6, 6.10, 6.11, 5.12-5.13, 5.28-5.29, 5.30. 6.7, 6.8 and 6.9) and will be working with JT to implement these;

v) working with JT to implement cost accounting changes to its separated accounts (Regulaid Recommendation 4.1).

Finally, later this year the JCRA plan to consider wholesale RIO price controls (Regulaid Recommendations 4.3, 5.21 and 8.4) and then other potential wholesale price controls (Regulaid Recommendations 5.22-5.26).

These are all set out in the JCRA’s 2010 Strategic Plan.

b) a timeline for the implementation of the recommendations?

The JCRA’s timeframe for implementing recommendations under its responsibility is set out above.  Amendments to the Telecommunications (Jersey) Law will be delivered this year once the drafting process has been completed.

(c) who will be responsible for the implementation of recommendations?

Regarding the LECG recommendations, responsibility for the legal changes is with EDD, whilst responsibility for the operational changes is with the JCRA

In respect of the Regulaid recommendations; this is a joint responsibility of the JCRA and the industry operators.

1.8 DEPUTY A.K.F. GREEN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING CHILD CYCLISTS FIGURES FOR 2005 TO 2009:

Question

Would the Minister advise the Assembly whether the number of child cyclists for the years 2005 to 2009 inclusive has reduced?

Answer

The absolute number of children cycling is not known. It is therefore difficult to give exact numbers relating to cyclists during any given period.

However, the Health Related Behaviour Survey asks school children in school year six, eight and ten to describe various aspects of their health including exercise. Cycling is an activity which children identify as a way of exercising. By comparing school children’s answers to similar questions asked in the surveys of 2002 and 2006 trends for children cycling in these age groups can be estimated.

Between 2002 and 2006 there has been an overall downward trend in children who describe riding a bike more then once a week as a means of exercise. The reduction is particularly marked in year 8 and 10 children (see fig 1 below). These figures mean that there were 221 fewer children cycling more then once a week in 2006 then in 2002.

Figure 1: Percentage of Children Cycling at Least Once a Week

Source Health Related Behaviour Surveys (2002, 2006)

To summarise, there is evidence to show that school children in year 6. 8 and 10 are cycling less.

A critical success factor in promoting and protecting children’s health will be to encourage more children back onto their bikes as part of their everyday routine.

A wide range of States of Jersey initiatives are working hard to make this a reality. They include Healthy Schools, Safe Routes to Schools, Eco- Active Schools and the Sustainable Transport Policy and the further development of cycle routes. 

1.9 SENATOR A. BRECKON OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE SUSPENSION OF 2 SENIOR POLICE OFFICERS:

Question

In relation to the recent suspension of two senior police officers over the alleged assault of a woman on a boat in St. Helier, would the Minister advise -

(a) how long each officer was suspended for,

(b) how much was each officer paid during suspension,

(c) the length of any investigation and the reasons for its length,

(d) how much was paid to Thames Valley police for investigating this matter,

(e) the total cost to the Home Affairs Department/States of Jersey Police for all of the costs  associated with this case?

Answer

(a)           Both officers were suspended for a period slightly less than 18 months.

(b)           Both officers were suspended on full pay during the period of suspension, as is customary, the total of which was £249,020.

(c)           There was an investigation, which lasted for slightly less than 18 months.  Any investigation takes time, and as the investigation started out as a criminal investigation this added to the length of the overall investigation.  The delay attributable to the criminal investigation was approximately 7 months.  There was further delay relating to the issue of legal advice for the officers, together with the need to bring an adjudicating officer from the UK.  The delay attributable to these factors was approximately 4 months.

(d)           The Thames Valley police made no charge for investigating the matter.  Their accommodation was paid for in the total amount of £1,159.

(e)           The total additional cost to the Home Affairs Department / States of Jersey Police of this case is £94,269.  This figure includes local police officer costs, the accommodation for Thames Valley Police, acting up costs and legal costs. 

1.10 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING THE ELECTORAL REGISTER:

Question

Will the Chairman inform members of the following figures relating to the electoral register:

1. the total number of those registered, both by parish and Island-wide

(a) at the time of the October/November 2008 elections;

(b) in early 2009 following the elimination of those not registered for 3 years;

(c) currently?

What measures, if any, have been considered in conjunction with the Privileges and Procedures

Committee to improve these figures in time for a potential by-election this year?”

Answer

1 (a). There were 3 public elections in October/November 2008 relating to Connétables, Senators and Deputies. Not all positions of Connétable or Deputy were contested and details of the electoral registers for these elections have not been retained. However, there would only have been a minor variation in number of electors for these elections compared to the number for the election of Senators. The table below therefore shows the number of electors in each Parish for the Senatorial election 2008.

1 (b). The Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002 was amended by the Public Elections (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 2008. These changes came into force on 31st October 2008 and provide, at Article 8(3), that if a person whose name is included on an electoral register has not, for a period of 3 consecutive years, been included in and signed a statement returned under Article 7(3), the Connétable shall serve notice on that person stating that the Connétable shall remove the person’s name from the register unless the person delivers to the Connétable, within the period of 28 days following service of the notice, confirmation, in such form as the States may prescribe by Regulations or, if none is prescribed, in such form as the Connétable requires, that the person is still entitled to have his or her name on the register. As the first statements sent under the amended law were in 2009 the 3 consecutive years will be 2009, 2010 and 2011. No persons have therefore been eliminated because they have not registered for 3 years.

1 (c.) The electoral registers are rolling registers and therefore change on a daily basis. The table below gives the number of electors on 4th March 2010.

Number of electors by Parish at dates shown:

The Comité des Connétables has not, as yet, discussed with the Privileges and Procedures Committee whether any measures should be taken to improve these figures in time for a potential by-election this year.

However, depending upon the timing of a by-election, if any, in 2010 the Connétables might send the annual statements to every unit of dwelling accommodation in, say, late April rather than late May. With suitable publicity regarding the closing date for electoral registers, if there is to be a by-election, this would provide the ideal opportunity for any person whose name is not currently included on the electoral register in the district in which they currently reside to update their details and so ensure they are eligible to vote.

The figures would also be improved if those no longer eligible to vote, because they are no longer ordinarily resident in an electoral district, were removed from the register. The Connétables will remove from the register the names of those whom they know to be deceased in accordance with Article 8(3). However, as outlined in answer to 1(b) above, a person will have to fail to register in 2009 – 2011 inclusive before his/her name will be removed and, prior to the removal, the person will receive a notice with 28 days to confirm that he/she is still entitled to be registered.

1.11 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE ESTIMATED COSTS OF ANY REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS:

Question

Will the Chief Minister inform members of the estimated costs to States revenues over a 6-month period in lost Income Tax and indirect taxes, Social Security contributions, and Income Support payments of the redundancy of an employee on the average wage, in the absence of any redundancy payments, if that employee is –

(a) single;

(b) married with 2 children, wife not working, and either

(i) in appropriate States social rental accommodation, or

(ii) Owner/occupation with a mortgage of £200,000?

Answer

I can confirm that the estimated costs to States revenues over a six month period of the redundancy of an employee on the average wage*, in the absence of any redundancy payments is as follows:

• Average wage based on average weekly earnings per full-time equivalent employee was £620 (June 2009, Statistics Unit).

It is not possible to determine a meaningful estimate of the effect of redundancy on indirect taxes because the influence of any potential behavioural change resulting from redundancy on the distribution (not the level) of expenditure by an affected household is unquantifiable.

1.12 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE RESULTS OF REVIEWS OF INCOME SUPPORT AND REDUCED TRANSITIONAL PROTECTION PAYMENTS:

Question

Following his answer to written question 5130 on 23rd February 2010, will the Minister now give the results of the losses and gains in the ranges requested, of just over 800 reviews of Income Support (IS) conducted this year?

Would he state how many of the 393 applicants whose payments were reduced were on Transitional Protection and have seen their payments reduced without the phasing provided by the Income Support (Transitional Provisions) (Jersey) Order 2008?

Will the Minister explain under what circumstances such a reduction in income at short notice can be justified in the light of the clear intention of the abovementioned Order to protect benefit recipients from such financial shocks?

Answer

Written question 5130 provided an analysis of claims already open on 4th November 2009 that remained open on 2nd February 2010, including those reviewed between 4th January 2010 and 1st February 2010.  The extraction of data in the form specified by the Deputy is a manual process and this work has not yet been undertaken in respect of claims reviewed between 2nd February and 19th February. 

The data provided in the previous answer relating to claims already open on 4th November 2009 that remained open on 2nd February 2010, indicated that 615 claims have been reviewed and now receive a higher amount compared to November 2009.  Of the 393 claims whose payments were reduced, 38 were in receipt of protected transition payments.

Table – Reduction in weekly payments for claims with transition protection

The answer to question 5130 confirmed that the phasing included in the Income Support (IS) (Transitional Provisions) (Jersey) Order 2008 has not yet been applied because households currently in receipt of IS transition are all still receiving 100% protection of their legacy benefits, where they continue to be entitled to the legacy benefits. This does not apply to individuals who are no longer entitled  to those legacy benefit.

The clear intention of the IS (Transitional Provisions) (Jersey) Order 2008 is to provide a phased transfer from previous benefits to IS provided that entitlement to the previous benefit remains.  There is no intention for the Transitional Order to continue to make payments once entitlement to the legacy benefit has lapsed.

The Income Support (Transitional Provisions) (Jersey) Order 2008 states -

‘Change in entitlement to a protected payment

(1)   Where –

(a)   a household is entitled to a protected payment; and

(b)   the circumstances of  the household change so that any replaced benefit, if it had not ceased to be payable on the appointed day, would nevertheless because of that change of circumstances cease to be payable,

The top-up sum shall be recalculated by means of the formula –

RRB – RADIS

Where –

RRB is the weekly amount of replaced benefits to which the household would have been entitled immediately before the appointed day had the circumstances giving rise to the recalculation existed on the appointed day;

RADIS is the amount of income support (if any) to which the household would have been entitled on the appointed day had the circumstances giving rise to the recalculation existed on the appointed day.’

The Income Support (Transitional Provisions) (Jersey) Order 2008 is being applied correctly to all IS claims. As the circumstances or income of a household changes it is appropriate for their benefit entitlement to be reviewed. It would not be appropriate for the household to continue to receive the legacy benefit when there is no longer any entitlement under the previous scheme. When there is a change in circumstances this must initiate a review of the claim with benefit levels set appropriately according to current circumstances.

1.13 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING TARGETS FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE SPENDING REVIEW:

Question

Can the Minister confirm whether the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) has a target to deliver savings in States expenditure across departments through gross expenditure savings targets of 2% by 2011, 5% by 2012 and 10% by 2013, and, if so, will he state how such large targets can be met without cuts in services and job losses?

Could these targets, if met, endanger any recovery from the economic recession?

How does the Minister propose to achieve such targets at a time when many services in the public sector such as medical and social work services are struggling with recruitment and retention rates?

Answer

I can confirm that departments have been asked to put forward proposals that will reduce expenditure by £50m by 2013, which equates to a 10% budget cut. In addition, departments are being asked to consider any services which might be charged on a ‘user pays’ basis. These are substantial targets and I am asking departments to consider how they might deliver services in a different way but for less money. It is likely that budget reductions of this scale will mean cuts in some services and that some jobs will be lost. The decision as to which proposals will be approved will be a political one taken with all relevant information relating to every option and with the knowledge that if the States do not achieve these savings targets, then taxes will have to increase.

I do not consider that these targets will endanger recovery from the recession. The States must live within its income and this challenge presents an opportunity to look at how we deliver our services and consider whether there are better and cheaper ways to do so.

While Jersey is in a stronger financial position than many governments, forecasts show that the economic downturn will result in an ongoing deficit and this is not a sustainable way to manage Jersey’s future.

I acknowledge and appreciate that some services are currently under pressure for a variety of different reasons but this does not negate the need for a comprehensive review of States spending. There will be some areas that for very good reasons cannot contribute to the savings targets but there are others that can and will.

1.14 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING MEASURES TO PROTECT THOSE ELIGIBLE FOR ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE:

Question

Will the Minister explain to members what measures, if any, are in place after July 2011, to protect those with severe disabilities previously eligible for Attendance Allowance (whether child or adult), from any reduction in benefit under Income Support designed to cater for the additional living costs attached to such disabilities?

Answer

With the introduction of the Income Support (IS) scheme individuals with severe disabilities who received Attendance Allowance under the previous system were transferred to IS with personal care level 3 (subject to review as conditions may change). The component value of personal care level 3 is now £140.91 weekly (an increase of 14.7% since January 2008). A range of personal care components are available to all IS claimants with personal care needs.

Transition protection was awarded to families whose entitlement to IS was less than the total value of their previous benefits.  Families who transferred from the Attendance Allowance system to IS are receiving the most generous phasing within the protected transition scheme which is maintained at 100% until 30th June 2011, after which it will reduce by 20% per annum from 1st July 2011 as shown in the table below.

As Members are aware there is already a full review of the IS scheme scheduled to commence during the second half of 2010 and the treatment of individuals with disabilities will be included as part of this review.

1.15 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING A SPEED LIMIT REVIEW:

Question

Can the Minister inform members what information, if any, he has gathered from other jurisdictions and authorities about the effects of different speed limits on accident and injury rates as part of the speed limit review, what this research has shown, and can he advise members of progress on this review?

Answer

The speed limits review was carried out by the Connétables of St John and St Saviour, Deputy Fox and my Assistant Minister Deputy Lewis, with assistance where appropriate from Departmental officers. This panel has produced a report of their findings and made recommendations for the rationalisation of the Island’s speed limit structure.

The recommendations of the review are practical and pragmatic proposals based on the 927 Submissions made by the general public during the consultation phase, the Public Meeting held on 6th July 2009, a detailed submission from the States of Jersey Police and the expert knowledge and experience of the officers advising as well as the knowledge and experience of the members of the review team. While specific research on accident and injury rates did not form part of the review, my officers maintain a watching brief on national best practice and were able to advise accordingly.

With regard to progress against Deputy Gorst’s Proposition, as I have described, this work has now been completed and I presented a report detailing the findings of the review to the States on 26th October 2009. I have asked the Law Officers for advice on one of those recommendations. This advice was received two weeks ago and I am now examining how the recommendations of the report should best be taken forward.

1.16 SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE NUMBER OF AMBULANCE SERVICE EMPLOYEES SUPPLIED WITH MOBILE PHONES:

Question

Which Ambulance Station employees, if any, are issued with mobile phones?

Would the Minister advise whether additional payments are made to any persons supplied with mobile phones to cover ‘personal telephone costs’ and whether these payments are also extended to secretaries, store men, and other staff? (Please list job titles of all persons that receive a payment, together with the payment amount)

Answer

The following members of the Ambulance Service are issued with mobile phones:

Acting Chief Ambulance Officer

Combined Control Centre Manager

Fleet and Technical Services Manager

Operations Managers x 3

Fleet and Technical Services Assistant

1 x PTS Care Assistant

As an Emergency Service it is vital to have reliable and quick methods of communication with the service managers, particularly in the event of a Major Incident. This is regarded as good practise.

The Fleet and Technical Services Assistant is issued with a mobile phone which he uses only whilst at work as he is often away from the station. His calls are work related only.

The Patient Transport Service Assistant is issued with a mobile phone as a means of contact as her vehicle is not based at Ambulance HQ; again this is only used in work time and for work related calls.

The use of all service issue mobile phones is closely monitored by the Acting CAO on a monthly basis. As this audit produces an itemised list of calls, abuse would be immediately apparent.

1.17 SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE NUMBER OF FIRE SERVICE EMPLOYEES SUPPLIED WITH MOBILE PHONES:

Question

Which States of Jersey Fire Service employees, if any, are issued with mobile phones?

Would the Minister advise whether additional payments are made to any persons supplied with mobile phones to cover ‘personal telephone costs’ and whether these payments are also extended to secretaries, store men, and other staff? (Please list job titles of all persons that receive a payment, together with the payment amount)

Answer

Under a States of Jersey approved contract the Fire and Rescue Service has issued 20 mobile phones within the department.  19 are held by specific operational personnel:

1 Chief Fire Officer

1 Deputy Chief Fire Officer

1 Area Manager

2 Group Managers

6 Station Managers (1 Retained)

4 Watch Managers (1 Retained)

3 Crew Managers

1 Emergency Response Firefighter

The remaining unit has been allocated to the Service’s Operational Support Officer.

The mobile phones should only be used for communication involving work related matters (e.g. Officers contacting clients or Fire Service Headquarters whilst away from the office and Duty Managers whose roles dictate it is essential they have the ability to maintain immediate contact with appropriate personnel.)  These Operational staff also are on the 24/7 roster for Operational Support, Bronze, Silver and Gold Commander roles.

Of the 20 individuals who have been issued with mobile phones, under current policy, 17 receive a telephone allowance (relating to landline / handset rental) varying from £25.50 to £32.70 per quarter

An additional 62 operational personnel also receive such payments. This is to facilitate off duty contact in the event of a large incident requiring recall to duty.

1.18 SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE LUCAS REPORT:

Question

How many recommendations of the report prepared by Mr. Adrian Lucas on the States of Jersey Ambulance Service completed in June 2008 (‘the Lucas Report’) have still to be implemented?

Answer

Mr Lucas reported on his review of the Ambulance and Patient Transport Services in June 2008. The report was commissioned as a result of issues arising from pay talks and in particular the roles and responsibilities of Paramedics and Technicians.

In his report, Mr Lucas made a total of nineteen firm recommendations and a lesser number of observations.  Of these recommendations, ten are completed.   Five are on going, to be completed in due course, and of these, four relate to terms and conditions of employment.

The four remaining recommendations from the original nineteen are rejected at the present time. Three are considered as aspirational and unlikely to be realised in the current financial climate, whilst the remaining one is not considered appropriate for the local setting.

1.19 SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE COST OF THE THIRD PARTY APPEAL IN RESPECT OF WESTMOUNT QUARRY:

Question

Following the loss of a Third Party Planning Appeal in respect of the Westmount Quarry application, what was the total cost to the taxpayer, including legal costs and third party costs, in respect of this judgement and from which budget will it be paid?

Answer

At this moment in time it is not possible to inform the States what the final costs are.

The Third Party Appeal against the Minister’s decision to grant permission to the Westmount Quarry application was successful, and the Royal Court awarded costs against the Minister.

The effect of the Court’s decision is that the Minister is required to obtain further detailed information to assess the impact of loss of light on adjoining properties and relates only to a small part of the development.  The Court did not quash the decision, as such. Rather, the decision needs to be reconsidered taking into account the accurate information.  The required information has been submitted and advertised, and the Minister will be dealing with it soon.

The Minister is not in a position to advise what the costs are as there is still a process to go through before there is a final figure.

The Minister will inform States members of the actual level of costs, either when they are agreed by the parties or following an oral taxation hearing of the Court.

There is no specific budget to cover the award of costs against the Minister, and it is envisaged that the costs in this case will be absorbed within the Department’s total budget for 2010.

1.20 SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE MINISTERIAL REGISTRATION AND LISTING ADVISORY GROUP:

Question

Can the Minister list the relevant formal heritage/architectural qualifications of each of the current members of the Ministerial Registration and Listing Advisory Group?

Answer

In providing details about the qualifications of the current members of the Ministerial Registration and Listing Advisory Group (MRLAG) it is important to understand the context and process within which the group operates and to understand its role, relative to that of Jersey Heritage, who are the Minister’s professional advisers in matters of registration and listing. This is set out below.

Role of Jersey Heritage

The assessment of a building or place’s heritage value is carried out, on behalf of the Minister for Planning and Environment, by Jersey Heritage against a set of published criteria[1]. The advice provided by Jersey Heritage is given mainly by the Head of Historic Buildings and the Curator of Archaeology at Jersey Heritage, depending on the nature of the building or place the subject of assessment, with further support provided by the Director, where necessary. The qualifications and experience of these individuals are set out below.

The engagement of Jersey Heritage in this role ensures that the Minister receives expert professional advice about the historical, architectural or archaeological interest of a building or place that is independent of and separate to the planning process.

The provision of this service is governed by a Service Level Agreement between Jersey Heritage and the Planning and Environment Department, the costs of which are met by the Planning and Environment Department.

Role of Ministerial Registration and Listing Advisory Group (MRLAG)

As part of the process of assessment of a building or place’s heritage value, Jersey Heritage also secures the view of a panel of local experts knowledgeable in aspects of Jersey’s history, architecture and archaeology: these supplementary views are reported to the Minister as an integral part of Jersey Heritage’s professional advice to the Minister. The qualifications and relevant experience of the current membership of the Group is set out below:

The existing membership of MRLAG was appointed in May 2009. Appointment to membership of the group was undertaken by Jersey Heritage in accordance with best practice as set out by the Jersey Appointments Commission, following open public advert. The role of the group is governed by Terms of Reference and a Code of Conduct.

Members of MRLAG give their time and expertise on an entirely voluntary basis.

2. Oral Questions

2.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the nature of an incident involving a Flybe airliner on 23rd February 2010:

Will the Minister inform Members of the nature of the incident involving a Flybe EMB-190 series airliner being ferried from Jersey to Exeter on 23rd February 2010 and advise whether any action was undertaken by Jersey Airport; if so, when and what lessons, if any, have been learned from this incident?

Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

Firstly, I should point out that some of the information contained within the submitted question was factually incorrect, but I am pleased to be able to clarify the incident which did take place on 23rd February 2010.  During a routine runway surface inspection pieces of debris were found on the runway and adjoining grass areas.  The debris was soon identified as engine cowling from a Flybe Embraer-195 aircraft which had recently left Jersey and was being ferried to Birmingham, after being declared serviceable by Flybe, because it was needed for another flight which was to leave from Birmingham.  There were no passengers on board.  The debris was located before the aircraft landed at Birmingham and the air crew were duly informed.  The runway was immediately closed while the debris was removed and subsequently swept.  The Air Accident Investigation Branch was informed immediately and the incident is now the subject of an investigation by them.  I would not like to speculate on such an investigation until the full results and any subsequent recommendations are known.  In the meantime, a full investigation was carried out by Jersey Airport in accordance with our safety management system, which found that all procedures in place were correctly carried out.  This has been confirmed by the Air Accident Investigation Branch who have stated that no further action is required of Jersey Airport at this time. 

2.1.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

The Assistant Minister has been reported on media that he did not feel that the incident warranted any media report.  As Concorde was brought down by a piece of metal approximately 1 inch by 8 inches on a runway, whereas the cowlings on the Embraer are 7 foot in height and also there were supposed to be somewhere upwards of 50 fragments on the runway, does the Assistant Minister not think that the incident warranted, in the public interest, even a statement saying that the incident had taken place and that the Air Accident Investigation Board and the Director of Civil Aviation were investigating it and a report would be published, which is the norm elsewhere?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I think it is rather unfortunate that the Deputy does try to bring some sort of comment about the Concorde accident because I have spoken with the Air Accident investigator and he said absolutely no comparison at all can be gained from trying to compare them.  In fact, I have an email which states that: “There can be no comparison with the Concorde accident which was both extremely unusual and the only fatal accident known to have been caused by debris.  Concorde was vulnerable to such an accident because of its design which is not replicated on any aircraft that we see in Jersey.  Furthermore, the cowling was of composite fibre and while likely to have caused some damage had an aircraft hit it, probably would have just broken up on impact.”  The investigator was one of the Concorde investigation team and he is the one who is carrying out the investigation on this particular incident.  With regard to the comments that we should have made it public; it has not been normal procedure.  It is not normal procedure at other airports to make an announcement like that.  The amount of debris that we do collect on the runway is a regular thing.  It happens on a regular basis and it was not felt appropriate or needed to be a statement to be made.

[9:45]

2.1.2 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Would the Assistant Minister tell us what time of day this was?

Senator P.F. Routier:

There are a lot of timelines being brought together at the current time ready to go to the Air Investigation people.  It happened about 6.30 p.m. in the evening the plane left Jersey, and landed at Birmingham at about 7.30 pm.

2.1.3 Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:

Can the Minister inform the House when, after the incident, his department or himself became aware of the incident?

Senator P.F. Routier:

The department were aware of it as soon as the normal checking of the runway took place.  They became aware of it ... this is the trouble with timelines.  I do not want to give out information which is contrary to what is being given to the ... I have not got the full list in front of me.  There is a timeline been put together ready to go to the investigation.  I am not sure whether it is appropriate to be giving out times, but certainly they became aware of it before the plane landed in Birmingham, that is for sure.  I first became aware of it - because it was not something that was needed to be reported to me - when I received the question from Deputy Higgins.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Can I say we have got numbers of questions to get through and not all Members are going to be able to ask their questions today.  I have seen a number of lights flashing in relation to this matter, but we must move on.  I am going to allow 2 more questions.  The Deputy of St. Peter:

2.1.4 Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:

Would the Assistant Minister accept the fact that the airport itself operated exactly as one would have expected but having said that, in hindsight, would he now make sure that in future if any incidents result in reporting to the A.A.I.B. (Air Accident Investigation Branch) it would be good policy to inform the media that that has occurred?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I thank the Deputy for highlighting the fact that the airport did carry out their duties efficiently and effectively.  Perhaps once we have the results of the investigation and the recommendations from that, I will certainly ask the Accident Investigation people whether they think it is appropriate but I certainly take the point and this is a very, very rare occasion and if that is a desire, certainly I will consider that.

2.1.5 Connétable P.F. Hanning of St. Saviour:

Could the Assistant Minister let us know how many aircraft either took off or landed before this debris was discovered?  If there were not any then I really do not see that there is a problem, but perhaps he could comment.

Senator P.F. Routier:

Yes there were 3 planes that took off and 4 that landed during that period before the debris was removed.  Certainly that was the case, but they landed safely and took off safely.

2.1.6 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Does the Assistant Minister, despite what he said about the Concorde incident… which I accept Concorde was a unique experience in terms of the design of the airplane and the fact that debris from the burst of the tyre went up through the fuel tank and the fuel spewed back where the afterburners were causing it to ignite; so that was a special case.  But aircraft have been damaged by the ingestion of parts or debris on runways through engines, which have caused engine failure on take-off.  So it is not correct to say that accidents are not caused by this.  Does he not feel that it is of concern to the public because the aircraft that did depart immediately after that included a bmibaby flight and also another airliner flight?  So there were at least 2 or 3 airliner movements immediately after that incident occurred.

Senator P.F. Routier:

Certainly, these questions obviously have highlighted some concerns and they are being investigated.  I just do urge Members to be cautious and to wait for the outcome of the investigation.  I really should say that I want to reassure Members and the general public that the correct procedures were followed and Jersey Airport had and still have safety systems which are appropriate and especially in the particular regime of inspection of the runway.  The minimum requirement is to have 2 inspections a day; we have, on average, 8 or 9 inspections a day.  I am sure that the airline company themselves who caused the debris to land on the airfield will make a comment when the investigation is complete, as will Jersey Airport.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Can we bring this to a close please?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I would like to thank and congratulate the staff who found and removed the debris in an efficient and timely manner.

2.2. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the attendance of Economic Development staff at the Enterprise Awards on 26th February 2010:

Would the Minister advise whether any Economic Development staff attended the Enterprise Awards on 26th February, and if so, how many, in what capacity, and at what cost to the department?

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

The Jersey Enterprise Awards is the Island’s premier business event.  The Jersey Enterprise team and their business partners should be congratulated on staging a truly world class event at Fort Regent last month.  Jersey is open for business and we quite rightly use the Enterprise Awards to help local businesses to showcase themselves and to increase the international business profile of the Island.  The event reflects the diversity of our economy and the entrepreneurial culture that is the mainstay of Jersey’s commercial success.  This year’s event was attended [Interruption] by a record 850 people of which 15 were Economic Development staff who were hosting 53 guests.  There was no cost to the department as all costs were covered by revenue received from ticket sales and generous commercial sponsorship.

2.2.1 The Deputy of St. John:

The Minister says there was no cost to the department.  Given that the tickets were £75 per head, did that also include beverages and the wine, et cetera, and given that he is claiming there was no cost to the department, therefore the cost must have fallen on the event; is that acceptable in this day and age that 15 members of staff, including I presume that would have been 17 if the Minister and Assistant Minister attended, or 2 Assistant Ministers, maybe 18.  I do not know if they all attended.  The numbers in fact start escalating: is that acceptable in time of recession for this number of people to be going to a free bash?

Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, it is acceptable, quite frankly.  This is the premier business event of the year.  It was a huge success.  It is laid on to help support and develop local businesses.  We had some fantastic guests there.  There were networking opportunities for local businesses.  We had people from national and international representative organisations.  I am afraid the Deputy is down in the weeds on this matter.  He needs to accept that this event was a massive success and it is essential, at this time in particular, that these events are carried out.  [Approbation]

2.2.2 The Deputy of St. John:

Can the Minister tell me what the 15 members of staff could add to the event please?

Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:

The members of staff from Economic Development develop relationships with clients, inward investment for example is a key part of the department’s remit.  We had the Chief Executive Officer of the U.K. (United Kingdom) Indian Business Council, a very important lady who in fact opened the Commonwealth Games.  We had a U.K. representative of the Indian Angel networks.  Access to finance is key at this time for local businesses.  This event, I will repeat one more time, was a massive success and I suggest that the Deputy considers congratulations and supports local businesses.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Last question, Deputy.

2.2.3 The Deputy of St. John:

I have only been given 3 minutes, the previous question took over 10 minutes.  Given that we had these high profile people I would have expected the Minister and his Assistant Minister to be entertaining them, not his staff.  Can I please ask why it was not the Minister entertaining these high profile people?

Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:

I can reassure the Deputy that the Minister was entertaining on the night, as was his Assistant Ministers [Laughter] quite appropriately and I might add, that as the Deputy is showing such interest in our awards, we will ensure that he is invited next year and I am sure he can also entertain.  [Laughter]

The Deputy of St. John:

I do not require freebies, thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff:

We come next to question number 3 by the Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs.  Perhaps I can just remind Members that a very similar question, at least in part similar, was in the written questions put by Senator Breckon, and is to be found at written question number 9; so that might assist in speeding up this part.

2.3 Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the suspension of 2 officers from the States of Jersey Police:

Would the Minister confirm that 2 suspended officers from the States of Jersey Police have recently been cleared of all allegations of assault?  Will he give the cost and duration of the suspensions, the cost of the investigation and the cost of the disciplinary hearing, including any legal costs?  Is he satisfied that the matter was handled correctly and, if not, what actions, if any, will he be taking?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

I can confirm that the 2 officers were cleared of all disciplinary charges at a hearing on 23rd February.  They were suspended each for a period of just less than 18 months.  There is an indication in the written comment that there was a period of 7 months of delay caused by the existence of the criminal charges and the time taken to make decisions on that, an additional 4 months delay caused by issues of them obtaining legal advice and the matter had been adjourned off and co-ordinating with the dates when an officer could come from another force to conduct the matter.  During their suspensions they received their salaries.  I am not going to give individual figures for the officers because that would in fact identify the grades and I want to preserve, as far as possible, the anonymity of the officers who have been cleared of disciplinary charges.  But the total sums that they were paid during the period, including pension rights and other things, is £249,020.  The total investigation costs came to £94,269.  The major amount of that was, in fact, legal advice obtained in relation to the disciplinary proceedings as to whether they should be continued, and if so in what form after the criminal matters had been dropped.  That was £60,438.  They were other acting-up costs, overtime costs and costs of accommodation in the Island.  Coming now to the major question.  I am satisfied that correct and appropriate procedures were followed both in relation to the suspension.  I have made detailed inquiries as to what principles were covered in relation to the suspension.  I have already indicated to this House that I am perfectly satisfied with the system being followed by the police in Jersey, which mirrors that which happens in the U.K. in relation to such matters, and I am satisfied that correct procedures were followed, advice was appropriately obtained and there was appropriate oversight of the investigation at all stages.

2.3.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I am very thankful for a very full answer.  Clearly another £400,000 has been used or spent on suspension issues.  Given the fact that the Crown Officers decided almost 12 months ago that there was insufficient evidence to have criminal proceedings, could I ask the Minister whose decision was it to proceed with disciplinary charges, and maybe I will just put that question first?  Whose decision was it to proceed with disciplinary charges and also why?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

As I already indicated, after the end of the criminal matter legal advice was obtained from lawyers in the private sector, which are different lawyers to the Law Officers, who said that it had to be, as I understand it, because one was a criminal matter and this was a different issue, and matters proceeded on that advice.  I also need to inform the Assembly that the Police Complaints Authority current chairman was actively involved also in the process of matters.  I have now forgotten what the last question was but I do not think I can answer it but if the Deputy could repeat it.  Help me, I have forgotten what it is.

The Deputy of St. Martin:

I wanted to know who was responsible for continuing with the disciplinary proceedings after, in fact, a decision was taken that there be no criminal proceedings.

[10:00]

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

After taking advice, I would assume that that was the acting leadership of the police force in relation to that.  But the question I could not have answered was the reasons why because that would be unfair to the individual people involved who have been cleared.

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

Could I inquire please from the Minister for Home Affairs, as these officers have now been cleared will their costs from their lawyers be met by the public purse or are they set aside within the budget of the police force in some way?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The answer to that question is no.  They will pay their own legal costs.

2.3.3 Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:

I apologise that I did not quite catch what the Minister said.  Could he clarify whether it is a fact that suspensions in terms of length with our police are completely out of kilter with anywhere in the U.K.?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I have absolutely no way of knowing that.  The answer to any individual case would depend upon the length of time taken in relation to criminal investigations.  Now, I have no statistics from the U.K. with which to compare but I would imagine if there was a lengthy criminal investigation that that similarly would massively delay matters.  There also is, as I said, where particular issues arose in relation to obtaining of legal advice which caused further delays and the co-ordination of dates for the hearing were difficult because of the need for an officer from away.

2.3.4 Senator J.L. Perchard:

Would the Minister say why it is that the States are so extraordinarily bad at dealing with disciplinary matters such as this in a timely fashion and what does he intend to do to ensure that this type of appalling waste of public money becomes a thing of the past?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The Minister for Home Affairs has absolutely no control over the processes of the Law Officers’ Department in relation to criminal investigations.  As I have already indicated I am informed that there was a period of 7 months delay caused by that alone and another period of 4 months.  I do not view - if we take off the 7 and the 4 - the remaining 7 months for this matter as being excessive.

2.3.5 The Deputy of St. Martin:

The Minister has said that the legal costs are going to have to be met by the 2 police officers concerned.  Does the Minister not consider it totally unfair, as indeed as has happened also to the Chief Police Officer, where the States of Police employ or engage the services of a very senior lawyer to prosecute and therefore the officers who have to face the discipline charges have to pay their own legal costs?  Does the Minister not feel that is rather unfair and surely, on this particular occasion, as the officers are found not to have been guilty, surely their costs will be met by the police and not by the 2 innocent officers?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The current position is that the policy of States of Jersey generally, or at least the States Employment Board, as I understand it, is not to provide free legal aid for individuals who are facing disciplinary charges.  Now, in relation to this particular matter I can reveal to the States that I was asked the question as to whether I would do so, and I considered that.  I am well aware it is human rights principles in relation to this matter because of my long experience as a judge, but the principle is this; that if a person were facing a disciplinary charge and could not reasonably afford their own legal advice then there would be a duty to provide them with assistance.  But if they can reasonably afford their own legal advice, as I took the view was the case in this case, there is no duty so to do.  It would be a major departure from past practice if the States of Jersey were to start to pay the legal costs of people who are defending themselves and, indeed, that in itself would massively increase the costs of such disciplinary matters for which there is currently general criticism.

2.3.6 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I think the Minister has missed the point.  The decision to prosecute against the 2 officers was taken by the Chief Officer of Police and they also engaged a very senior lawyer to prosecute therefore one can understand the 2 officers trying to get some legal aid themselves, so surely now the case has been found against, they have been found not guilty, in other words, they are innocent, surely their costs should be met by the States of Jersey, not by the 2 individuals.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I do not know if the lawyers were involved in a prosecution role or not.  I am afraid I have not asked that question.  That information was not clear to me.  I do not know if a lawyer appeared for, as it was, the complainant at the hearing or how that was handled, which puts me in a difficult position.  I genuinely do not know the answer to that question.  I know that legal advice was obtained and it was expensive but I do not know if that included conducting the presentation of matters.

The Deputy of St. Martin:

Can I just ask maybe the Minister will inform Members whether in fact those costs will be met by the 2 officers?

The Deputy Bailiff:

We have come to an end of this question thank you, Deputy; we must keep moving.  Deputy Shona Pitman has a question to ask of the Minister for Housing.

2.4 Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier of the Minister for Housing regarding flooding of houses at Nicholson Close:

In view of the heavy rainfall during the last weekend of February, would the Minister inform Members what action, if any, his department have taken to prevent the regular flooding of houses at Nicholson Close?

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

Contrary to the Deputy’s allegations on BBC Radio this morning, houses at Nicholson Close do not flood regularly.  Housing officers and the Transport and Technical Services Department have confirmed that the last record of flooding in the Grands Vaux area was over Christmas 1999 and on that occasion the flooding affected homes at Troy Court.  Subsequent to that sewers in the area have been upgraded.  A substantial amount of rain fell over the weekend of 27th and 28th February with almost 53 millimetres of rainfall being recorded at Maison St. Louis between 6.00 p.m. on Saturday and 9.00 a.m. on Sunday morning.  The department has already asked Transport and Technical Services’ drainage engineers to investigate the reasons for the flooding at Nicholson Close and will consider any recommendations they make to minimise the likelihood of any recurrence of flooding in the area. 

2.4.1 Deputy S. Pitman:

If the Minister was to speak to these tenants he will know that in the last 15 years this occurrence of flooding has happened 4 times.  Bearing in mind what I have just said regarding the constituents’ word on the flooding 4 times in 15 years, could the Minister explain why these houses are earmarked for sale in the Housing Property Plan?

Senator T.J. Le Main.

There has been no evidence of any flooding 4 times in 15 years.  If the Deputy would like to send on to me or to the department the names of those tenants she claims have been flooded over those period of years, then I am very happy to look at it.  I still could not quite understand the last part of the question; is it why we are selling properties off?

Deputy S. Pitman:

Why are these properties being earmarked for sale under the Property Plan?

Senator T.J. Le Main.

There is no particular properties been earmarked for sale.  The Property Plan indicated over a period of 10 years that those tenants who would wish to purchase their own homes in situ over a period of 10 years would have the ability to do so.  So no particular homes are targeted, but if tenants are able and willing to purchase their home then there remains an availability.  The other think I would like to say, the Acting Director of Waste Management Drainage Engineers, T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) duty officers are holding a meeting this Thursday to discuss any flooding problems in Grands Vaux and Vallée des Vaux areas and I would like to ask the Deputy to put in writing or give us names of those she claims have been flooded over a period of years because we have no evidence of that at all.

2.4.2 The Deputy of St. John:

Could the Minister inform Members whether or not tenants of his department are required within their rental agreements or leases to carry insurance for contents of their properties?

Senator T.J. Le Main.

No, they are not required.  We offer the clients in their tenancy agreement a very good offer of household contents insurance but unfortunately we cannot force them to take that up.  In this instance, I know of the 4 homes that were flooded, 2 were insured, one had not got round to getting any insurance and the other did not think they needed it.  But we are looking at insurance.  It has been something that has concerned me for a considerable time that tenants, somehow, we should be able to work with them to give them the kind of cover that they need.

2.4.3 Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:

Could the Minister just confirm whether there has been a timeframe from T.T.S. as to how long it will take them to look into this flooding situation?

Senator T.J. Le Main.

I cannot speak for T.T.S.  All I can say is that there will be a meeting this week to discuss the outcome of those 4 houses that were flooded and I can give an assurance to the Assembly that if it is anything to do with the Housing Department, the Housing Department will do all in their power to rectify if there are any problems.  But the issue is that it is a difficult one.  Nicholson Close is connected to a system that is affected by a number of factors which are outside the responsibility of the department, including the height of the tide, the height of the water in the Grand Vaux reservoir, and the amount of water running off fields and whether downstream the public drainage system is blocked.  I can give an assurance to particularly the Deputies in St. Helier No. 2 that I will work with them if necessary, but make sure that any of our property tenants have the comfort of knowing that they will not get flooded if we can do anything to assist.

2.4.4 Deputy S. Pitman:

I would just like to clarify a couple of points.  Firstly, that one of the tenants in Nicholson Close has been flooded twice.  The Grands Vaux Community Centre was used about 15 years ago to put these people up who were flooded and one person did look to buy one of these properties so they are definitely earmarked for sale and in the Housing Property Plan.  Will the Minister say whether he will be working with T.T.S. because it is my understanding that the problem is the drains around Nicholson Close, they are too small to take the water?

Senator T.J. Le Main.

I am not sure how the Deputy is such an expert on drains but I would have thought that perhaps you ought to ask the Deputy of St. John who is an expert on drains and toilets, he may be able to assist.  I can assure the Deputy that I will be working… or the department do work hand in hand with T.T.S., we have got a very good working relationship between officers and we will do everything we can to make sure that this does not occur again.  This was an extraordinary night of rain where many homes in Jersey were flooded and, as far as I am concerned, the advice given to me, is that the drains are all up to date and were upgraded some years ago, but it was exceptional circumstances and I am not sure where the Deputy gets her advice from that the drains are not in order or otherwise.

The Deputy Bailiff:

I notice we have a new face in the Assembly and I would like to take the opportunity of congratulating Mr. Howard Sharp, the new Solicitor General.  [Approbation]  We welcome him to the Assembly.

2.5 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the implementation of the recommendations contained within the Verita report:

Are Verita’s services or another such body going to be used to help implement the recommendations contained in their report?

[10:15]

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

Since 2006 the department has made significant changes, which has led to tangible improvements in patient safety.  The implementation of the recommendations made by Verita will be undertaken by the management of Health and Social Services, which will include the new Chief Executive Officer and their teams.  Professor Aidan Halligan continues to provide advice to the department on patient safety.  A group which includes the Clinical Director and the Chair of the Medical Staff Committee have been set up to oversee this task.  This group has held discussions with Verita, which include details of the process that will be used to monitor performance prior to their return visit in 6 months’ time.  Members will know that I have asked Verita to report back to me, the Greffier of the States, the Deputy Viscount and the chairman of our Scrutiny Panel on that progress that my department have made during that period.  I have also promised that I will publish the outcome of the progress report.

2.5.1 The Deputy of Grouville:

Could I ask the Minister why there are no patient safety officers or an officer appointed at the Jersey General Hospital?

The Deputy of Trinity:

At the moment, that comes under the Medical Director, and he retires next month.  That is one of the things that Professor Aidan Halligan has talked to the department around, that there could perhaps be a patient safety officer, and that will be part, or one of the issues within the recommendations perhaps.

2.5.2 Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:

The Minister referred in her answer to the new Chief Officer for Health; has this person in fact been appointed and, if they have, when are they going to take up post?

The Deputy of Trinity:

I cannot answer that question now but I understand there is a question about the Chief Executive later on.

The Deputy Bailiff:

You can answer the question now.

The Deputy of Trinity:

One has been appointed and I will announce more details later on in the week.

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

In the Verita report it was a mix of many procedural recommendations and some very scathing remarks about management and cultures of almost fear and so forth.  Could the Minister inform us, given their very broad-ranging comments on the management culture, what steps does she have in mind to rectify this situation, for example, strengthening whistle-blowing which, according to them, is still not working?

The Deputy of Trinity:

The Deputy brings up a very important point there and all these issues will be looked at.  As I said, there is a group looking at all the recommendations and that includes right across the department and includes some other States departments, and I would not like to say here about the recommendations because I will publish that in the fullness of time.

2.5.4 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Minister not accept that these comments, rightly or wrongly, reflect enormously on the previous management on the culture that was allowed to develop and can she say how is a fresh start going to be made if an existing group simply reviews themselves?

The Deputy of Trinity:

The recommendations, as I said, is not just the management.  It goes right across all departments and there is a clinical director as well the chairman of the Medical Staff Committee.  So it goes right across all the areas.  But I stress that the Ministerial team is created to a culture of openness and that is very, very important.  It must be fair and proportionate and holding them to account to produce a process of putting those recommendations into place.

2.5.5 The Deputy of St. Martin:

It appears that the lessons that were supposed to be learned have not been learned because it appears that those people who were responsible for causing the problems are still going to be there to try to put the problems right.  On that point, could the Minister inform the House whether in actual fact she has spoken to the Chief Minister to ask the Chief Minister how soon the report into the suspension of the hospital gynaecologist is going to come to a conclusion?  I understand the report has still not been completed and has not been sent to the Minister.

The Deputy of Trinity:

I speak to the Chief Minister quite regularly and I must say that has not been one of my points on the agenda.  As I said, that is for the States Employment Board agenda, and I will leave it like that.

2.5.6 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I am rather disappointed that the Minister has not been speaking to the Chief Minister about this possible gynaecologist, bearing in mind only 2 weeks ago a question was asked and answered by one of her Assistant Ministers who said ... or did not answer the question actually, whether in actual fact the Minister had apologised to the gynaecologist for the lengthy suspension.  Could I ask the Minister if she has now apologised to the gynaecologist for the lengthy and unnecessary suspension?

The Deputy of Trinity:

I know that this was mentioned in the last couple of weeks; I have nothing to apologise for.  It was not under my watch, and also I welcome him back as I would do any staff member.  Every staff member is important and especially if they have not been able to work for a period of time, or whatever, and come back to work.

2.5.7 The Deputy of Grouville:

As the Clinical Director and Chairman of the Staff Committee are still in place, who were, in essence, responsible for the sloppy and defective management, they are now going to oversee the changes that are meant to come about from the Verita report; how does the Minister feel that this will instil any confidence in the public in the hospital’s management?

The Deputy of Trinity:

The hospital is a good safe place and I must reassure members of the public and this Assembly too.  That was brought out in one of the questions that the Verita team mentioned when they were over here, that the hospital is a safe place.  A terrible, terrible accident happened over 3 years ago.  Lessons have been learned and some procedures have been changed.  But there is always room for improvements, and this is where the 29 recommendations do come in, from Verita, otherwise there would be no point in having an investigation.  We have got to learn by this.  The management team across the whole hospital where there is corporate management, Medical Staff Committee, et cetera, are all there for patient safety and with putting the recommendations into place as soon as possible.

2.6 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the strengthening of dangerous dogs importation legislation:

In order to be helpful I did ask some questions about dogs in the written question number 2, if it helps Members, but I would like to ask the Minister for Home Affairs this question.  Following a dog attack in St. Aubin’s Bay by a cross-bred Pit Bull which had been imported into Jersey from the United Kingdom, would the Minister undertake to strengthen legislation to ensure that dangerous dogs from other jurisdictions are not able to be imported into Jersey?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

I am assuming that the dog attack referred to by Deputy Le Claire is the same one as was mentioned in questions back in December and not a new one.  The position, as I have set out in the written answer, is that we already have a situation where under the Customs and Excise (Import and Export Control) (Jersey) Order 2006, a licence is required to import any one of the 4 very dangerous types of dogs and indeed any other type which appears to have been bred for fighting.  In addition to that we have a variety of different statutes and regulations - the Dogs (Jersey) Law, among others - Policing of Beaches, and so on.  At the moment I am satisfied with the package which is in existence.  After the questions I answered in December I met with Deputy Power and indeed somebody from the Jersey Animal Shelter in order to discuss issues and, in fact, was able to assure the gentleman from the animal shelter that our legislation was in a better state than he thought it was in.  There were some provisions in existence that he wanted that we already had.  In short, my answer is, no, I do not think at this time it is necessary to make any changes because I think the overall package is okay and we do not, in fact, have the problem which they have in the U.K. of dangerous dogs which are attacking people.

2.6.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Notable in the written answer, some element of not being able to do this is attributed to the fact that the Minister has other pressing issues.  I am partly to blame for that with the rear seatbelts and the other things that I have asked him to do, which is the wheel clamping, et cetera.  Given that we have just heard this morning from the Deputy of St. Martin that there is money within the budgets to go out and employ private law firms to carry out disciplinary actions - quite lengthy disciplinary actions - against innocent police officers, surely there must be some money in the pot to ensure that dangerous dogs are prohibited from entering Jersey and are policed from entering Jersey and that adequate legislation or new legislation is introduced to Jersey perhaps at least for Members to debate whether or not certain breeds should be outlawed from Jersey.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I think that Deputy Le Claire is comparing 2 quite unlike things.  It is very much in the public interest and a requirement of public confidence in the police that if there are serious allegations against police officers that these are properly investigated and a proper process takes place.  In this particular case, what I am saying is that my view is that the current legislation appears to be adequate for purpose.  But even if it was not adequate for purpose and I felt some improvements were made, it would be low in my priority list.

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

This is quite topical because they are looking at the laws in the U.K.  Would the Minister not consider with the Constables that when a dog is licensed that it must be automatically chipped in this day and age so that it can be easily identified and also who the owner is.  This is where the U.K. is looking at and they are talking something about dog ASBOs Anti-Social Behaviour Orders), but we probably do not even want to go there at the moment.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Thanks to the excellent briefing I received this morning from my staff I have a paper on what they are thinking of doing in the U.K.  They are thinking of doing lots of interesting things, such as forcing people to insure their dogs against attacking people.  I am loath to blindly follow what they do in the U.K.  I think we need to watch, see how things work out there and then follow subsequently.  There is a requirement in existing law that a dog must have a collar and must have a name on that collar.  If it does not, then it is a stray dog and it can be picked up in any event.  So, I think that there are provisions which cover all issues.

2.6.3 The Deputy of St. John:

Possibly the Minister needs to speak to a number of postmen.  Given that he mentions he does not believe there are dangerous dogs on the Island, can he, therefore, explain why I knocked on somebody’s door 2 years ago and I was attacked by 2 Alsatians who were in the house?  They came out through a dog flap and bit my rear, et cetera.  [Laughter]  So, he maintains there are not dangerous dogs.  Could he please explain that?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I cannot explain that, although one theory could be that it was mistaken identity.  They thought he was a postman.  [Laughter]

2.6.4 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

While I do appreciate that we do need to have thorough regulations and processes in place for the police officers that are under suspension, I would like to ask the Minister to reflect on the point I was making in my earlier question, which is if there is a finite pool of resources, certainly they need to be considered.  Raising this issue, as other people have done, it hopefully highlights the fact that there are people in Jersey that are concerned about the actual application of law when it comes to dangerous dogs.  Will the Minister undertake at the very least to continue to review this while he moves forward with these other engagements?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am grateful to the Deputy for having raised the issue again, which keeps the Minister on his toes.  As I say, I am awaiting correspondence from the gentleman from the animal shelter if he still considers there are issues that I should really be looking at.  I am sure that Members of this House will continue to keep me on my toes with further questions in this area from time to time.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Can I just take the opportunity of reminding all Members of Standing Order 63(6)(b) which says: “The Presiding Officer shall rule a supplementary question out of order if the question is not concise.”  Deputy De Sousa has a question to ask of the Minister for Economic Development.

[10:30]

2.7 Deputy D.J. De Sousa of the Minister for Economic Development regarding ‘gazumping’ within the property market:

What action, if any, is the Assistant Minister and his department taking to combat ‘gazumping’ within the property market and will he be bringing proposals forward to regulate estate agents against this?

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

If I may, I will defer to my Assistant Minister.  I have a conflict in this area.

Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

Two questions there.  Despite being contrary to the Jersey Estate Agents Code of Conduct there is no doubt ‘gazumping’, while not widespread, does happen as it does in other places, although to be fair in the current economic climate ‘gazundering’ is more prevalent at the moment.  Sadly, to eliminate such behaviour from the market would require a complete overhaul of the property transaction legislation.  The other question about regulation of estate agents; estate agents are, of course, to an extent regulated.  They are required to comply with the anti-money laundering and ‘know your client’ requirements, but there is a case, I think, for some regulation of estate agents.  Some 3 or 4 years ago, the Consumer Council did some excellent work in this area and the Minister and I have agreed and have, in fact, asked our officers to consult with the Consumer Council further to see if that work that they did 3 or 4 years ago can be updated, to consult further with the estate agents and their clients to see what appropriate regulation could be introduced to the benefit of the consumers.

2.7.1 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

Yes, I was ready at hand with all the information that the Consumer Council did put together.  Really, it is all ready to go forward.  It has been ready for 4 or 5 years now.  Will the department please look at bringing this forward?  We are all aware of the case last year that was highlighted to us and it is not fair when people are losing thousands and thousands of pounds and they then cannot go on to buy other properties.

The Deputy Bailiff:

I am not sure how concise that was, Deputy.  Assistant Minister?

The Connétable of St. Clement:

As I said, we have asked our officers to talk further with the Consumer Council, but regulation of estate agents will not impact on gazumping.  Gazumping is because of the nature of our Property Transaction Law.  I am sure the Deputy will realise that estate agents do have to act in the best interests of their client, and if they receive offers for properties they are obliged to inform their client, otherwise they in turn could be liable for not informing their client.  At the end of the day, it is a matter for the client to decide which offer he or she accepts for a property.

2.7.2 Deputy T.A. Vallois:

Can I ask if the Assistant Minister will be taking the lead on this work and if the Minister for Economic Development will be kept out of the actual work that is ongoing due to his conflict?

The Connétable of St. Clement:

Yes.

2.8 Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chief Minister regarding

Given any additional monies/severance payments outside of the contractual entitlement paid to the former Chief Officer of Health and Social Services would have been made from public funds, what justification can the Chief Minister give for not divulging the contents of the agreement to the Assembly in his written response on 23rd February, particularly in the interests of accountability and transparency as outlined in the Ministerial code of conduct?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

The reason why I am not able to provide the Assembly with any details concerning the departure of the former Chief Officer of the Health and Social Services Department is because the terms of his departure were subject to a confidentiality agreement.  There is nothing unusual about this.  All of the individual employee agreements facilitated by the Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service, for example, contain confidentiality clauses.  This would also normally be the case in the private sector.

2.8.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Bearing in mind that the former Chief Officer was criticised by Verita, if he had done it deliberately why must he receive additional payment; likewise if the former Chief Officer was asked to leave why did he receive additional payment with the monies from the public purse.  Surely it should be in the public interest to have that revealed.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The Deputy seems to be aware of payments which may or may not have been made.  I am not sure where he gets his information from or how reliable it is.  As I say, it is a confidentiality agreement with both parties and any comments of that nature are purely speculation.

2.8.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Chief Minister not acknowledge that his previous statement was slightly disingenuous that the private sector does not reveal these facts?  Would he not acknowledge that because of shareholder restlessness in places like the U.K. the terms upon which chief officers are appointed and the terms upon which they leave, if they do leave, are now known because shareholders insist that they be known?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

This will entirely depend on the nature of the agreement between the parties concerned.  Where there is a confidentiality agreement, it would be a matter of interpretation whether that can be overridden by any other judgment or decision of shareholders.  But normally a confidential agreement is just that.

2.8.3 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Minister not acknowledge that he is hanging on to procedural ways out of this situation and that it would be much better, given the large sums we are paying people often linked to performance in their position… given those large sums it would make for much more credibility if we had some mature discussions about them instead of trying to always hide them?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I disagree entirely.  The Deputy makes comments about large sums.  Frankly, if one is talking about a principle here whether the sum is large or small is immaterial.  But really, this is not a procedural way out.  This is a matter of good employment relations and is consistent with Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service practice.

2.8.4 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Given the moves to disclose all the payments made to council executives and senior members in the U.K. and a general policy that is coming on of transparency and disclosure, does the Chief Minister not think it is perhaps time to review this and to modernise these arcane procedures?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I point out to the Senator that details of salaries paid to chief officers are already published in the States financial statements.  What the question is asking is about a severance payment or additional monies outside of the contractual entitlement.  That is a different matter entirely.

2.8.5 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I would perhaps ask the Chief Minister why, when in business these sums are disclosed and we are trying to run an efficient States organisation… surely we should be bringing these efficiencies and transparency into the States system.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I am not sure what the Senator means by “these sums are disclosed”.  If she means sums paid for in the event of a cessation of employment that is not necessarily always disclosed and it will depend on the circumstances.

2.8.6 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Having taken advice from Data Protection before I shaped my question, does the Minister not concede that it would be better to get the figures out in the open now rather than wait for people perhaps like Senator Ferguson who will be going through the accounts in a month’s time with a fine toothcomb?  Because we will get these answers eventually.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

This is not a matter for Data Protection.  This is a matter of commercial contractual arrangements.  As to what the Public Accounts Committee or any other committee may look for in the future, they I trust will also abide by and respect any confidentiality which may be overriding a general contract.

2.9 Senator B.E. Shenton of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the accountability for legal costs in planning matters:

Where the Minister or Planning Application Panel goes against the advice of planning officers and a legal action results in costs to the taxpayer, where does accountability lie?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour (Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment - rapporteur):

The planning and regulatory regime is clearly political in nature as it governs the activities of individual land owners in the public interest.  As the elected Members of the States of Jersey represent the public interest, then they should be the ones making planning and building decisions, at least those decisions that are significant in their effect or raise issues of public interest.  Each application is required to be considered on its planning merits having regard to the Island Plan and other relevant considerations and, therefore, applications are assessed by the department’s professional staff before recommendation is made either to the Planning Applications Panel or to the Minister.  It will sometimes be the case that elected Members do not agree with the recommendation of the officers, and in these cases there is a cooling-off period to consider the implications of a decision different from the recommendation.  Where the politicians’ decisions are subsequently confirmed, then clearly it is the Members making those decisions who are accountable both to the States and to the electorate.  In the event of a successful appeal against a decision made in these circumstances, costs are likely to be awarded against the Minister.  The payment of these costs cannot be budgeted for in advance, yet the clear accountability for the Planning and Environment Department’s budget and expenditure lies with the Chief Officer as the department’s accounting officer by virtue of financial direction 2.2.  Mechanisms, however, do exist in those directions for the Chief Officer to make known his differing position in the matter to allow political decisions to be made.

2.9.1 Senator B.E. Shenton:

The department has lost 2 high-profile third party appeals and been heavily criticised by the Royal Court.  How can it be in the public interest for the Minister to go against not only the planning officers’ advice but also Crown Officers’ advice resulting in a cost to the taxpayer of hundreds of thousands of pounds?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

As I said, it is a matter of political judgment and the weighing-up of what is in the public interest.  The appeal procedures are a democratic function of any legislature and I certainly would be in agreement with the Minister to be telling this House that we both consider that a challenge to professional decisions from any direction and any quarter must be an acceptable part of democracy.

2.10 Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the proposed use of the proceeds from the sale of the former Jersey College for Girls site:

Will the Minister give Members an assurance that if the Jersey College for Girls site is sold the proceeds will not be used to defray the budget deficit but will be categorised into another project?

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

Yes, I can confirm that the proceeds will be put to the capital programme funding.  Treasury Financial Direction 6.6 contains detailed guidance on the use of capital receipts, which I have the ability to direct.  Where fixed asset disposals take place, the proceeds from disposal remain in the Consolidated Fund and are unavailable to spend unless the relevant approval is obtained, of course, from this Assembly.

2.10.1 The Connétable of Grouville:

Would the Minister please inform the House who will be deciding what is an acceptable bid and would he ensure that the appropriate Scrutiny Panel is consulted before the decision is made?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I propose to call in that decision myself because it is a substantial decision but upon the advice, of course, of my Assistant Minister, and I will take advice as to the extent to which I can involve the Scrutiny Panel.

2.11 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding the impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review on benefits administered by his department:

Given that the departmental budget consists overwhelmingly of benefit payments, will the Minister assure Members that in attempting to deliver the 10 per cent cuts required by the comprehensive spending review by 2013, he will not reduce the index-linking or otherwise cut the levels of individual benefits administered by his department and, if not, will he state which benefits may be targeted?

Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement (The Minister for Social Security):

Contributory social security benefits are automatically linked to the rise in the earnings index.  Any changes to those benefit rates would require the States to approve amendments to primary legislation.  Other States-funded benefits such as income support benefit rates can only be increased or reduced with States approval.  It is too early to say what the comprehensive spending review might propose across any department.  It is, however, important that the review is undertaken so that Ministers and this Assembly can make informed decisions.

2.11.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Could the Minister at this stage state what might be saved by each percentage point below normal operating across all benefits?

Deputy I.J. Gorst:

I struggled answering this question as an oral question anyway because I was being asked for information and I would like to have been able to go into each benefit and say how they are rated in the process or otherwise.  I do not have that information on the top of my head and I think if the Deputy wants to know it then perhaps he should submit a written question and I will try and provide it for him next time.

[10:45]

Deputy G.P. Southern:

I will try a simpler supplementary if I may then.  Would the Minister ... oh, it is gone.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Very well.  Deputy Le Hérissier.

2.11.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Just to keep the fun going, would the Minister not acknowledge that a reduction of benefits will bring up the issue that what is politically unacceptable will collide with what appears to be the necessity to make cuts?

Deputy I.J. Gorst:

I do not believe ... well, I should put it the other way.  I believe that the Minister for Treasury and Resources has been completely upfront and honest about the difficult decisions that we as an Assembly will have to make going forward, and they will be decisions for this Assembly.  We can raise taxes; we can cut our operating costs.  One suspects that ultimately being a consensus Assembly we will come down somewhere in the middle, but that will be a decision for this Assembly.  What I can say we are looking at in my department is to see if we can extend things to encourage people back to work.  So we currently have the pain clinic.  If we can invest a little in that, extend it, then we can reduce our overall budget spend.  There are smart ways that we can try and cut costs and I hope that that is what will be proposed to this Assembly and this Assembly will make decisions upon.

2.11.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Can the Minister state whether it is possible to achieve 10 per cent cuts without affecting the level of benefits he administers?

Deputy I.J. Gorst:

As I just answered, there are smart ways to try and achieve cuts across all departments.  It is important that this review takes place and then that we together can make those difficult decisions about what sort of service we want to provide for this community going forward and whether we ultimately want to ask individuals to pay more for those services that we want to provide.

2.12 Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the current status of the Tourism Development Fund:

Would the Minister inform the Assembly how much money is left in the Tourism Development Fund and whether he considers that this sum reflects the States’ commitment to the tourism sector?

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

The Tourism Development Fund has a current unallocated sum of £466,333.  The Tourism Development Fund is just one mechanism to support the tourism sector and, therefore, does not reflect the total commitment to the tourism industry.  Tourism is vitally important to the Jersey economy, and I am sure that Members will join me in sending the tourism industry a clear message of support.

2.12.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

Fine words butter no parsnips.  The States once upon a time voted £10 million for the Tourism Development Fund, and I wonder if the Minister could tell the Assembly where it went.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

The £10 million was voted in 2002 as a promise by the Assembly to support tourism.  To date, £2.2 million has been forwarded to the Tourism Development Fund and has been used for a range of very worthy projects.  I can give a commitment to the Assembly that I would like to see more money in the Tourism Development Fund, and to that end I have already had discussions with my good friend the Minister for Treasury and Resources to see if I can persuade him to loosen the purse strings for this very worthy cause.

2.12.2 The Deputy of Grouville:

It was my predecessor who secured the £10 million for the Tourism Development Fund and it was my understanding it was certainly not a promise, it was a proposition to invest or hold in the Tourism Development Fund £10 million.  Was this money ever transferred into that Fund and, if not, why not?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

As I say, my understanding from the proposition was that there was an undertaking given by this Assembly to support the tourism industry and to support the introduction of a Tourism Development Fund to the tune of £10 million.  These funds, as far as I am aware, were not transferred.  The only money that has come forward to the Fund was that which was originally in the Tourism Investment Fund itself, the original fund that operated between 1995 and 2000.  In total the Tourism Development Fund has had allocated to it and distributed £2.2 million.

2.12.3 The Deputy of Grouville:

So, would the Minister agree that there is £8 million outstanding and that should be transferred into the Tourism Development Fund, or has the tourism industry still got access to those funds?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

As I said a moment ago, I would certainly like to see more money transferred into the Tourism Development Fund.  £466,000 is not enough for what we need to do to support this important sector of our economy.  I have had discussions with the Minister for Treasury and Resources and I certainly am hopeful that we will get some additional funding into T.D.F. (Tourism Development Fund).  I am also keen to bring forward to the Assembly plans to open up and widen the remit of the Tourism Development Fund.  Currently, it deals with public and voluntary sectors.  I would like to open it up to make it even more effective.

The Deputy of Grouville:

He did not answer my question.  The Minister did not answer my question.  Is the £8 million balance that was voted by this Assembly for tourism development in this Island available, yes or no?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

As far as I am aware, that sum was not voted and I think the Deputy of Grouville perhaps should direct the question to the Minister for Treasury and Resources if she wants some more details on the accounting of that particular funding and decision by the States Assembly.

2.12.4 Deputy S. Pitman:

The Minister has stated that he will be trying to get more money for this Fund.  Will he be fighting for the full £10 million?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I will be fighting to get as much as I possibly can for the Tourism Development Fund and, as I have already stated, bringing back to this Assembly the ability to widen the remit so it can become even more effective.  I would like to get as much as I can for tourism.  If I can get £8 million and if I can persuade the Minister for Treasury and Resources to fund that amount of money, then I would be delighted to do so.  It is difficult times.  It is not going to be easy.  I will get what I can.

2.12.5 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Minister not acknowledge that tourism needs a critical mass of accommodation if sufficient visitors are to be on the Island in order to keep the whole range of facilities such as Durrell and the war tunnels in business?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, I think we have something short of 12,000 beds currently at the moment.  We have had significant private sector investment in tourism, which is a good thing.  What I can say to the Deputy which is of particular relevance is that we are not reaching the capacity that we have at the moment.  We have nearly 12,000 beds but we are not filling them.  We are not filling them in shoulder months and we are barely filling them in the peak season.  There is a great deal more work to do in a difficult market.  Jersey is faring quite well but it is difficult out there.  Hoteliers are finding it hard, as other members of the industry are.

2.12.6 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

If £10 million was sort of promised to this pot to deal with tourism, why is it in 8 years only £2 million has been brought forward?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I think we are repeating ourselves somewhat.  The funds were promised under a proposition made to the States Assembly.  The funding was never allocated or put into a separate fund.  The money is not there.  The Treasury would need to answer the details to give you more scope to the understanding of this issue.

2.12.7 The Deputy of St. Mary:

Can the Minister confirm that in summary what he is telling the House is that the commitment to the tourism industry and their offering needs the spend and it needs our commitment?  Is he telling us that the commitment to this House has gone down from £7.8 million to £466,000 in relation to the Tourism Development Fund?  I accept there are other bits in the toolkit but in relation to the Fund, the commitment has gone from £7.8 million to £466,000?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

No.  The funds were never put into the Tourism Development Fund.  There was a proposition brought forward to this Assembly which made a promise to provide funding for £10 million for the Tourism Development Fund.  That money was never actually allocated.  All we have had is £2.2 million to date.

2.13 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding the introduction of a universal ticketing system for all arts locations which receive public funding:

What progress, if any, has been made with the introduction of a universal ticketing system for all arts locations which receive public funding?

Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):

Good progress is being made with the introduction of a single online ticketing system that will serve all the main arts locations which receive public funding, including the Opera House, the Arts Centre and Fort Regent.  This project is due to commence deployment shortly and it is planned that the new service will be operational by June this year.

2.13.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Can the Minister in explaining the system tell the House whether the system was developed in-house, whether he went to tender, whether there will be, for example, the possibility of picking up tickets at Fort Regent, for example, of picking up tickets within the town area, and whether or not extensive redevelopment of software was necessary rather than buying an off-the-shelf facility?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Minister, you have an awful lot of questions there.

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

I might suggest that the Deputy might choose to see me afterwards if I miss out any parts to his question.  However, the current arrangements with regard to the procurement and delivery of this particular project have the support of corporate procurement and comply with financial directions and procedures.  The new service is being provided by the supplier as part of a range of I.T. (information technology) services to the department, not as an independent project, and there are cost savings and efficiencies arising from this approach.  The new system will include a range of features to guarantee the security of data, including the encryption of data which means that credit card details will be secure.  Access to the tickets will be, as one would expect, both online and at various locations throughout the Island.

2.13.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Just a follow-up: could the Minister answer was the project developed in-house or was it not?  Why did they not look at the possibility of buying a totally complete project which answered all the questions and did not require enormously intensive in-house development?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

As this is a relatively new development and one that I believe is a catalyst for further developments throughout the States service, it was deemed that it would be more prudent at this moment in time to utilise existing facilities available and currently installed at certain of the arts organisations and develop and improve the information provided.  That was why it was not decided at this moment in time to outsource this particular project.  Over time, when we further understand the benefits that an online ticketing system can provide, we will then review the position and determine whether an outsourcing type system is a better approach.

2.13.3 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

According to the Comptroller and Auditor General, Jersey should not always be looking for bespoke solutions to problems.  Will the Minister tell the Assembly why when considering his current course of action he did not require his officers to review up and running systems before deciding on this bespoke solution of upgrading an archaic system?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

I appreciate that the Senator has her specific views on the subject and has indicated a preference for a particular supplier.  However, it was deemed more appropriate at this moment in time that for a relatively small sum of money, which is approximately £48,000, we can provide a system that gives us complete control and we are not passing information over to a third party.  If we are to understand the benefits that an online ticketing system can provide, both to the arts organisations and the wider audience, we need that information.  As I have explained to the Senator before, at an appropriate time, once we better understand the opportunities and benefits to be derived from this system, then we will look properly at the outsourcing route.

[11:00]

I would underline that this project has had the complete support of the Procurement Department and other departments and meets all the financial directions and procedures that are required by the department to follow.

2.13.4 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

The project was originally intended to be up and running by the end of February.  The Minister has now said it will be June.  The original cost was said to be £48,000 but it is overrunning.  Would the Minister tell us if it is definitely going to be running by June and what is the cost to date?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

It is my knowledge that the project has not overrun and I do not know where the Senator gets her information from.  I have already answered the question about when the service will be fully operational and that is aimed to be in June.  I will say that because of the need to ensure that we comply fully with financial directions and all other procedures required by the department, it has slowed up the process.  Equally, the complexity with the project is that it is a collaboration between a number of organisations and a single delay by one party can have an impact on the delivery date.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Is it not true ...

The Deputy Bailiff:

I am sorry, we need to keep moving, Senator.  The Deputy of Grouville and then Deputy Le Hérissier’s final supplementary.

2.13.5 The Deputy of Grouville:

Is it the intention of the Minister to extend the ticketing services to more remote areas in the Island such as the Parish Halls [Laughter] in Grouville and St. Ouen and possibly arrange for the facilities to be in the Parish Halls?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

These I hope are developments that will be ongoing.  As already stated, this project forms part of the web strategy deliverables for the Information Services Department and as such approval was sought so that this particular system could provide a standardised tickets events model which could be used throughout the States of Jersey without significant hardware and infrastructure investment.  As such, we want to explore the opportunities, quite rightly, that online ticket purchasing can provide both this Island and the individual who is seeking to attend the events that we put on.

The Deputy Bailiff:

It is very reassuring to know that even the remotest parts of La Rocque may get it.  [Laughter]

2.13.6 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Would the Minister like to tell us at what stage he will be looking at extending this particular system to the rest of the Island?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

I believe in one step at a time, and the first thing is that I want a fully operational ticket system that we can rely on and the public can benefit from.  Once we have arrived at that position, then I think it will open up the door to many, many opportunities that can be provided.  The ultimate goal for me is that it will ultimately form part of the website hosting strategy and it is to create a Jersey cultural events website showing all events on the Island and providing a seamless visual and booking experience without the need for potential patrons to look up many websites to review and book tickets as is currently the case.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Did the Minister not ...

The Deputy Bailiff:

I am sorry, Senator, we are not going to have a debate today about this.  Final supplementary, Deputy Le Hérissier.

2.13.7 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

First, could the Minister tell us expenditure to date and, secondly, could he say if one buys a ticket for Fort Regent, can it be collected from the Arts Centre or the Opera House?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

The whole idea of the system is it will be user-friendly.

2.14 Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the level and grade of medical staff required to bring the Renal Dialysis Unit up to the correct level:

Will the Minister inform Members of the level and grade of medical staff required to bring the Renal Dialysis Unit up to the correct level?

The Deputy of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):

I will ask my Assistant Minister to answer this question.

Deputy J.A. Martin (Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services - rapporteur):

As this started a couple of weeks ago, the renal unit needs 2 full-time doctors, one at consultant level and the other middle grade.  If both posts are filled and we have the nursing staff to match, we can meet the demand.  Unfortunately, for about 3½ years the hospital has struggled to recruit the middle grade and the consultant has had to work with a series of locums.  We realise this is not ideal, as does the consultant, but it is better than reducing the service.

2.14.1 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

It is my information that the renal unit should have a consultant, middle grade doctor and a junior grade doctor, F1 or F2.  That is foundation year 1 and 2.  We just have one doctor doing the job of 3.  Does the Assistant Minister not find this wholly unacceptable?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

As I just said, in an ideal world I have been told we need 2 full-times, one of those at a middle grade.  Middle grade doctors across the whole of the U.K. are in shortage.  U.K. trusts are recruiting middle grades to meet the European Working Time Directive and we are suffering.  As I said, it is not ideal.  We have just decided to give the unit more nursing staff and we would like to get this problem sorted out.  We are looking at the pay structure and terms and conditions at this very moment.  It has got to change.  The demand for this unit is ongoing and will increase.

2.14.2 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

The Minister for Health and Social Services said that the hospital was safe.  Does the Assistant Minister consider the answer that Verita gave me that the position with locums has compromised and is compromising patient safety is one that can be continued?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

As I said in my reply to Deputy Lewis, locums are not ideal.  Many, many locums have worked in Jersey General Hospital for many years and keep the hospital going.  Due to our location and due to the economies of scale, we need them.  But of course it is much better to have a full-time on-Island doctor of middle grade to do this post and that is what we are trying to do.  As I have said to the Deputy, we will continue to do this.

2.14.3 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

Bearing in mind that we cannot train doctors or locums on-Island, what steps is the department taking to encourage the relevant staff to move to Jersey, bearing in mind the high housing and cost of living?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

At the moment, we are looking to include the introduction of a new grade and salary scale for staff grades and associated specialists, similar to the agreement currently being implemented in the U.K.  We have put a business case forward and it has been given high priority.  We know we need to do this, otherwise we will not recruit.  They will stay in the U.K. for the reasons that Deputy De Sousa has just stated.

2.14.4 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

While I appreciate that we are not part of Europe, would the 2 medical posts for this unit comply with the European Working Time Directive or would it require the 3, if the Assistant Minister could answer?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

I am not quite sure of that answer.  I am told under our conditions that the 2 grades would be sufficient.  Whether that would meet the European Working Time Directive I am not sure.  I will find out for the Deputy, but it would probably not as far as I know the hours that the consultant works.  I would say probably not.

2.14.5 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Has the Assistant Minister and the Ministry considered more Island-sharing, if that is possible, with Guernsey?  Secondly, given this never-ending issue that has now appeared about the shortage of consultants, is she aware that there is a different model applied there where, as I understand it, in certain specialities they have contracted with a U.K.-based organisation to provide certain consulting services and they are provided automatically with none of this will-we-or-will-we-not recruit a certain staff member?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

To the first part of the question, we are really consulting well with Guernsey at the moment.  To the second part, I do not know if the Deputy is inferring that we could - and this has been looked at - not have a permanent renal consultant on-Island but one - and it may not be the same one - that visits regularly to deal with the renal unit.  This is something that will also have to be considered.  This unit is growing.  We know at least 5 to 10 patients need to go on the dialysis in hospital in the next 12 months, so all these things are being considered.  I hope that is what the Deputy was asking.

2.14.6 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Does the Assistant Minister, and thereby her Minister, accept that the absence of a Working Time Directive agreement is causing serious problems with all grades in recruitment and retention?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Yes.  Obviously, we may be paying slightly more but if you then… as everybody now, including nurses are looking across the board at what it costs to live in Jersey, the hours that will need to be worked and the price of housing, obviously we are fishing in a much smaller pool and we really need to take all this into consideration.  That is what the hospital is doing, but it will not be done cheaply.  We really need to take this into consideration.  We have got a business plan and it is high on our priorities.  We will be looking at this.

2.14.7 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Could the Assistant Minister say in what timescale her department expects to do that consideration of adopting the European Working Time Directive so we can compete on a level playing field with the U.K. and others?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

I wish I could inform the Deputy of what timescale.  As the Minister has said, we will be having a new chief officer.  There is a lot to be done at the hospital and we know if we do not overcome this very soon it will be harder and harder to recruit.  So, I hope it is as short as possible that we can get to the level playing field the Deputy requires, and so does the Minister.

2.14.8 The Deputy of St. John:

The Assistant Minister mentioned the small pool in which to get her staffing numbers up from.  Will she give this House an assurance that within that small pool the staff are sufficiently qualified to the highest standard when choosing their staff and, if need be, they will go out to a larger pool?  If it does mean that we have to pay more, then so be it.  We need the best medical treatment for our people that money can afford.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

I totally agree and on meeting with the consultant 2 weeks ago, he has been going out and he is very, very conscious of the necessity for very highly skilled people.  They are not there.  They are not there to meet his requirements and if they are there they are getting better offers elsewhere.  But to the Deputy’s answer, no, we will not compromise the specialist we need.  If we had have done, we would have recruited to this post many years ago.

2.14.9 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

The Assistant Minister took me a little by surprise there, stating we have just decided to increase the nursing staff.  I just wonder why it needs questions in this House to get things moving.  In 2007, Health and Social Services encouraged the purchase of 5 machines by the Kidney Patients Association on the promise that H.S.S. (Health and Social Services) would employ adequate nursing staff.  The number of nursing staff has not increased since 2003.  This situation is wholly unacceptable.  Does the Minister not agree?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Maybe I used the wrong word.  I should have said recently reprioritised resources, and there are a few more nurses because the conditions on the ward were that the nurses were working too many shifts.  The Deputy says that the nurses are ... sorry.  I am told, and I have spoken to the consultant, the nurses there at the moment are sufficient for the present demand.  It will need to be increased in the future and if the Deputy tells me it has not increased since 2003 with the amount of people that are being on dialysis, I am very surprised and I will look into this.

[11:15]

2.15 Senator B.E. Shenton of H.M. Attorney General regarding the total cost of providing legal advice to the Planning and Environment Department in 2009:

What was the total cost of providing legal advice to the Planning and Environment Department in 2009 based on average private sector charge-out rates?

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

I regret that I am not in a position to answer the question in these terms.  The question asks about a whole range of legal advice provided to the department in question, which will encompass a range of legal advisory work and possibly court cases.  As departments are not charged for the legal advice and services provided by the Law Officers’ Department we do not have in place a mechanism for valuing in financial terms the entirety of the services provided.  I could not for 2009, for example, give a complete answer in terms of time spent and, therefore, any answer about that component of the total cost assessment would be inaccurate.  We do not keep records of the hourly charge-out rates in the private sector.  To answer the question as asked would require us to ask firms of varying sizes in the private sector about the range of charges that they apply.  It may be misleading to use the average of such figures to quantify a total cost as private sector charge-out rates vary depending upon the qualification and seniority of the individual carrying out the work and the type of work carried out.  I regret accordingly I cannot answer the question in those terms.

2.15.1 Senator B.E. Shenton:

Can the Attorney General confirm that because no charge-out cost records are kept there is no way that the P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) will know the true cost of any department and especially a department that is heavily involved in litigation?

The Attorney General:

I am afraid I am not sure what sources of information are available to P.A.C.  All I can do is to repeat the answer to the question that I have given.  We are able to give indicative numbers of hours spent in respect of work on various departments.  There are scales of charges for recoverable costs reported by the Judicial Greffe and kept by the Judicial Greffe.  There are means, I think, in which assessments can be made, but in terms of the answer to the question that is put, I cannot give an answer to it.

2.16 The Deputy of St. Mary of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the level of bed stock below which the tourism industry would not be viable:

Will the Minister advise the Assembly if his department has calculated a level of bed stock below which the tourism industry would not be viable and, if so, will he advise how near we are to that situation and whether there is a commitment to avoid this situation arising, particularly with respect to threats to air and sea links?

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

While accepting the concerns of the Deputy of St. Mary, there is not and never can be a defined size for a minimum level of bed stock in Jersey.  The 11,071 available beds on Jersey are almost entirely owned by the private sector, who operate their businesses according to market forces.  Our role as government is twofold in that we stimulate demand by helping to promote the destination and have a responsibility to ensure through regulation that minimum standards are met.  Air and sea services are also offered by the private sector, and they also operate their businesses according to market forces.  We have seen the development of new routes and additional capacity already this year and I look forward to more good news stories like these in the months ahead.

2.16.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

The Minister has in the same breath said that basically government has no role because it is all down to private enterprise, and then he says government has a role in stimulating demand.  Can the Minister say whether he accepts the concept that if we go below a certain level of beds the air route starts to flake away and we are in serious trouble?  Is there a floor - F-L-O-O-R - to his thinking?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

At some point I am sure there is a floor, but I think we need to concentrate on the fact that there has been significant investment in bed stock in the Island in recent years.  There has been a drive towards improved facilities which is attracting visitors to the Island who are spending more.  The productivity of the sector has been improving, and that is a good thing.  But I do accept and I understand the concerns raised by the Deputy.  It is impossible to give an absolute figure to him, which is what I think he is seeking.

2.16.2 The Deputy of St. John:

I am a bit concerned with the comments passed by the Minister given that in the 1990s we had something in the region of 24,000-plus beds in this Island and now he is telling us we have just on 11,000.  That said, our air routes support our other industries, in particular the finance industry.  Given the Minister’s play earlier this morning on pushing other industries within the Island, how is he going to keep our air routes if we are in a diminishing market of tourism?  I need to know from the Minister what he is doing to make sure that we keep our air routes, not opening the odd one that is only here for 6 months but that is here 12 months of the year for the next 5 years.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

The Deputy raises a very valid point.  We have worked extremely hard in recent years to develop air routes.  I think it is fair to say that for a jurisdiction of the size of Jersey we have an exceptional network of routes, both to the U.K. and also into Europe.  We have invested heavily with relationships and, in fact, the Deputy asked the question earlier on about the Jersey Enterprise awards.  We were entertaining 3 airlines at the Jersey Enterprise awards.  It is part of the development process.  We continue to invest in these relationships and we continue to invest in developing air routes.  Bed stock is important.  There has been a drive towards quality.  That is a good thing and we will continue to work on it.  I understand his concern.

2.16.3 The Deputy of St. John:

I noted the Minister’s comment on the Enterprise awards, but that £1,375 that they spent on tickets might have been better spent in sitting around a boardroom table with those particular people, not having a jolly up at the Fort.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

It is clear that the Deputy does not understand the difference between business development and having a jolly.  There was no case of having a jolly at the Enterprise Awards.  We build relationships with key business partners.  The airlines fall into that category.  I have to say in recent years that has developed significantly.  We now know in advance when an airline is considering pulling or reducing a route.  That did not happen in the past.  The reason we know is because we have invested at the airport with the right personnel to develop the right relationships.  We do all we can to maintain the routes we have and build on it, and it has been very successful in recent years.  It is a harder environment now but we are continuing to work on it.

2.16.4 Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement:

As so many of our medium-priced hotels seem to be turning into flats, what are we going to do to try and protect the medium-priced market?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, the Deputy is right.  Certainly, in terms of bed stocks there have been a lot of medium size… in fact there has been a lot of hotels in all categories, to be fair.  But equally, what we have seen is an investment of others who have improved the quality of what they have to offer, and that again is very important.  We needed to improve the quality of bed stock in all categories, not just 5-star and 4-star where there has been significant investment.  There has also been investment further down in the 3-star and in other areas, and that is very important to get a good cross-section and attract as wide a variety of potential visitors to the Island as we can.

2.16.5 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

Will the Minister not strive to target the budget for tourism more accurately bearing in mind that Havre des Pas holds the seaside festival and looking at the number of hotels that have closed there in the last couple of years?  Will he strive to supply the House with the figures of the beds from 2000 to date?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I am not entirely sure what the Deputy was asking.  Is she asking for how the bed stock has changed between 2000 to date?  Yes, I am more than happy to supply her with those figures.

2.16.6 Deputy G.P. Southern:

The Minister talks about investing in air routes.  Can he state whether he is still subsidising airlines to come to the Island, as was previous practice, to the tune of millions of pounds or not?  Has that practice ceased?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

No, that practice has not ceased, although subsidy is not a word that I choose to use in this regard.  It is a very heavily and carefully calculated economic model that is used to assess the value of introducing and supporting airlines who bring people who spend money in hotels, restaurants and within the economy generally in the Island.  We have to get a return on the investment and I believe it has been a successful strategy to date.  If the right propositions come forward, we will continue to do so.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

A supplementary, if I may?

The Deputy Bailiff:

If it is a supplementary on subsidising airlines, that is not related to the subject matter of the question.  It is very peripheral indeed.  Deputy Le Claire.

2.16.7 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Given that the Minister has said he has far more foresight now from these events, is he able to tell us how many hotels are due to be going and how many are coming in.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I think the foresight the Deputy was referring to was the development of work with the airlines, but equally we work closely with all businesses in the economy to try and get a better sense of where the stresses and strains are so that we can deliver the best support that we can possibly can contained within the difficult budgetary situation that we find ourselves in.  Yes, we are usually made aware when hotels are considering closure for whatever reason; we do what we can to support but we are confined by the budget that we have.

2.16.8 The Deputy of St. Mary:

The Minister has slid-off the question to emphasise the drive to quality and it is an indication of confidence in the industry, I agree, that people are prepared to invest at the top end of the market but he has evaded the question of quantity.  In fact he has ducked it and I just want him to answer once again the question.  The question was, does he recognise that in order to prove commitment to the industry he has to accept the notion that if we do go below a certain level the whole shebang is at risk?  He does not seem to grasp that and I wonder why.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I said to the Deputy that I grasped the concept of what he was saying.  What I also said to him was he was seeking an exact figure and I said I could not give him an exact figure because that is not possible to do so.  As far as commitment is concerned, I do not believe there is any lack of commitment, in fact in 2009 as the global financial crisis unfolded we managed to invest an extra £800,000 into supporting the tourism sector.  That was the right decision, it was a good decision and it was together with the industry themselves in the form of the Jersey Hospitality Association.  I welcome that.

2.16.9 The Deputy of St. Mary:

With respect, I did not ask for the exact figure, I asked whether his department has calculated the level of bed stock below which it would be unwise to go.  I did not ask for the figure, that might be confidential, I asked whether his department has calculated that figure.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I thought I had clearly said that it was not possible to calculate an exact figure.

2.17 Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding 1(1)(k) tax status:

Would the Minister clarify under which aspect of Jersey’s tax legislation individuals were deemed able to be legally granted 1(1)(k) status and thus negotiation their own tax contributions with the Comptroller of Income Tax prior to 2005, and advise whether 1(1)(k) status also means individual tax rates cannot be increased by government in line with the changing economic climate.

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

I should start by reminding the Deputy that 1(1)(k) status is granted by the Minister for Housing and previously the Housing Committee and not by Income Tax or the Minister for Treasury and Resources.  It is not a matter specifically of tax legislation and neither the current Comptroller of Tax nor his predecessors ever had the authority to grant 1(1)(k) status.  The States have, of course, the ability to vary tax and 1(1)(k) arrangements too in the annual budget.  I have said in my last year’s budget statement that I am reviewing 1(1)(k) arrangements by conducting a review which I will do ahead of the budget.  I must say that £13.5 million is currently collected from 1(1)(k)s - the 123 of them - and I would point out to the Deputy that they could go to other places which would tax them less; places like Switzerland.  They significantly contribute to our Island and the prosperity and my review will aim to enhance that contribution further.

2.17.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

A supplementary.  I am not sure if the Minister answered the second part of the question, could they be altered, increased, upgraded?  Possibly I missed it, he was speaking very quickly.  In 2008 we had 78 1(1)(k) residents paying less than the £100,000, 32 paying less than £20,000.  Particularly if we cannot renegotiate, does the Minister agree that this simply cannot be viewed as consistent with our stated government aim of creating a more equal society when ordinary people are facing possible increases in taxation and even G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax).

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I think I did answer the question.  The States does have the ability to vary tax rates and I am looking at the issue of the arrangements prior to 2005 and looking at those whole arrangements of which he is quite correct in saying that there are some 1(1)(k)s that pay less.  But there are others that pay ... I do not know the individual information, of course, but there are others that pay very substantially more than those figures.  The 1(1)(k) policy which my predecessor brought to the Assembly in 2005 has been a success in driving significant new revenue into the States coffers which pays for vital public services.

[11:30]

2.17.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

The Minister reminded us that 1(1)(k) residents could up-sticks and leave, does the Minister concede that not so very long ago Mr. Colin Powell, the former Economic Adviser, pointed out that there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that 1(1)(k) residents would leave if their tax was increased?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I would be very hesitant to take the former Chief Adviser’s comments out of context.  I think it is absolutely clear that if tax rates were raised for a variety of mobile individuals, they could leave in theory.

2.17.3 Deputy S. Pitman:

With the regard to the principles of equality in the Strategic Plan, during the last Imagine Jersey I was informed by a Treasury officer that 1(1)(k) residents come to the Government and they negotiate what tax they are paying.  Would the Minister finally concede that is, indeed, what happens?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

That is not what happens subsequently under the new arrangements that my predecessor brought to the Assembly in 2005.  There is a clear statutory basis on which 1(1)(k)s are issued and they pay tax according to that structured rate of taxes.  I would also remind the Deputy - because I do think there is a genuine misunderstanding in relation to this - that local sourced income is of course taxed in the same way that every other individual and resident of Jersey is taxed.

2.17.4 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Does the Minister not accept that the U.K. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have accepted that the 50 per cent rate imposed in the U.K. has produced no mass exodus of wealthy individuals from the U.K. and is there not a parallel with Jersey?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Deputy Southern and I occasionally agree on matters but we disagree on others.  I think it is far too early to say whether or not the 50 per cent rate of tax will have an exodus of high value and high income earning in the U.K.  Certainly I have no proposals or any thought in my mind for a 50 per cent rate of tax and hope he does not either.

2.17.5 Deputy I.J. Gorst:

While I welcome this review, I wonder if the Minister could confirm whether he, as part of this review, will be looking at control of international assets because these 2 issues are wound up intimately together, tax paid in a jurisdiction and control of assets elsewhere.  I wonder if it will extend to consider that.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am happy to do so but it has already probably been covered in the review itself.

2.17.6 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I appreciate the Minister cannot do it now but would he be willing to forward to me to confirm or otherwise that we have a small number of 1(1)(k) paying less than £10,000 in tax?  Could he forward that to me?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I do not need to forward anything to the Deputy because I have answered the written question 2 or 3 weeks ago in relation to the triaging of contributions of various 1(1)(k)s.  The Comptroller is concerned, as I am, in relation to identifying individuals.  There are a small number of 1(1)(k)s and I think that I have gone as far as I am willing to go in terms of segregating those 1(1)(k)s and giving the data which this Assembly needs in order to make 1(1)(k) tax policy.  I am reviewing this matter.  I understand the concern of Members and I will keep Members informed as I carry out the review on 1(1)(k)s ahead of the budget later on this year.

2.18 Deputy D.J. De Sousa of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the buy-out of Kleinwort Benson:

Can the Minister inform Members what steps, if any, are being taken by the Economic Development Department in addressing the buy-out of Kleinwort Benson in view of the fact that Jersey prides itself on only allowing the top 500 banks into the Island?

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

The Economic Development Department will not be taking any direct steps in relation to the proposed buy-out of Kleinwort Benson.  The determination of the application for new ownership of this business, if and when received, will be made by the Jersey Financial Services Commission.  However, I am able to reassure Members that the Commission is applying its usual rigor in this case in considering the matter against Jersey’s long established and well publicised criteria for bank licensing.  I am therefore confident that Jersey’s high standards in this area, which stood us in good stead during last year’s financial and banking crisis will not be compromised or diluted.

2.18.1 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

Bearing in mind it has already been intimated that the owners of this bank now are not in the top 500, what steps are being taken to address this?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I think I have said all I can.  This is a matter for the Jersey Financial Services Commission.  They are at the present time considering this particular matter and I am sure in due course an announcement will be made.

2.18.2 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Kleinwort Benson employ a significant number of highly educated and well-trained staff.  Now if they are not given a licence those people may face the risk of losing their jobs.  Is the Minister doing anything to talk to this group of highly needed people?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

At this stage an application, as I understand it, has not come forward but the Deputy is right, Kleinwort Benson does employ over 200, in fact in the banking aspect of the business I believe there are about 40 or so who are employed.  So the numbers are less but nevertheless important.  I am sure that the business themselves will be working in an appropriate fashion to deal with this matter as and when it comes forward and we will, of course, offer whatever support we can.  I am sure my colleague, the Minister for Social Security, would do the same.

2.18.3 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Just to clarify a point made by the Minister, he mentioned that he is waiting for the Financial Services Commission to make a decision on this.  As the policy, the top 500 policy, is States policy and obviously the policy of the department, is he not involved in discussion on possible modifications of that in this particular case?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, indeed it was a guideline from the States but, nevertheless, we have the Jersey Financial Services Commission, they are independent and I do not think that it would be right to have a dog and bark yourself.  They are a perfectly professional organisation and they are considering this matter with the set criteria that is laid down.  I have every confidence in the Jersey Financial Services Commission.

2.18.4 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

Bearing in mind the answer the Minister has just given, will he endeavour to let the House know as soon as possible what is happening with this licence?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I am sure that the announcement, when made, will be public and so of course Members will be kept in touch with that information when it comes out.

2.19 The Deputy of St. John of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding delays in connecting homes at La providence on the Beaumont/Sandybrook site to a mains pumping station:

Given that many homes at La Providence on the Beaumont/Sandybrook site have now been sold, could Members be told why there has been a delay in connecting this site to the main pumping station and when this work will be completed?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel (Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment - rapporteur):

The Transport and Technical Services Department advises that a private foul sewage pumping station has been constructed at the site following consultations with the developer.  The sewage is pumped in a southerly direction from there along a rising main to the 27 inch public gravity foul sewer adjacent to the sea wall.  Connection to the public sewer was made with the agreement of the Transport and Technical Services Department and it came into operation in June 2009.  It is my understanding that any delays in making this connection were due to protracted discussions over the cost of acquiring drainage rights over public land.

2.19.1 The Deputy of St. John:

I am pleased to hear that the connection has now been made.  Could we be told of the actual cost to the Island of the delay?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I am told that there is no delay but if indeed that is still the Deputy of St. John’s submission then I will endeavour to find a cost to be attributed to this deficiency.

The Deputy of St. John:

Given that my information tells me there was a considerable delay in this pumping station being put into the operation, hence with the cost of building and labour costs, there would be a cost and I would be delighted if the Assistant Minister could provide me with those figures in due course.

2.20 Deputy S. Pitman of the Minister for Economic Development regarding funding allocated to the tourism industry as part of the Economic Stimulus Package:

Would the Minister inform Members whether any funding has been allocated to the tourism industry as part of the Economic Stimulus Package and, if so, how much and what specific projects?

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

To date no direct stimulus funding has been allocated to the tourism industry.  However, from Jersey Enterprise stimulus funding the Jersey Hospitality Association, in conjunction with Careers Jersey, has a service level agreement to train local unemployed young people with the intention of providing employment opportunities for them within the local hospitality and tourism sector.  A further pilot project designed to increase the conversion of inquiries into bookings using a combination of hospitality sector sales training and testing of a call centre solution to make outbound telephone contacts to recent advertising respondents is currently also being developed.  In total, these projects have a value of £50,000.

2.20.1 Deputy S. Pitman:

Could the Minister tell us if he knows how many applicants there have been from the industry for money from this package?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I am not sure of the question.  Is the Deputy asking how many companies have applied for stimulus funding or was she referring ...

The Deputy Bailiff:

I understood that to be the question.

Deputy S. Pitman:

I am asking how many applicants from the tourism industry have applied for money from the economic stimulus package?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I am not aware of the exact numbers.  I am aware, though, that representatives from the tourism industry did have meetings, for example, with the F.P.P. (Fiscal Policy Panel) and others to discuss ways in which stimulus funding could be applicable to tourism.  In many cases the advice was that the type of funding being sought was not applicable.

2.20.2 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

In respect of the example outlined by the Minister, does he consider ... as I understand it, 65 businesses have been involved and as a result so far 18 trainees who have gone through the programme have been offered a job.  I think it has been going on over 6 months.  Does he consider that that number of positions offered is acceptable?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I think it is a wonderful initiative.  I think we would like to see more people taking it up.  Clearly this has to be a drive.  There are young unemployed people in the Island, the young are those that have been most impacted by the current economic downturn.  I would like to see more of them having an opportunity to get into tourism, to take advantage of this particular training and reduce the number of people that we need to import into the Island.  I think it is a good thing and I welcome it.

The Deputy Bailiff:

We now come to the end of the 2 hours allocated for question time, oral questions with notice and we now come on to questions to Ministers without notice.  The first period is for the Minister for Treasury and Resources.  Deputy Le Claire.

3. Questions to Ministers without Notice - The Minister for Treasury and Resources

3.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Can the Minister tell us if the Chief Treasury Officer is out of his position and whether or not the Chief Officer of the States is carrying out any of his duties and functions?

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

I am not prepared to discuss personnel issues in relation to individuals in this Assembly and Members should neither take anything in that answer to be contrary or negative.  I am not prepared to discuss personnel issues before the Assembly.

3.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

In his reply to written question 5185 the Minister states that: “Evidence suggests that there is an ongoing deficit.”  Is that deficit not caused effectively by reduced growth and does he not accept that as soon as growth kicks in again the deficit will be reduced?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

No, I am afraid the Deputy is wrong and I would ask him to review the documents already in the public domain in relation to the Business Plan and Budget where there is a structural deficit which is expected on the latest information that we have from income which is going to be recurring.  That is a function of the fact that States spending has risen above that of which the income ... States spending has risen by 30 per cent over the last 5 years, 6.7 per cent in 2009, a further 6 per cent in 2010 and that level of expenditure is not caught up with by income and therefore we have a problem, and a structural deficit.

[11:45]

3.3 The Deputy of St. John:

I notice the response given to Deputy Le Claire from the Minister.  Could the Minister inform the House whether or not a seconded member of some other Treasury Department from off-Island has been moved into the Treasury in Jersey to help run the department at this moment and, if so, for what period of time that person is seconded to the Island for?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I do not wish in any way to be disrespectful to Deputy Le Claire or the Deputy of St. John or Members in relation to not discussing personnel issues.  Members will understand that that is not appropriate.  What I can say to the Deputy of St. John, which is a separate question, is that I announced last year that there would be a Treasury restructuring plan going forward in order to strengthen the financial management, something which the Comptroller and Auditor General, the P.A.C. and many other people have been calling for and I have been acting upon.  I can say to the Deputy that an interim finance director has been recruited and who will be in post in order to carry out the Treasury restructuring at a number of levels, and departmental finance officer restructuring.  That individual has been in post for 3 weeks and is in the process of going through the Finance Department in order to strengthen arrangements.  That individual is also going to be, for a while certainly, discharging some of the functions of the Treasurer of the States.

3.4 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

Can the Minister for Treasury and Resources please inform the House how many new civil servant positions have been created in the past 12-18 months?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I come to the Assembly pretty well briefed but I am not sure I have that number.  But I am happy to provide that number to the Deputy after questions are over and I have researched it.

3.5 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

Could the Minister advise in respect of tendering exercises, tendering for the supply, service and management of print equipment, I understand, has been ongoing for over 2 years?  Does the Minister consider that an appropriate length of time and does he believe it has been dealt with fairly and transparently and in accordance with good practice guidelines?  How much has it cost to date in terms of staff, although I appreciate he probably would not have that with him, but if we could have it in respect of staff, advisers, et cetera to get where we are today and what savings could be envisaged were the original costs known?  If not, how could they decide on a saving?  Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Deputy, there are an awful lot of questions there to the Minister and I wonder whether some of them would not better be the subject of a written question?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am always happy to answer the good Deputy’s questions in detail.  I also answer emails to Members about detailed matters and I am happy to answer questions.  I think what I will say briefly on this issue is the issue of procurement is one of the number of very big transformations that we are working on at the Treasury in order to save money.  Procurement is being targeted as an area where, in my view, there are millions of pounds worth of efficiencies and better buying across the whole organisation.  Treasury has an important role to help departments in that.  I am probably a little frustrated that the progress I think everybody would have wanted to make on procurement has not been made but under the very good stewardship of the new Deputy Chief Executive within the Chief Minister’s Department, which Treasury share, there is a lot going on in procurement and millions of pounds are targeted to be saved.

3.6 Deputy S. Pitman:

Will the Minister be asking departments during the comprehensive spending review to inform the review as to what impact a 2 per cent cut will have on their service?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am being quite clear that the States has a problem and that Members, I hope, are going to join me in working in order to find a solution to the problem.  I would remind the Deputy that the 2 per cent cut which is being targeted next year needs to be in the context of very significant increases in spending in recent years.  At the workshops planned on Friday and Monday that is the process where I want to engage with Members about how we are going to trim budgets but I am determined to deliver £50 million worth of savings off the bottom line of the States within 2 or 3 years and if I do not succeed in that this Assembly is going to be asked to put higher taxes than otherwise will already be necessary in order to balance our books.

3.6.1 Deputy S. Pitman:

Supplementary.  Can the Minister answer the question: yes or no?  Will he be asking departments during the comprehensive spending review to inform the review as to what impact a 2 per cent cut will have on their services?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Yes.

3.7 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Earlier I may have strayed into a personnel issue, I was not seeking to stray into personnel issues but I am seeking to understand whether the Chief Officer of the States is discharging any of the functions of the Treasurer of the States.  Is this the case: yes or no?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

The arrangements within the Treasury are a matter for me and the Chief Officer of the overall States of Jersey.  I have said to Members that there are some issues which are being currently discharged by other individuals, not including the Treasurer of the States, and I am today considering a number of reorganisations in the light of the arrival of the interim finance director and know in the long term the Chief Officer of the States is not an accounting officer and could not be, in my view, Accounting Officer for Treasury and Resources.  But there are sometimes the requirement of interim arrangements when people are not within the office. 

3.7.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Supplementary, please.  Does that mean that the Chief Officer then is taking on some of the roles of the Treasury Officer and is that not wholly unacceptable?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I have not made any formal designations in relation to the Accounting Officer.  The Treasury Department and the Chief Minister’s Department have a very good and a very close working relationship and there are some times, for example, when the Chief Officer of the Chief Minister’s Department also assists the Treasury in running and supporting us in relation to comprehensive spending reviews and fiscal strategy reviews, and probably that is the area in which the Deputy is thinking that there may be a cross-over responsibility.  He is the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey.

3.8 Senator J.L. Perchard:

Will the Treasury and Resources Minister advise the Assembly of the latest forecast structural deficit for 2011 and 2012?  Will he reassure the Assembly that his fellow Ministers are united in their determination to share the responsibility for these deficits?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

The published expected deficits for 2011 and 2012 as set out in the Business Plan were £68 million and £49 million.  What I have been doing with Ministerial colleagues since the budget last year is also testing those numbers in terms of the requirement of some additional spending which we know is required.  I believe that the States should, for example, have an annual contingency available so that every time there is - and there always will be - some unforeseen expenditure I do not have to come to the Assembly with an Article 118 request in order to ask that.  There should be contingencies within departments and so there is a greater deficit required in terms of some areas.  There are other areas such as court and case costs which I am factoring-in, so the actual budget deficit that I am looking at in terms of 2011 and 2012 is greater than those figures but if the Senator attends the briefing I am holding on Friday he will have those figures in more detail.

3.8.1 Senator J.L. Perchard:

I did ask the Minister - and I thank him for the first part of his answer - will he confirm that his fellow Ministers are determined to share the responsibility for these deficits?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I apologise to the Senator for not answering that.  I have no doubt that every Minister cares about public finances and balances the books.  Ministers have a job of defending their territory and securing their budgets but I am pleased to report that there is a collaborative approach with all Ministers but there are some difficult discussions to be had with individual Ministers about how we cut the cake in terms of future spending and how we bring that to the Assembly in subsequent months.

3.9 Deputy G.P. Southern:

The Minister is committed to consulting with all levels of the public sector in his comprehensive spending review: is he aware that in the Education Department head teachers - managers - are being consulted but people at the chalkface are not being consulted of these issues?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

There is going to be a great deal of consultation about the comprehensive spending review.  In our unique system of government you need to consult, engage, discuss, debate with all levels of States Members, employees throughout the public sector.  The comprehensive spending review has just started and is going to be running for a number of months.  What I would say to the Deputy is that I hope that nobody is going to start concluding results of the comprehensive spending review at any level before decisions are made.  The research has been carried out, that research is going to run for a number of months and I am going to be engaged with Members and the whole of the public sector, and indeed the public, about what they want in terms of public spending.  Decisions will be made in the Business Plan.

3.10 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Will the Minister for Treasury and Resources tell us when he is going to be bringing the amendment to the Public Finance (Jersey) Law to this House?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am in discussions with the Treasury about changes to the Public Finances (Jersey) Law.  I would hope that changes to the Public Finances (Jersey) Law will come within a number of months, although I cannot give the Senator today a definitive answer to that.  There will be changes and proposals made for changing the Public Finances (Jersey) Law and that is at the heart of the Treasury restructuring which I referred to some moments ago.

3.10.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Supplementary.  Will he be incorporating the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Certainly those are part of the consideration of changes to the Public Finances (Jersey) Law of which I welcome the observations of the Comptroller and Auditor General which have been very helpful.

3.11 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Does the Minister not accept that massive cuts, such as 10 per cent budget cuts, cannot be made to services which are staff heavy like Health and Social Services without cuts in services and cuts in jobs?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

It is inevitable that having increased public expenditure by 30 per cent, 6 per cent in 2009, more than 6 per cent in 2010, increasing the public sector spend and increasing the number of people in work and then reversing some of those increases by a 10 per cent cut will mean that there is going to be some service reductions and there are going to be some reorganisations and that will have an impact on manpower.  I am not going to duck that issue, I need to find a solution for balancing the books and I hope the Deputy will support me in that requirement to avoid tax increases.

3.11.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

If I may, a supplementary.  Does the Minister also not accept that such redundancies will inevitably make the recession worse, not better?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

No, I do not accept that.  The proposals this year, when we are in the recession, are to increase very substantially public spending, not only with the spending I have mentioned but also, of course, with the £44 million fiscal stimulus funding.  The contraction in spending will, I hope, coincide with the recovery of which my colleague, the Minister for Economic Development, and all Ministers are doing everything they can in order to do it.  We do need to constrain public spending but we will do so when growth returns to the economy.

The Deputy Bailiff:

That brings an end to the first period of questions without notice.  The second question period is for the Chief Minister.

4. Questions to Ministers without Notice - The Chief Minister

4.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

The Chief Minister has stated on numerous occasions in the past that he believes in inclusive government.  I was going to say that he also believes in transparency but I think I am probably mistaken on that point.  However, does the Chief Minister agree with the Economic Development Department’s use of blanket confidentiality agreements to all the information it gives to the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel and in particular I am talking about the depositor compensation scheme as the first example, and last Friday on our sub-panel review on Harbours and Airports where they want the entire contents of the file to be kept confidential.  The precise question is does he believe this is the way that we have open and transparent government?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

I believe that open and transparent government has to work both ways and where confidential agreements are being given to a scrutiny panel or any third party it should be given under terms that panel respects that confidentiality.  If the parties are prepared to abide by full confidentiality then it should be full openness.

4.1.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

A supplementary, if I may.  The document concerned is the entire file, not particular documents.  We have rejected it and sent it back to the department and said we wish to know the specific documents.  We have also referred it to P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) because we believe it is an obstruction of Scrutiny and it is trying to prevent proper accountability.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is there a question there?

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Does he feel that entire files should be confidential?  We accept some items can be and we are quite prepared to work within that but entire files?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I have no idea of the precise situation involved but it may well be that there are difficulties in trying to extract information from a detailed file and it could be better achieved in a better way.  I would point out to the Deputy and to Members that if any Scrutiny Panel has concerns about the lack of information being provided by any Minister or any department there is a right of report to myself as Chief Minister built into the code of conduct which I am happy to abide by.

[12:00]

4.2 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Last September, rather than accept my proposal, the Chief Minister was able to persuade the States to appoint one of his own internal experts to review the suspension of the hospital gynaecologist.  The review was supposed to be carried out within 4 to 6 weeks.  Could the Minister explain why 6 months later the report has not been produced to the States and how much has that review cost to date?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I share the Deputy’s disappointment that that review has not been as forthcoming as quickly as I would like.  I did inquire as late as a couple of hours ago of the current position but I was hoping it would come to the States Employment Board next week.  I am advised there are still a few matters of legal detail to check-up in respect of the content of the report and it may not come to S.E.B. (States Employment Board) next week but it will come certainly within the following month.  As to the costs to date, it is still within budget.

4.3 Deputy D.J. Sousa:

Can the Chief Minister inform the House how many new civil servant positions have been created by his department in the past 12-18 months?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Off hand immediately the answer is no, but I would remind the Deputy that States manpower numbers are published twice a year, every 6 months in fact, giving details of every department’s movements in terms of both temporary and permanent part-time and full-time staff.  I refer the Deputy to those documents.

4.4 Deputy S. Pitman:

On 23rd February the Chief Minister informed the Assembly that he had implemented an internal investigation into recent allegations raised about actions of the States Chief Executive Officer.  Will he clarify for the Assembly whether that investigation was carried out by one of the C.E.O.’s (Chief Executive Officer) subordinate employees and, if so, does the Chief Minister contend that such an investigation can have any creditability?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I am not sure if the Deputy is talking about the original review, which was carried out by an officer in the States Personnel Department some 18 months ago or if she is talking about the review now to be carried out into procedure as agreed by the States when it debated Projet 9 last month.  If it is the latter, that will be carried out by an external person who has been selected and is in the process of being appointed.

4.5 Deputy G.P. Southern:

The Chief Minister in his answer to question 5183 on estimated costs to States revenues produced by redundancies suggests that there is a gain of £719 over a 6-month period for supplementation not being paid.  Is it not a fact that those made redundant now have their whole contribution made credited to the Social Security fund and this is therefore a cost?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

In the answer, which I tried to give as truthfully as I could, I was talking about the immediate financial implications of any such payments; credits which may be given in respect of Social Security contributions are not cash payments as such.  They will have a possible effect on the overall state of the Social Security fund but I took it the Deputy’s question related primarily to States expenditure.

4.5.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Is the Minister stating that those credits are not real money and that there is an impact on the Social Security fund thereby?  Surely that is likely to damage the state of the Social Security fund.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

That is a question probably better asked of the Minister for Social Security but I do confirm that if we are talking about credits here, which are not actual cash payments at that time, it may affect the overall balances of funds and that will be a far longer-term issue than one of the immediate cash differences.

4.6 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Can the Chief Minister please explain why the Council of Ministers agenda is circulated so narrowly to certain Members in the States and the media and why it is continuing to be mainly made up of a Part B agenda?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The agenda for the Council of Ministers is publicly available to any interested party.  It is broken up into 2 parts and only the Part A agenda details are published, although there is generally an indication of what might be included in Part B.  Items under Part B are there because they are simply in the course of development in most cases or come under other reasons within the code of confidentiality.  But there is a standing arrangement at every Council of Ministers meeting, at the end of that meeting any B agenda items which can be transferred to the A agenda are so transferred.

4.7 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

Referring back to the question asked by the Deputy of St. Martin, does the Chief Minister believe that the review takes into account whether the surgeon was blocked or prevented from keeping his surgical skills updated?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The review which is being carried out under my aegis refers to the procedures carried out by the Health Department rather than the medical activities.  It is in that respect that the person will be reporting.

4.8 Deputy G.P. Southern:

In his document R.22/2010 referring to Public Employees’ Contributory Retirement Scheme actuarial valuation the Minister in point 3 says: “Proposals for dealing with a deficiency need to be agreed between the C.O.M. (Committee of Management) and the States Employment Board before being submitted to the States.”  Then in paragraph 4 he says: “Negotiations between the States Employment Board and the Public Employee’s Pension Joint Negotiating Group have so far been unsuccessful.”  Can the Minister clarify where agreement needs to be made before increases in the pensions are reduced, which is what he is proposing?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The matter is governed by Regulation.  Where the actuary, at the end of a review of the scheme, sees that there is a deficit which is not of a temporary nature but an ongoing deficit, there is an obligation on the scheme to rectify that deficit.  The deficit can be varied in a number of ways and the options for the best way to remedy it is left in the hands of those who are members of that scheme, in other words the employees.  That is done with the joint negotiating group of the Public Employees’ Scheme in conjunction with their Committee of Management.  Should that body fail within the stipulated period to come up with a solution, then the matter reverts to the States where the States have an automatic fall-back position of reducing benefits payable in the future.  So it is only if no agreement is made by the employees concerned within this relevant period that the States would get involved directly in setting the amended benefits for the future.

4.8.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Supplementary?  Can the Minister inform Members what exactly is the problem producing a stalemate after 6 months of negotiation?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No, I cannot.  It is simply that the employees have not yet come to a satisfactory conclusion among themselves.

4.9 The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey:

In the contracts between the Government, the States and the community does the Chief Minister agree that there is a fine line between necessary confidentiality and unhelpful secrecy?  In this time of recession where people are so quick to want someone to blame, will he do all he can to make sure as much information as possible is placed in the public domain so as to increase community confidence in this House.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Yes, absolutely.  I am perfectly willing and anxious that the public should be properly informed and fully informed.  But one does, as the Dean rightly says, have to balance that against certain cases where there are confidentiality agreements which have to be respected.  In balancing that respect with the obligation also to be helpful and transparent wherever possible that I will, wherever I can, err on the side of transparency.

4.10 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I was asking a very similar question to the Dean but I will put it anyway.  We have been told that comprehensive spending review will include a review of the terms and conditions of employment of States employees.  Will the Chief Minister consider in the review a review of the proliferation of confidentiality agreements to exceptionally well paid senior officers which are unsatisfactory in an open and transparent society and certainly not conducive to public confidence in the States?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Yes, there are 6 major reviews being carried in the context of the comprehensive spending review and each of those major reviews is intended to be totally broad-ranging covering every aspect of terms and conditions of employment.  So I imagine that, along with a variety of other matters, will be addressed and if it was felt that there are better arrangements to be made by varying those terms and conditions of employment then I am sure that they will be proposed and no doubt, if approved by the States, implemented.

4.11 Deputy G.P. Southern:

On the same theme, given that terms and conditions are to be brought to the States for implementation will the Chief Minister guarantee to Members that proposed changes in terms and conditions will be agreed with representatives of employees first and not imposed as the pay freeze was?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

One of the conditions of the latest pay offer to States employees of 2 per cent for this year and 2 per cent for next year - which as I said I believe is a very favourable offer in the current conditions - is one that they should participate fully in a review of those terms and conditions of employment.  So I hope that they will indeed do so and we will take into account their comments.

4.11.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Is it not the case, does the Chief Minister not accept, that the mechanism is that any changes in terms and conditions will be brought to the States and not necessarily negotiated with the representatives?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Detailed terms and conditions are normally a matter between the employer and the employee directly and not a matter for political discussion because it is this House who set policy for wages and employment conditions.  Those policies will be discussed by the States, precise details will generally be a matter between the employer and the employee concerned.

4.12 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Could I ask the Chief Minister, did the Council of Ministers discuss P.9 - the suspension of the Chief Police Officer - before lodging its comments and, if so, when were the discussions held and will the Chief Minister make the minutes available to all States Members?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I have already responded to the Deputy who previously questioned that by email but for the sake of other Members, the matter was discussed by the Council of Ministers, it was part of the B agenda items, it was not considered appropriate to transfer that one to the A agenda and so it remains a B agenda item.  It was discussed last month before the debate was held on projet 9.

PUBLIC BUSINESS

5. Compulsory Wearing of Cycle Helmets (P.4/2010)

The Deputy Bailiff:

We now come to the end of the Chief Minister’s question time.  There are no statements under J, no statements under K and so we come on to matters of public business.  The first is P.4 - Compulsory wearing of cycle helmets - in the name of Deputy Green and I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to request the Minister for Transport and Technical Services to bring forward legislation to ensure that cyclists are required to wear a suitable safety helmet while cycling in the case of (a) persons aged under the age of 18 years; and (b) persons aged 18 years and over.

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

Before I start I would just like to clear up one point.  The Greffier advised that I ask you publicly whether the Deputy of St. Mary has a pecuniary interest in this debate given the employment that he declares on the Members’ interests.  I ask this not because I do not wish to debate the matter with the Deputy of St. Mary but it has been said to me by a number of different people and I want to clear it up once and for all so that we can get on with the business.

The Deputy Bailiff:

The Register of Interest says precisely what?

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

The Register of Interest says for the Deputy of St. Mary: “Self-employment, et cetera, section 2, D.W. Consulting mainly guided cycle tours very occasionally, occasionally one-off projects, nothing else.  Nothing on at present.”

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Could I clarify this, Sir?  It was mentioned to me also by the Chairman of P.P.C. that I should clear this up before the debate.  I sold the Jersey Cycle Tours business some years ago, so that is not relevant in case anyone was thinking that it might be, and in connection with D.W. Consulting I have not done anything about it for 2 years and I am in the process of closing down the accounts.  As it says, I think Deputy Green quoted it correctly: “Have not done anything recently” or something.  It is to all intents and purposes moribund because I am too busy in here.

[12:15]

The Deputy Bailiff:

Standing Order 106, I shall just read it: “A Member of the States who has or whose spousal co-habitee has an interest in the subject matter of a proposition must, if it is a direct financial interest, declare the interest and withdraw from the Chamber for the duration of the debate and any vote on the proposition.  If it is not a direct financial interest but a financial interest which is general and direct or shared with a large class of persons declare the interest.”  The Standing Orders therefore distinguish between direct and indirect financial interests.  In my judgment, the interests of the Deputy of St. Mary to the extent it exists, and that is a matter which he says is in some ways in doubt at the moment, but if it exists it is an indirect financial interest and it is right that he should declare it and he is not obliged to withdraw.  Now, do you wish to propose the proposition?

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

In preparing for today’s debate I was struck by the awesome responsibility that we all have as Members of this Assembly.  Some of the issues we may debate may appear trivial and of little relevance to the lives of our citizens, others are in a different category, they are about - literally - life or death.  They are about preventing long-time, lifelong disability and all that means for individuals and their families.  Somewhere on this beautiful Island today there may be a citizen, it may be a young child, it may be one of our children, one of our grandchildren who will at some point fall from their bike.  If we take the right decision at the end of this debate the outcome is likely they will be shaken but not hurt.  If we take the wrong decision the results could be disastrous.  We do have an awesome responsibility.  We have the power to save people’s lives.  I have been a passionate proponent of protective headgear for cyclists since my son had a massive brain injury as a result of a minor head injury in a cycling accident when he was aged 9.  Nothing can change that but we can help to reduce the risks for others and avoid years of emotional and financial costs for other individuals, their families and their supporters.  What I will do today is to set out why I think this measure, to wear a helmet while cycling in public places - and I stress cycling in public places - is sensible, morally correct, good governance and entirely supportable.  When I refer to public places I mean roads, cycle tracks, parks and the like, I do not mean people’s back gardens or private land.  In many respects this proposal mirrors the motorcycle helmet law.  I do not intend - I am sure the Assembly will be pleased to hear - to submit them to complicated statistical analysis today but I do want to make Members aware of the expert opinion on this issue.  I want to make Members aware of the legislation throughout the world and I want us to consider the cost to the Jersey taxpayer of traumatic brain injury as well as the consequences to those that are injured and their families.  Finally, having set out the case for legislation I will turn my attention to some of the myths that have been put about by those who have a different view.  Members should note that this proposition is an enabling one and Members will have the chance, if accepted, to review the detail when the draft law comes before the Assembly at a later date.  In that respect, if successfully accepted I will work to ensure that this will not become an anti-cycling legislation, I will work to ensure that it will not seek to criminalise cyclists and I will work to ensure that it will not make excessive demands on the scarce resources of our police.  I was thinking when I was preparing my speech that many of us, indeed many members of the public, regularly carry a laptop from one place to another and I would wager when doing so we take great care not to damage it, to protect it, many of us using protective cases, et cetera.  But you can replace your laptop for £400, possibly less; why therefore would you not take the same care with your own central processing unit?  This is your brain, your irreparable, irreplaceable brain for which there are no spare parts.  It is so easy to injury your brain.  Almost 12 months ago the actress Natasha Richardson died when she slipped over on the ski slope and banged her head.  She was not even skiing, she was walking down the nursery slope, her feet fell from under her, she banged her head and the doctor said then that a helmet would have saved her life.  What are we waiting for?  Are we waiting for another death?  Are we waiting for another severely disabled child and, in fact, despite decreasing numbers of children cycling ... we had that answer from the Minister for Health and Social Services, question 8 showing clearly that the number of children cycling is decreasing year on year, decreasing.  Despite that the number of children having accidents on their bikes and attending hospital is increasing.  It was 105 in 2008 and in 2009 174 children attended Jersey’s General Hospital Accident and Emergency, 51 of these with some level of brain injury; 51 with some level of brain injury at the same time as the number of children cycling is decreasing.

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Would the speaker give way?

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

No, I am not giving way.  I am not giving way.  Many, if not all, of these brain injuries would have been avoided if the person had been wearing a helmet.  Sometimes what initially appears to be a relatively minor injury may result later in long-term disability.  There are many cases of unemployment, breakdown in relationships, homelessness and social isolation following traumatic brain injury.  It is a fact that cycling, as I said before, among children in Jersey is declining year on year.  If Members wish to increase cycling, wish to get children cycling then support this proposition.  Support the hundreds of parents, and I mean hundreds of parents, that have contacted me who want their children to cycle but will not allow them to do so because they cannot be sure that the child who leaves home with a helmet will continue to wear a helmet.  I was hoping that the Minister for T.T.S. would as part of the draft Sustainable Transport Strategy at least bring forth a discussion on the wearing of protective headgear, helmets to you and me.  However, I understand that we will be hearing from the Minister later on this issue and there is much to commend that draft strategy, including the desire to increase cycle use and walking, for the first time putting cycle power and human power before the internal combustion engine.  The strategy talks of safer routes to school and getting more children to walk and cycle.  I commend the Minister for the work that has been done on this strategy.  What is missing though is the need to provide a safer environment, to provide protection, protection for the brain, the most delicate organ in our body.  This is not a situation where we must have safer routes or safety helmets, it is a situation where we must have both.  So, what do the experts say about cycle helmets.  Our own A. and E. (Accident and Emergency) consultants who deal with the avoidable injury sustained by cycles say we should introduce legislation.  The British Medical Association, having reviewed all the available evidence say we should introduce legislation.  Our former Chief Ambulance Officer, who has attended the scene of so many cycling accidents, says that we should introduce legislation.  The neurologist at Southampton who treats people from Jersey who sustain serious head injuries at the Wessex Neurological Centre says we should introduce legislation.  The Chief Executive of Jersey’s Family Healthcare Nursing says we should introduce legislation.  The Association of Paediatric Emergency Medicine says legislation should be introduced.  I could go on but I think I have made the point.  So should we disregard this expert opinion from professional people who have spent their working lives dealing with brain injury or should we listen instead to the likes of the anti-helmet warriors?  Who are these people who oppose such commonsense measures?  They are a small group of fanatics who always oppose helmet laws.  They have set up an obscure organisation based in Anglesey in North Wales with the grand title of the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation.  This is a group of self-appointed, self-styled experts who oppose the introduction of legislation in the face of overwhelming evidence and expert opinion.  The foundation is not a registered charity and has only 2 directors.  You could describe it as an organisation of 2 men and a dog but I am reliably informed that the dog tenders his apologies regularly.  My grandmother would have said, in a slightly cleaned-up version: “They are all fur coat and no underwear.”  [Laughter]  I invite the Members to examine item 1 in the additional information they have just been given.  This shows the accounts filed with the Companies House that lists the assets of the company as a website valued at £20.  That is the size of this professional organisation that is opposing so strongly the legislation that we want to bring in to protect our society.  It is not clear to me how the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation is funded or what their motivation is.  Despite being small in number, they are well-organised and make a great deal of noise and, as I say, they have a website to promote their minority view.  Their most recent recruit seems to be the Deputy of St. Mary who repeatedly circulated their propaganda to States Members and all Members of the Assembly.  They are the modern day equivalent of the Flat Earth Society [Laughter] and the sort of people that would try to convince you that the moon was cheese.  The tactics of these people remind me of the tobacco industry.  Despite the overwhelming evidence, they seek to create doubt.  They are willing to rubbish the work of respected academics to further their cause.  Who would you trust with the safety of your brain, the safety of your children and the safety of your grandchildren?  The anti-helmet warriors or the real experts?  Cycle helmet legislation has been approved in many countries around the world.  New Zealand, most of Australia, parts of Canada; they all require cyclists to wear helmets.  In Sweden and other parts of Canada and 21 states in the U.S.A. (United States of America) together with Washington DC require only children to wear helmets.  Closer to home, moves are under way where the chairman of the All Party Road Safety Committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Pat Ramsey M.L.A. (Member of the Legislative Assembly), will be introducing similar initiatives after Easter.  The question I ask Members to ask themselves is is the safety of Jersey cyclists less important than in New Zealand or than in Australia?  Do not the children of Jersey deserve the same protection as the children of New Jersey?  My proposition has provided colleagues with published scientific research which demonstrates the effectiveness of cycle helmets and the impact of cycle helmet legislation and I would like to draw particular attention to the study published by Thomas et al in the Cochrane Review.  This study demonstrates that, by wearing a cycle helmet, you can reduce the risk of brain injury by up to 88 per cent.  For those of you that are not familiar with Cochrane, let me explain.  Cochrane reviews combine the world’s best symptomatic research studies and are recognised as being the gold standard for evidence-based healthcare. 

[12:30]

They are the gold standard.  That is one of the key issues considered by the British Medical Association.  The dreaded words: “I will return back to that later.”  Now let me move on to the economic and social impact of traumatic injury caused by cycling.  As I explained in my report, a survey of brain injury survivors completed by the University of Exeter in conjunction with Headway, the Brain Injury Association, showed that returning to work after sustaining a brain injury is uncommon.  Sixty-four per cent of respondents stated that they were unemployed and only 21 per cent in paid employment.  In addition, 78 per cent of adults reported a breakdown in one or more relationships since their injury mainly losing friends and partners.  Many, many accident victims never regain the quality of life they were enjoying before the accident and as many of these survivors have a normal life expectancy, the financial burden to Health and Social Services as well as Social Security continues to grow year on year.  This is not theory.  This is not speculation.  This is fact.  I know.  I live with the problem every day.  How I wish I could turn that clock back 22 years and put a helmet on my son’s head.  My son and others like him will never work, never live independently, never contribute to taxation and will need the support of the States once we can no longer continue to provide that 24/7 care and support that he needs.  Regretfully, that will be sooner rather than later and, in his case, the State will be providing the funding of that care and that was a totally preventable situation.  Many of those opposing my proposition say they feel sorry for me.  I do not want their sympathy.  I want this Assembly to prevent other families going through what my family and similar families have been through.  In my report, I have given examples of real cases that illustrate the enormous economic cost of traumatic brain injury to the state running into many, many millions of pounds over the lifetime of a brain injury survivor.  However, the emotional cost to the individual and their families is incalculable.  I would like now to deal with some of the myths put about by those who take a different view.  Myth number one; mandatory wearing of helmets leads to a fall in the number of people cycling, a deterioration in public health and an increase in the costs of health care.  This is one of the arguments put forward by the Deputy of St. Mary.  This was in fact the view of the B.M.A. (British Medical Association) until 2004 when, following a review of the evidence by the Scientific Committee, they reached the conclusion that the interests of public health were best served by making it compulsory to wear helmets.  If you do not believe me, visit their website.  Let me read parts of the letter sent to me from Professor Vivienne Nathanson of the B.M.A.: “Dear Deputy Green. [This is a letter dated 3rd March this year] I am writing to support your recent proposition to bring forward legislation to ensure that cyclists are required to wear suitable helmets while cycling.  The B.M.A., as part of its policy to improve cycling, supports the compulsive wearing of cycle helmets when cycling for children and adults.”  I will not read the whole letter.  If Members would like a copy, I will forward them one later: “There is extensive literature that reviews the case for and against the wearing of cycle helmets.  Best evidence supports the use of cycle helmets.  They have shown to reduce the risk of head injury and its severity should it occur.  This does not apply to the most serious crashes which may well be fatal.  You may be interested to know that the B.M.A.’s position on cycle helmets is shared by the following organisations: the Royal College of Surgeons in London, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Care, the Royal College of Nursing and Headway, the Brain Injury Association and, in addition, cycle helmets are now compulsory in all cases in the U.K.  The International Cycle Union introduced this on 5th May 2003.  I wish you well with your proposal and should you need any further information from us, please do not hesitate to contact me.”  As I say, that was Professor Vivienne Nathanson of the B.M.A.  Myth number 2; making cycle helmets compulsory has not worked in Australia.  Well, when the Deputy of St. Mary wanted to find out about the impact of cycle helmet legislation in Western Australia, he asked a bloke from Anglesey in North Wales.  In contrast, I contacted the Minister of Transport in Western Australia, the Honourable Simon O’Brien.  In his response, which is item 3 in the additional information, the Minister makes some crucial points including: “The balance of the more reputable research studies indicate support for the wearing of cycle helmets when riding.”  The Honourable Simon O’Brien relies on the research which I quoted in my original report to this Assembly by Thompson and Rivera quoting: “Bicycle safety helmets are highly effective at preventing head injury particularly in children.”  While, initially, there was a decline in the cycling trend in Australia, the trends have reverted to normal levels within a few years and it appears that the majority of Western Australians are not dissuaded from cycling by the requirement to wear a helmet.  A report from the Australian Federal Government provides overwhelming evidence of support of helmets for preventing head injury and avoiding fatal injury.  If anyone would like a copy of that report, it is about 40 pages long and I can forward it to you.  The study quoted in my original report shows that following the introduction of law in the State of Victoria, the number of cyclists killed or admitted with head injuries fell by 37 to 51 per cent.  If that is failure of legislation, then I am a monkey’s uncle.  Myth number 3; cycle helmets are not effective.  Another argument put forward by the Deputy of St. Mary.  The comments from the Minister for Transport and Technical Services make it clear that the department here believes that helmets are effective.  The Department of Transport in the U.K. conducted an independent critique of the evidence of the effectiveness of cycle helmets and came to the same conclusion.  That is that bicycle helmets have been found to be effective at reducing the incident and severity of brain injury and upper facial injury for users of all ages but particularly children and, if that is not enough, recently they published a report the Potential for Cycle Helmets to Prevent Injury report PPR446 carried out by the Independent Transport Research Laboratory for the Department of Transport in England.  Yes, for the Department of Transport in England and they concluded that cycle helmets would be expected to be effective in a range of conditions particularly the most common of accidents that do not involve the collision with another vehicle.  They are often simple falls or tumbles over the handlebars.  Yet, in his amendment, the Deputy of St. Mary suggested that the report says the evidence for helmet effectiveness is weak.  What a lot of balderdash.  He implied that I had misled the Assembly on this matter.  I invite Members to look at this item 2 in the additional information.  I invite you to decide what the conclusions are at section 7 of this report.  Page 38 is in that additional information.  It is a 100-page report including the appendices, so I have just put the conclusions in there but if Members would like a copy, I can forward it to them.  What does it say?  It says: “Helmets should be effective at reducing the risk of head injury.”  It does not say: “Helmet effectiveness is weak.”  It says: “Helmets should be effective at reducing the risk of head injury.”  It says: “Ten to 16 per cent of fatalities could be prevented by cycle helmets.”  It says: “Cycle helmets would be particularly effective for children.”  It says: “No evidence was found for the increased risk of rotational head injury.”  It is a fact that over 80 per cent of cycle accidents in Jersey do not involve another vehicle.  Over 80 per cent do not involve another vehicle.  They will be simple falls or tumbles over the handlebars.  Myth number 4; wearing a helmet encourages cyclists to take more risks.  There is not a shred of evidence to support or to substantiate this absurd claim.  If anything, the evidence shows helmeted cyclists take fewer risks.  This is an interesting one.  Myth number 5; motorists are less careful when passing a cyclist wearing a helmet.  What utter nonsense.  I ask Members do you drive closer when you see someone wearing a helmet on a bike?  Perhaps you had better not answer that.  It might incriminate you.  Of course you do not.  This is really interesting.  This idea comes from a study undertaken by researchers who rode a bicycle wearing, alternatively on each trip, either a helmet or a female wig in experiments to see how much clearance they were given by passing traffic.  Is it any wonder if you saw a man riding on a bike with a female wig, would you not give him wider clearance?  [Laughter]  Well, what does this prove?  What does this bit of research really prove?  It proves that some researchers have more research money than commonsense.  Incidentally, you might be interested to hear that the author of this daft report was knocked off his bike twice during the research.  [Laughter]  Myth number 6; helmet laws are an example of the Nanny State and constitute unnecessary Government interference.  Well, I am old enough - and I have got it right this time - to remember the introduction of the motorbike helmet law.  All the arguments why that should not have been introduced have been trotted out yet again and, indeed, we heard all the arguments in the safety belt debate front and rear and, in retrospect, be honest, would you go back?  Would you change it now?  Would you withdraw this?  Look at the benefits that have accrued in terms of saving human life and prevention of disfigurement, the reductions to the cost to the Health Service and in the incalculable emotional costs that was and has been and continues to be prevented.  If you were honest, you would not say you had got it wrong.  Of course you would not.  In conclusion - and Members will be pleased that I am getting there - it is a fact that the number of children cycling in Jersey is reducing year on year.  It is a fact that over 80 per cent of cycle accidents in Jersey do not involve another vehicle.  It is a fact that 174 children attended A. and E. following cycle accidents in 2009 with 51 of them with some form of brain injury.  It is a fact that cycle helmets prevent brain injury or at least reduce the severity in very serious cases.  By approving (a) and (b) in the proposition, the Assembly has the opportunity to save lives and prevent lifelong disability.  In addition, we can save the taxpayers of Jersey enormous and unnecessary expenditure on injuries which are, in the main, preventable.  Jersey is in a unique position today.  We could lead the way in preventing brain injury.  Some Members - and I do not agree with this - may feel that adults are able to properly assess the risks and to make up their own mind about wearing a cycle helmet.  While, as I said, I disagree with this viewpoint, I can understand their thinking.  If they cannot support part (b), then at least do the right thing and give the children of Jersey the same protection as the children of New Jersey and protect the young cyclists by supporting part (a).  This Assembly was the first in the British Isles to ban bull bars and the first to ban the use of mobile phones while driving.  Let us lead the way again and protect our community, particularly our children, by agreeing to the compulsory wearing of cycle helmets.  I make the proposition.  [Approbation]