The Department administers an island-wide Reading Screening programme, which has been in place for four years. This screening provides schools and Professional Partners with detailed information which supports and challenges their in-school assessments

Literacy is also a major focus with the post 16 students at Highlands College. These young people are given the opportunity to study courses that are designed to develop literacy skills that are directly relevant to the work place and adult life.

1.4 THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING CELL PHONES AT H.M.P. LA MOYE:

Question

The response to my written question of 16th November 2010 regarding computers at the prison is silent as to where the funding for internet facilities came from, would the Minister supply details and also advise how many mobile phones or sim cards have been confiscated from prisoners over the last 3 years?”

Answer

The only people who have direct access to the internet at the prison are the education staff. This costs £18.53 per month and this is met from the Prison’s budget allocation.

In September 2007, the Prison Governor at the time and the Head of Learning and Skills made contact with the UK company that has developed the Prison Network, following research into the use of information technology to support learning through a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). The VLE is a software system which is designed to support teaching and learning. It provides a collection of tools for assessment, communication, up loading of content, return of learners’ work, administration of learner group, tracking tools and accessing multi-media functions.

The cost of purchasing and installing the screen and built in computer, together with keypad, a mouse and a biometric reader, in every normal cell to enable prisoners to access the Prison Network was approximately £125,000. This money has been charged to the following cost centre: DL6001. 562010, which relates to equipment purchase.

There was insufficient money in this particular cost centre to fund the project, so, as I stated in my answer of the 16th November 2010, this was financed from underspends which were created from a reduction in the number of staff who were recruited and also a reduction in overtime payments. Those savings being transferred to the relevant cost centre.

The following table sets out the number of mobile ‘phones and sim cards confiscated from prisoners over the last 3 years:

	2008	2009	2010
Mobile ‘Phones	20	63	27
Sim Cards	6	13	10

1.5 SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING C.S.R. SAVINGS:

Question

Will the Minister outline his options and proposals to deliver the Education, Sport and Culture Department’s 10% CSR savings should the States decide in 2011 that the grants to fee-paying/private schools are not to be reduced by more than a total of 10% as required by the CSR savings?

Answer

Reducing the subsidy to fee-paying schools is one of a range of measures being explored as the department seeks to deliver the 10% savings target for the Comprehensive Spending Review. No area of ESC has been immune from this process. All parts of ESC budget have been analysed and savings have been identified that spread the burden of the cuts fairly and in a way that, although difficult, are achievable over time. All the proposals have been scrutinised and our conclusions supported by independent consultants Tribal and the Steering Group responsible for the Peer Review.

The ESC department has been working to identify savings for some time. It has already delivered efficiencies of nearly £4 million between 2003 and 2010. Over the past few years, the fee paying sector has not been required to deliver efficiency savings, unlike our States sector schools. As part of the Comprehensive Spending Review we have been asked to deliver further savings totalling £11 million by 2013. There has never been any requirement that the CSR savings should be limited to 10% in any one area.

The exact amount of saving to be achieved from the reduction in subsidy will be determined once the independent reviews currently under way have been completed. The proposal will be included in the 2012 Business Plan and Members have the opportunity to debate this when this document comes before the States next year.

The savings proposed for the period 2011 to 2013 are considered to be the most appropriate if front line services are to be maintained. If the expected savings cannot be achieved from the reduction in subsidy – or it is limited to 10% - the funds will have to be found from elsewhere within ESC and this means frontline services. Investigations have shown that many of the areas which have already delivered savings would be severely affected by a further reduction in funding and the services they provide would be compromised.

Areas identified and rejected were:-

Close both the Youth Service and Library provision.
Close sport centres and remove the majority of the funding for sport in the Island.
Discontinue all free nursery education provided through the nursery education fund and schools.

As Minister of Education Sport and Culture I am not prepared to see the erosion of a range of essential services nor do I believe that members would consider it to be acceptable. It is my firm belief that by working closely with the fee-paying schools, savings can be achieved and the overall educational opportunities improved, even though I accept that some increase in fees may be necessary.

1.6 SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE GREEN PAPER ON THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION:

Question

When was it first agreed that a Green Paper on the future of education should be produced, who is undertaking the work, what are their terms of reference and when does the Minister expect to publish the results?

Answer

It was agreed in 2009 that a Green Paper should be produced on the future of education. This document will be the outcome of a series of policy reviews commissioned early in 2009, shortly after my appointment as Minister for Education, Sport and Culture, and which are now either complete or nearing completion.

The work on the Green Paper is being carried out by my department, with support from external advisers as necessary. This important document will provide a strategic review of the entire education system that will look at all options.

The scope of the consultation will include the following:

- Vocational provision for 14-19 year olds

- Responding to the Skills agenda

- Special Needs

- Social Inclusion

- Funding of higher education

- Primary and secondary curriculum and the organisation of schools

- Secondary education—a review of options, including opportunities at sixth form level.

These issues are interrelated and the Green Paper will adopt a strategic approach aimed at setting the overall shape of Jersey’s education system for the future. This major consultation will be launched early next year allowing all stakeholders to actively participate in determining the future shape of education on the Island.

I hope as many as possible will contribute to the public consultation so that we can deliver an education system that meets the needs of all people, regardless of ability or background.

A White Paper will follow this to allow for further comment before a final decision is made by the States in 2012.

1.7 DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE PUBLICATION OF STATES RENTAL WAITING LISTS:

Question

Can the Minister provide Members with the current States waiting list and explain why there appears to be no continuous record of the lists published over the last 10 years on the States website?

Answer

The current waiting list figures as at the 31st October 2010 are:-

	1 bed need	2 bed need	3 bed need	4 bed need	5+ bed need	Total
Waiting List	128	197	79	4		408

1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
381	323	320	288	246	275	225	265	243	254	309

The makeup of the waiting list and the method in which the stats are recorded has changed over time.

Statistics have been recorded in this current format and detail level since 2004.

However, the Department does keep total waiting list figures dating back over 20 years. The previous 10 years waiting list figures are detailed below

The waiting list figures are reported on an annual basis within the States Annual Performance Report. The report for 2009 will, it is understood, be produced shortly. The waiting list data included shows the continuous annual waiting list figures since 2004.

The 2010 year end waiting list figures will similarly be reported in the 2010 Annual Performance Report which will be published in 2011.

1.8 DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PROGRESS MADE IN LINE WITH STRATEGIC PLAN AIMS:

Question

Will the Chief Minister be publishing progress against Strategic Plan initiatives again in January 2011 and, if not, why not?

Answer

Yes, my intention is to publish such a progress report by the end of January 2011.

1.9 DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE ROLE OF THE PRISON BOARD OF VISITORS:

Question

Will the Minister be bringing proposals to the Assembly in response to the Scrutiny Report on the Role of the Prison Board of Visitors presented to the Assembly on 18th August 2009 (SR7/2009), and if so, when?

Answer

The Scrutiny Report contained an inconsistency which has caused me some difficulty. It contained human rights related advice to the effect that it was not appropriate for Jurats to be members of the Prison Board of Visitors and yet contained a recommendation for a revised Board which was wide enough to include both Jurats and non-Jurats on the Board. Any change to the constitution of the Prison Board of Visitors will require an amendment to the Prison (Jersey) Law.

Before I can make a policy decision, I need to know if Jurats can remain on the Board. If they cannot, then an entirely new board will need to be set up. My preference is to retain the presence of Jurats on the Board if that is possible, because of the experience which they bring to the role, because of the weight which they carry as a group and because they function well together as a team. If Jurats can remain on the Board then I will need to decide as to whether it would be better to have a mixture of Jurats and non-Jurats working together on the Board.

Although I have several times been promised the advice which I need, it has not yet arrived and I am once again seeking to hasten its arrival.

I am now into the last year of my current term as Minister for Home Affairs and I am endeavouring to complete the major legislative projects of my Department within that timescale.

It is, therefore, unlikely that I will be bringing any Projets to the Assembly within my current 3 year term.

1.10 DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE SCHOOL BUS SERVICE:

Question

Will the Minister be proposing that the school bus service be more fully integrated with the scheduled service given the call for more public transport at peak times?

Answer

While some limited integration of services has already taken place, the review of bus networks I have instigated is expected to identify a number of areas in the island that will be better served by redeploying buses that currently operate school journeys only onto revised routes which cater for both pupils and commuters during the morning peak period. This will allow for the bus service to be better integrated with the scheduled service at peak times.

1.11 THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE CLONING OF VEHICLE NUMBER PLATES:

Question

Will the Minister advise whether he is aware that cloning of vehicle number plates is happening in Jersey, and, if so, is he able to provide members with details of the number of reported offences over the last 3 years; the number of prosecutions, if any; and the number of offences dealt with at Parish Hall level?

Where cloning has taken place and motoring/parking offences have been subsequently committed, is this recorded on the record sheet of the registered owner and, if so, what action is taken to clear the name of the legal owner once it is established that the offence was committed by a third party?

Answer

‘Cloning’ refers to the process by which one vehicle is made to look like another i.e. vehicle identity theft.

Criminals make a 'clone' of another car by replacing the number plates on their car with the registration plates of another similar vehicle.

The States of Jersey Police have no evidence of this type of offending in Jersey and there have been no prosecutions for cloning offences over the past 3 years.

The States of Jersey Police have recently investigated a matter which was referred to them. It was not a criminal cloning offence, as it would appear that an administrative error resulted in a car registration plate inadvertently being generated with one incorrect numeral, which matched the registration that was legitimately allocated to another type of vehicle. Action has been taken to resolve the matter.

Over the last 3 years the States of Jersey Police have dealt with 13 recorded cases of number plate offences. These have ranged from cases of an individual finding a number plate and placing it on a vehicle inappropriately to tractors towing trailers bearing different number plates. 5 of these offences were dealt with at Parish Hall Enquiry, 4 at the Magistrate’s Court and in 4 cases no further action was taken.

1.12 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE E.U. CODE OF CONDUCT GROUP:

Question

Will the Chief Minister inform members whether he has received the results of the EU Code of Conduct group investigation into the Island’s zero/ten tax regime, either directly or through the UK government, and if so, can he confirm whether zero/ten has failed the first three elements assessed under paragraph B of the EU Code on Business Taxation and will he make the results public, along with his response to the findings and if not, will he state when he expects to do so?

Answer

At this stage there is little or nothing more than I can add to the Press Release issued on the 23rd November. We have been informed that the Code Group at its meeting on the 19th November reached a consensus that our present business tax regime gives rise to harmful effects based on the view of the EU Commission that our deemed distribution provision was business not personal taxation, and was discriminatory, a view that we have contested. However we have also been informed that there has not been a formal assessment by the Code Group as yet and that there is a further process to go through before a final conclusion is reached. The Code Group apparently is to recommend that a EU Council High Level Working Group should be asked to review what is covered by business taxation.

The next step is for the Code Group to report on its activities to the Council of Finance Ministers (ECOFIN) and for the Council to consider that report at its meeting next month. We understand that the reference to our regime will be a short statement and that will be the only document on the public record. The views expressed to the Code Group by the Commission are confidential and would only be made public by them. If ECOFIN agree that the Council High Level Working Group should undertake the review recommended by the Code Group it is expected that the results of that review will be available for the Code Group to consider at its next meeting in February. Only then will it be possible to say for certain what action if any we need to take in respect of the deemed distribution provision or what the implications of that action might be.

1.13 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING HEATING SYSTEMS RECENTLY INSTALLED IN HOUSING ESTATES:

Question

Will the Minister provide evidence to substantiate his claims made at the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny public hearing on 10th November 2010, that the replacement of old centralised wet heating systems with new individual electric heating systems in several estates (Clos Gosset, Clos de Roncier, Oak Tree Gardens) has reduced heating bills for tenants?

Answer

The Department is part way through a major programme to replace fossil fuelled heating systems in many rental homes with new electric powered heating and hot water systems.

These systems bring a number of benefits for tenants, including:-

Improved reliability.
Individual control over previous district heating systems controlled by the Department.
Opportunities to benefit from energy saving. Clearly each tenant’s electricity bill will be dependant upon their individual energy consumption.
Greater stability in energy prices.
A single energy bill which is more transparent.

The programme of heating changes is being run alongside maintenance programmes to improve the homes. During the installation of the new heating the opportunity is being taken to increase loft insulation to a minimum of 300mm bringing each home up to current building regulation standards. Mains operated smoke detectors are also being replaced and the general electrical system inspected. At Clos De Roncier the new heating was installed along with external wall insulation and double glazed windows and at Le Petit Clos Gosset a programme of cavity wall insulation was carried out prior to replacing the heating systems. The aim always is to make each home as efficient as possible and therefore as cheap to heat as possible.

Quantifying the actual savings made needs to be carried out with care and is best done after a full year has elapsed after changeover and the tenant has had the opportunity to go through a full annual cycle of heating. It has been possible to do this for the homes at Clos de Roncier. When comparing the combined cost of domestic electricity consumption and heating oil charges per household for the 12 months prior to heating changeover against the cost of electricity supply only for the 12 months following heating changeover it is apparent that on average, tenants on that estate are making a saving of £467.13 a year in energy costs.

A system of monitoring consumption on a home by home basis has been in place throughout the heating changeover programme. This ensures that the JEC can identify tenants who appear to have higher consumption than anticipated. Where this has happened in a small number of instances the JEC have intervened to ensure that that tenants are using their systems correctly.

I have already said that one of the benefits for tenants in switching to the new systems is stability in energy prices. At the beginning of 2010 the JEC reduced their electricity prices by 5% and they have just announced that there will not be a price increase in 2011. That will directly benefit any tenant who has already switched and would otherwise be facing increases of 16% in the cost of gas and 18% in the cost of oil which have just been announced.

1.14 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE REFURBISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF STATES RENTAL HOUSING:

Question

Will the Minister inform members whether the CSR cuts to his budget have delayed the programme of refurbishment and maintenance of States rental housing estates and, if so, will he detail the extent of these delays?

Will he further inform members of the extent of the work required to bring Pomme d’Or Farm up to modern standards and state what delays, if any, have occurred with this project?

Will he state the extent to which his programme of work is dependant on the sale of housing stock and inform members what targets have been set and what sales have been achieved over the past 2 years, along with his targets for sales for 2012 and 2013?

Answer

The CSR cuts do not take effect until 2011 and so I can confirm with confidence that there has been no effect thus far on the Department’s maintenance budget or programme of refurbishment. In putting forward proposals for the CSR care has been taken not to include savings which impact upon maintenance services. The CSR has however resulted in the loss of £6m in capital funding allocation planned for 2012 and 2013.

As the Deputy has pointed out the majority of our extensive refurbishment programme is to be funded by asset sales. The current economic conditions and specifically the contraction in lending, particularly for first time buyer mortgages, has reduced opportunities for sales. Taken together the reduction in available capital and lack of sales has required that the refurbishment programme be reprioritised. This will result in delays to the refurbishment programme.

A refurbishment project at Pomme D’Or Farm is planned and will generally seek to improve the thermal qualities of the 86 homes on that estate, focussing on, new windows, roofs, insulation, mechanical ventilation and improvements to the common areas. It was hoped to commence that project at the end of this year. Funding constraints mean that undertaking this significant project in one phase is not possible and it will have to be phased around the availability of funding and balanced in priority with other planned projects.

The first phase of works, to repair the drainage network at Pomme D’Or Farm, is already underway and will be completed early in the New Year. The Department has looked at what elements of the work at Pomme D’Or Farm are affordable in 2011 and I am confident that we can deliver two of the most significant aspects of the improvements, specifically by upgrading insulation standards at roof level and replacing all of the windows in all of the homes. Other aspects of the scheme will, as I have said have to follow in time as and when funding allows.

Sales for last 2 years generated the following income.

	2009	2010
Cash Received	£5,288,650	£4,563,725
Deferred Payment Bond Value	£1,235,350	£406,275
Total	£6,524,000	£4,970,000

The total income received for the past 2 years, including bonds was £11,494,000

The States Annual Business Plan forecasts that the Department aims to meet the following sales targets for 2012 & 2013 in order to fund the programme

2012 Target	2013 Target
£14,000,000	£17,000,000

The Housing Department will receive £2.75m in Capital allocation in 2011. Given the £6m CSR cut I have already mentioned, the allocation in 2011 will be the last capital allocation that the Department will receive. Thereon in all refurbishment works will have to be funded by sales of assets or by borrowing.

It is important to recognise that the Department has had £13.6m in funding from the fiscal stimulus programme which has allowed the backlog maintenance programme to advance and provided the means for Phase 2 of the Le Squez regeneration scheme to get underway. Having said that, members should be aware that the £8.137m fiscal stimulus allocation for Le Squez is to be repaid in 2014, 15 & 16.

It is also important that we reflect on what has been achieved in our refurbishment programme since it was set in train in 2007. In 2007 we had an estimated £75m backlog (not including Le Squez & Le Marais). A new condition survey has just been completed and the data collected indicates that the maintenance backlog has reduced significantly to around £46m. That is significant progress during what has been a busy and challenging period and has seen the Department undertake a significant number of refurbishment projects as well as commencing the development of Salisbury Crescent which will be completed in May next year and will provide an additional 34 homes for tenants.

1.15 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING GROWTH IN NON-URGENT ATTENDANCES AT THE ACCIDENT AND EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT:

Question

Can the Minister provide evidence to support her statement at the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny hearing on 8th November 2010, that there has been significant growth in non-urgent attendances at the Hospital’s Accident and Emergency department, particularly in relation to the period from 2006 to 2009 following the introduction of Income Support and the removal of free GP attendances associated with HIE?

Answer

Information that would evidence the split between major and minor, often inappropriate, attendances - such as coughs and colds and those with ongoing longer term conditions - is not easily identified from the data currently collected. This will change in the latter half of next year following the introduction of the new patient information system. This will adopt the national triage assessment category that includes a code of ‘non-urgent’ for those patients whose condition is neither a true accident nor an emergency.

Each year there are almost 40,000 attendances to the Accident and Emergency (A&E) department. This has remained fairly constant since 2006 although activity within the GP Coop has seen an increase within the same period and it can be assumed that at least some of these patients would otherwise have attended the Accident and Emergency department.

An audit by the College of Emergency Medicine based on assessment at triage, found that 10-30% of patients across the UK were more suited to primary care access rather than to an Emergency Department. It is this data that leads us to conclude that Jersey has a problem of inappropriate attendances in A&E. For example latest information for Jersey and the Isle of Wight indicates that both islands have the same number of attendances (39,000) even though the population of the Isle of Wight is 50% bigger.

Moreover it is possible that Jersey will have a rate of inappropriate attendances as high, if not higher, than the UK because patients required to pay for a visit to their GP are currently given the incentive of free care at the local A&E department as has been noted anecdotally.

As significant growth in local inappropriate attendances is yet to be evidenced any link with the introduction of Income Support cannot be ascertained, as was confirmed at the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny hearing held on 8th November 2010.

1.16 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE IMPACT OF A 2 PER CENT INCREASE IN G.S.T:

Question

What research, if any, has the Minister undertaken into the impact of a 2% increase in GST on the economy, particularly on the retail and hospitality sectors? If none, what evidence does he have that removing some £30 million from the economy in this way will not be harmful?

Answer

Detailed analysis of all the main tax options open to us to address the deficits we face was undertaken and published as part of the Fiscal Strategy Review. All the evidence points to GST being the least damaging tax option, not least because it minimises the impact on the competitiveness of the economy and our key businesses, including those in retail and hospitality. This was confirmed by the FPP who said in their interim report published in September 2011 that:

“Care should be taken to ensure that as far as possible revenue raising measures do not harm the longer-term competitiveness of the economy. With this in mind the Panel notes the merits of a broad-based consumption tax.”

The fact that the increase in GST is not proposed to impact until 1 June next year means it will only take £15m (about 0.4% of GVA) out of the economy in 2011 and at a time when we will still run a £55m deficit. . The overall States fiscal position will therefore still be supportive of the economy during what the Minister is advised will be the early stages of recovery.

1.17 THE DEPUTY OF ST. PETER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE CASH BALANCES OF THE STRATEGIC RESERVE, STABILISATION AND CONSOLIDATION FUNDS:

Question

What are the total budgeted amounts for 2011, 2012 and 2013 in respect of the central reserves, departmental reserves (by individual departments) and any other contingency or provision included within the 2011, 2012 and 2013 expenditure figures?

What are the cash balances for the Consolidated Fund, Stabilisation Fund and any other fund (or cash equivalent) as at the 30th September 2010 and projected for 31st December 2010?”

What are the values of the Strategic Reserve and any other reserves as at 30th September 2010 and projected for 31st December 2010?

Answer

Central Reserves

The total budgeted amounts for central reserves and restructuring provision, as set out in Summary Table A in the Draft Budget 2011 (P157/2010), are as follows:

	2011 (approved)	2012	2013
	£’000	£’000	£’000
Provision for Restructuring	6,000	10,000	10,000
Provision for Central Reserves	8,862	13,000	17,000

All departments are encouraged to maintain their own departmental contingencies where possible. Should a department request funds from the central reserve, they will have to demonstrate that they have explored all reasonable means including reprioritisation of existing department funds and contingencies before a request for central funding is considered.

Cash Balances

Detailed in the table below are the cash and cash equivalent balances of the Consolidated Fund, Stabilisation Fund, Strategic Reserve, Social Security Reserve and Health Insurance Fund as at 30th September 2010. The cash balances for these funds as at 31st December 2010 have also been estimated in the table below.

	Cash Balances £ million
	30.09.2010	Forecast1 31/12/2010
Consolidated Fund2	175	200
Stabilisation Fund	114	46
Strategic Reserve	40	40
Social Security Reserve	213	213
Health Insurance Fund	43	43

Strategic and other Reserves

The total value of funds under investment in the States reserves as at 30th September 2010 and 31st December 2010 are detailed in the table below.

	Funds under Investment £ million
	30/09/2010	Forecast1 31/12/2010
Stabilisation Fund3	114	46
Strategic Reserve	574	574
Social Security Reserve	782	782
Health Insurance Fund	79	79

There are also a number of smaller funds with specific purposes; details of these can be found within the States of Jersey accounts.

1 These are estimates that are subject to change. No estimation of the impact of movements in the market value of these assets has been taken into account within the project values.

2 The Consolidated Fund cash balance includes funds that are allocated but as yet unspent (e.g. unspent capital projects and creditors). The Stats of Jersey 2010 Budget forecasts the unallocated balance in the Consolidated Fund to be £20 million as at 31st December 2010.

3 The States of Jersey 2011 Budget forecasts the Stabilisation Fund balance to be reduced by £114m over 2010 and 2011 to maintain an appropriate balance on the Consolidated Fund (Subject to States approval – see page 28 of P.157/2010). Forecasts draw down from the Stabilisation Fund are expected to exhaust the Fund by 2012.

1.18 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE TREND RATE FOR THE JERSEY ECONOMY:

Question

Will the Minister advise members what the trend rate of economic growth for the Jersey economy has been over the last ten years and detail how he expects the Jersey economy to perform over the next three years against this trend rate?

Answer

The average rate of growth in real terms GVA between 1999 and 2009 (growth in each year is shown in the table below as published by the Statistics Unit) was -0.5%. This is, however, an arbitrary figure which tells us very little, for a number of reasons:-

The period selected does not conform to an economic cycle and takes no account of the relative positions in the economic cycle of the start and end date.
GVA data in Jersey needs careful interpretation alongside other economic data because of the large swings that can come about due to one-off factors given the small scale of the economy and our role as an offshore centre.
The figure gives little indication of what might be achievable in future years, especially in the post-financial crisis world.

As pointed out in written answer 5827 by the Chief Minister, the “Council of Ministers’ assessment of the current state of the economy and estimates for economic growth between 2010 and 2012 are published in the Draft Budget Statement 2011 in Chapter 3: Economic Outlook.” They are: a further decline in GVA of about -2% in 2010, weak growth next year of 1% and further moderate growth in 2012 of 2%.

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

% change in real GVA

-3%

-4%

-1%

-3%

-6%

1.19 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING LOAN GUARANTEES:

Question

Will the Minister inform members of the total amount (in pounds sterling) and the number of loan guarantees and other financial assistance/guarantees provided to the local business community by the Economic Development Department over the last three years, breaking the information down to sector, type of assistance, amounts, duration of loans or loan guarantees and (without naming the individuals and businesses concerned), of the number of such guarantees distributed to particular individuals and businesses?

Answer

The Economic Development Department introduced the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme in March 2007. The Scheme guarantees loans made available from a high street banks, it does not provide the loan. Eligibility to the Scheme is on the strict basis that all other sources of security have been fully utilised, and without the support of the Scheme the business proposal would not proceed.

Since its introduction 7 loan guarantees have been provided with an initial total loan value of £890,000. Repayment on the loans has reduced this amount to £750,000 (30/9/10 position.) of which 75% remains guaranteed. The loan repayment periods range from between 2 and 10 years.

Two Guarantees have been provided to the retail sector, two within the hair and beauty industry, and two within the health/care sector and one provided to a technology business.

1.20 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE MOVEMENT OF DEPOSITS IN JERSEY TO LONDON:

Question

Will the Minister provide members with the figures (as supplied by the Jersey Financial Services Commission to the International Monetary Fund) relating to the level of upstreaming of deposits in sterling and foreign currency from banks resident in Jersey to their offices in London and to the money markets in London on a monthly basis from January 2007 to the present day?

Answer

The following table shows in diagrammatic for the data held by the JFSC in respect to the Deputies question.

Table 1 as supplied by the JFSC on 24 November 2010.

The offshore banking model, which garners deposits in a finance centre that generates far more funds than can usefully be used in the local economy, and feeds, or up-streams- the majority of these into its parent banking group, typically for use onshore - has been the subject of recent review by the UK authorities.

This review was in conjunction with the UK's FSA developing more stringent rules on liquidity management, which might have led to up-streamed deposits from offshore subsidiaries losing their usefulness. However, the announcement detailed below has appeared on the FSA's website recently, which would appear to reflect a reversal of its previous approach and, therefore, a reduced threat to the Jersey banking model.

18 November 2010 - Enhanced liquidity regime

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) published its enhanced liquidity regime in October 2009 which introduced both tougher qualitative and quantitative standards for firms. At that stage the FSA took the decision not to tighten quantitative standards.

Since then, the Basel Committee has moved further towards introducing minimum global liquidity requirements that would be implemented through EU law. The FSA will consider how best to calibrate the UK regime once these international proposals have been finalised.

Given this development, the FSA does not believe it is appropriate to set industry-wide transition requirements for the UK's larger banks at this stage, although they should expect to at least meet any new international standards by the currently proposed implementation date of 1 January 2015.

1.21 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER for treasury and resources REGARDING ECONOMIC DATA:

Question

Does the Minister propose bringing in any additional economic data gathering measures such as the level of lending by banks and other finance providers within the Island (breaking the data down in mortgage lending, hire purchase, loans to small and medium enterprises and so on) and, if so, what data sets are under consideration and when will they be introduced and, if not, why not?

Does the Minister consider up to date and comprehensive data important for policy formation and measuring the state of the Jersey economy?

Answer

There are no plans to collect additional economic data at this point, although this will remain under review. The Minister takes the advice of the Head Statistician and the States Economic Adviser as to what economic data it is practical, affordable and useful for the States of Jersey to compile. For example, the recent introduction of the Business Tendency Survey and the Retail Sales Inquiry and the expansion of the Survey of Financial Institutions have taken place because these initiatives will provide additional economic data that is frequent, informative and deliverable within existing resources.

In addition to compiling such economic data, the States of Jersey Statistics Unit gathers household-level information through the Household Income and Spending Survey and the Jersey Annual Social Survey. These surveys, and the upcoming 2011 Jersey Census, also constitute extremely rich sources of information for future planning and policy development purposes.

Of course the Minister considers up to date and comprehensive data important. However, it is also important to recognise that as a small island economy there are limits on the quantity and frequency of data that it is both practical and cost effective to produce.

Information on registered borrowing is available through the Royal Court.

1.22 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTIES BEQUEATHED TO THE ISLAND BY MR. H.E. LE SEELLEUR:

Question

Will the Minister provide to members a list of all the property left by Mr. H.E. Le Seelleur ‘for the island’ (in broad terms) and with respect to each property, could he inform members –

(a) what is the wording of the bequest that describes what the property is to be used for?

(b) what has happened to each property? (has it been sold, leased, rented or otherwise in use?)

(c) if sold, rented or leased in a way which in itself does not benefit the beneficiaries in accordance with the terms of the Will, who administers the revenue, how is that administration organised, and who benefits from the revenue in each case?

(d) if it is being used in a way which in itself does benefit the beneficiaries, on what basis is this being done?

(e) what discussions, if any, have been held with the executors of the Will?

Answer

Under a will dated 28th December 1988, Mr Le Seelleur, who died on 22nd October 1996, devised the reversionary interest in two properties to the States of Jersey and bequeathed the remainder of his immovable estate to the States of Jersey. In the will, it states that “the said States of Jersey shall consult my said executors of my movable estate upon the use of my properties with a particular view towards the use of such properties for the benefit of aged, infirm and needy residents of the Island”.

The nine properties bequeathed were

Beau Sejour, Mont Millais (BLI)

Stonecot, Mont Millais (BLI)

Le Seelleur Oxford Road Workshop (SSI)

Le Boulevard Flats, La Rocque

1-4 The Denes, Grève d’Azette

Sous L’Eglise, St Peter (BLI)

Claremont, Bagatelle Road

9 Chevalier Road (BLI)

La Pouclee Lodge

In accepting this bequest, the States agreed (P.71/97) that the administration and all benefits received from the properties should be vested in the Health and Social Services Committee for the benefit of aged, infirm and needy residents of the Island.

Responsibility for the estate was transferred to the Health and Social Services Committee by the States in June 1997. All funds administered by Health and Social Services have a designated fund manager and authorised signatory. The fund manager decides the most appropriate use of funds in accordance with the donor’s wishes. This use will include revenue maintenance and running costs of the assets i.e. the buildings. Dependant on the amount, expenditure must be approved by either the fund manager, the Chief Executive Officer or the Minister. The Executrix of the Will is consulted regarding the day to day estate management of the portfolio.

The current status of the Le Seelleur properties is as follows.

Beau Sejour – is let to a third party as a residential unit.

Stonecot – is let to a third party as a residential unit.

Le Seelleur Oxford Road Workshop comprises workshops dating back to 1845 (with later alterations); last used by Mr H E Le Seelleur for his construction business. In May 2003, a proposition to sell “Le Seelleur Oxford Road Workshop” for £365,000 was rejected by the States.

Le Boulevard Flats comprises six residential units which are let to third party tenants

1-4 The Denes comprises four residential units which are let to third party tenants

Sous L’Eglise. Due to its location adjacent to the airport runway and within the flight path this was judged to be a potential danger to air traffic. The property was sold to Jersey Airport for £900,000 (including compensation for loss of rental income) in 2009, with the proceeds going into the “Harold Le Seelleur Trust”. The building itself, as opposed to the land, was sold. It was carefully dismantled and is to be reconstructed on another site by the new owners.

Claremont comprises two residential units which are let to third party tenants.

9 Chevalier Road comprises one residential unit which is let to a third party tenant.

La Pouclee Lodge comprises two residential units which are let to third party tenants.

A number of the current tenants are those that held the same tenancies when the properties were originally gifted to the public.

1.23 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING VOLUNTARY REDUNDANCIES:

Question

Following his answer to written question No. 5825 on 16th November 2010, in order to understand the rationale for these voluntary redundancy requests being allowed, can the Chief Minister give members an indication of the 7 roles to be lost within the Education, Sport and Culture Department, the 5 roles to be lost within the Planning and Environment Department, the 5 roles to be lost within Housing, the 19 roles to be lost within Health and Social Services and the 15 roles to be lost within the Transport and Technical Services Department and can he confirm that these redundancies are followed by the removal of the posts themselves?

Answer

As previously stated, it would be inappropriate to publish details, job titles or job descriptions in relation to the 73 employees whose applications for voluntary redundancy have been approved for reasons of confidentiality. I have also published a table that shows, by department, the number of approved and rejected voluntary redundancies. In nearly every case, voluntary redundancies and non-replacement of leavers could be classified as “efficiency savings” rather than “reduction or cessation of service”. We are seeking to avoid impact on front line services.

In order to give Members an indication of the roles to be lost, I detail below a breakdown of redundant posts by pay group and department. I can also confirm that these redundancies are followed by the removal of the posts themselves, and the future funding for them.

Department	Pay/group	Number
States Greffe	C/S	2
Judicial Greffe	C/S	2
ESC	C/S	3
ESC	Teachers	2
ESC	ETSS	1
ESC	Lect	1
Lieutenant Governor	C/S	1
ISD	C/S	3
Soc/Sec	C/S	2
Soc/Sec	M/W	2
P&E	C/S	5
Property Holdings	C/S	1
EDD	C/S	1
Home Affairs	C/S	4
Home Affairs	M/W	2
H&SS	C/S	16
H&SS	M/W	3
Housing	C/S	4
Housing	M/W	1
Human Resources	C/S	2
TTS	C/S	2
TTS	M/W	13
	Total	73

Key: C/S – Civil Servant

M/W – Manual Worker

ETSS – Education Technical Support Staff

Lect - Lecturer

1.24 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS-BASED COMPUTER SYSTEMS:

Question

Given the continuing need to upgrade or replace Windows-based computer systems, can the Minister inform the Assembly whether an evaluation has ever been undertaken into the possibility of moving away from Windows to a different platform, and, if so, can he provide details of this evaluation, and if not, why not?

Answer

Use of open source operating systems and office tools was considered as part of the planning of the upgrade of the current systems and was rejected at this time for several reasons:

Analysis showed that the migration to Open Office (the most popular Open Source Office tool) would be at least twice as expensive as the migration to the latest version of Microsoft Office with the total cost of ownership over a 5 year period also being double.

2. The majority of the business and desktop applications used within the States of Jersey require Microsoft Windows, and this is anticipated to be the case until at least 2015. Often the software that is currently used is only available for Microsoft Windows.

3. The unfamiliarity of States system users with the open source environment.

4. Any saving would be made purely on license costs, which are the typical incentive for organisations to move to open source. They would be offset by additional costs to integrate applications; train users; train support staff; and on Microsoft License costs to connect Open Office to continuing applications etc.

5. The lack of experience in the States of Jersey and local suppliers in running an open source environment for an organisation of the scale and complexity of the States.

The Information Services Department will continue to monitor and evaluate the situation periodically.

Background Information

Open-source (OS) software is computer software that is available in source code form for which the source code and certain other rights normally reserved for copyright holders, eg Microsoft, are provided under a software license that permits users to study, change, and improve the software. Open source software is very often developed in a public, collaborative manner. The term open-source software originated as part of a marketing campaign for free software. A report by Standish Group states that adoption of open-source software models has resulted in savings of about $60 billion per year to consumers. It is currently used in a consumer rather than business or government context.

World wide Linux constitutes only 2.7% of non-consumer desktops and Open Source office products represent less than 5% of the business market. Whilst more applications are OS neutral, these will not account for the majority of applications until sometime after 2012 and even in 2017 organisations will still require a Windows operating system for 30% of there applications (Gartner, 2010, “The State of Open-Source Software on the Desktop”). Initial analysis using a Gartner migration cost modelling tool showed that the Migration to Open Office (the most popular Open Source Office tool) would be at least twice as expensive as the migration to the latest version of Microsoft Office with the total cost of ownership over a 5 year period also being double (Gartner, 2010 “Cost Model for Upgrading Microsoft Office or Moving to OpenOffice.org”).

Linux Desktop

In general, there has been little or no penetration of Linux on the desktop within UK government or business. Although there are some special use scenarios, the large number of Windows based applications in use continues to be a major barrier to Linux.

Open Source Office

Open Source office products are not 100% compatible with Microsoft Office, and documents may look or work differently than when created, which can be a problem for ongoing document interchange with other users or organizations that continue to run Microsoft Office.

The cost to convert documents to look or work properly in the Open Source office product may be high, eradicating some or all the cost benefit. This is further complicated by the use of macros within office document which often do not transfer to other office systems.

If a migration to an Open Source office system was undertaken some users will continue to require Microsoft Office for its capabilities or compatibility, which means administering and supporting a mixed environment.

Many products, from Microsoft and other independent software vendors (such as Microsoft Exchange, Sharepoint etc), integrate with Office, and have no such integration with other office systems.

Apple

Apple currently makes up approximately 1% of the enterprise desktops. The current apple platform lacks the ability to run the majority of the applications that are currently used within the States of Jersey.

In conclusion whilst some users could potentially be moved to an alternative environment, the majority would continue to require genuine Microsoft Windows with Microsoft Office, meaning that the States of Jersey would be operating a mixed environment with a significantly increased operational cost.

1.25 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING NON-RESIDENT LANDLORDS:

Question

Further to page 60 of the budget report in which the Minister writes that “certain non-resident landlords with rental income arising in Jersey are not fulfilling their tax obligations”, can he inform members:

(a) to how many landlords this refers?

(b) to how many tenancies this refers?

Answer

There are two specific areas where non resident landlords are not fulfilling their Jersey tax obligations.

The first point of concern involves those landlords who are aware that if they do not appoint a managing agent, and they ensure they maintain the annual rent below £25,000, the tenant will not be required under existing provisions to withhold tax from the rent payable. There are approximately ten such cases known of (involving the same number of tenancies) and the total loss of tax per annum in respect of these cases would be approximately £30,000 if the new provision is not introduced.

The second point of concern involves those landlords who are now paying tax on current rental streams but are refusing to settle arrears of tax that accumulated prior to the introduction of the scheme. The new provisions allow the Comptroller to direct the tenant or managing agent to deduct a percentage greater than 20% from the rents paid in order to settle the arrears of tax owing. It is estimated there are a further 5 to 10 cases of this nature and the anticipated yield from the recovery of these arrears is likely to be around £150,000.

1.26 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE E.U. SAVINGS DIRECTIVE:

Question

Can the Minister explain in more detail ‘the further changes to the [EU Savings Directive] retention tax rate, eventual move to automatic exchange of information and lower investment returns on these [revenue] funds’, as outlined on page 22 of the Budget report?

Answer

This comment explains why States income from the EU Savings Directive has decreased in recent years and is expected to continue to decrease.

Jersey’s obligations under this Directive stem from the agreements entered into with 27 Member States. It means a retention tax is deducted from interest payments made by Jersey banks to EU resident individuals. The recipients can instead choose to have their information disclosed to the tax authorities in their home country.

Jersey collects the retention tax on interest payments and is entitled to keep 25% of that tax. It passes 75% to the country in which those individuals are resident.

The current retention tax rate is 20% of the interest payment. This is increasing to 35% from 1 July 2011. This rate may in some cases be higher than the individual’s tax liability in their home country and so some investors may choose to have their information disclosed instead of paying the retention tax.

Under the terms of our agreements which mirror the Directive, Jersey will be required in the future to move to automatic exchange of information (AEOI) and so will not be able to collect this retention tax. The timing of this is currently unknown but could happen in the next 2-3 years. The move to compulsory AEOI is currently being blocked by Austria and Luxembourg. Alternatively Jersey could choose to move to AEOI voluntarily, as the Isle of Man and Guernsey are doing.

Interest rates have decreased in recent years and are likely to stay low. As a result, the amount of interest from which the retention tax is taken has decreased.

For all of these reasons, the amount the States receives as its share of the retention tax has decreased and is likely to decrease further. At some time in the future it will cease completely.

2. Oral Questions

2.2.4 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Deputy Martin rather stole my question. However, and of course, all members of the public are innocent and everyone will have different views on the morals of mercenaries, et cetera. But could the Minister clarify if evidence should come to light that one our residents has got such a background, are there any sanctions available that would curtail that status? Does he view that as important?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I could not give a categoric answer to that one because the situation has never arisen in the past and is unlikely to given the detailed nature of the background checks. If a person has knowingly and wilfully misled the States in an application then there may be grounds one can take and that would be a legal issue on which I am not prepared to comment at this stage without further information.

2.3 Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Chief Minister regarding his commitment to transparency:

How long will it be before Jersey follows the U.K. (United Kingdom) commitment to transparency and produces organisation charts showing the names, job title and salary for all senior civil servants at director level and above as well as the job title of all senior civil servants at deputy director level along with the number of staff in the team and their grades?

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

I begin by referring the Senator to my response to a written question, number 5719, from the Deputy of St. Mary tabled in October. Departmental Business Plans already provide organisational charts and numbers are available on the States website. But I acknowledge that at the present time these do not contain details of salary grades. I would like to advise the Senator that we have already committed to publishing fuller information beginning with the remuneration and benefits of accounting officers in the forthcoming annual report and accounts.

2.3.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Supplementary. So that we can expect as full information as one can get from the direct.gov.uk set-up where I can see that Sir Gus O’Donnell, Head of the Cabinet Secretary, earns between £235,000 and £239,000 a year including London-weighting. Can we expect this sort of transparency?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

We can certainly expect a greater degree of information and transparency, whether it would be along the exact lines of the U.K. remains to be seen. In a small community it maybe not be so appropriate to give that level of detail, but certainly a greater degree than presently exists should be forthcoming.

2.3.2 Deputy J.A. Martin:

Would the Chief Minister not agree the sooner that we implement the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law, this will need to be and will be in the public domain?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I point out that details of all salaries over £70,000 are currently in the public domain and published by us on an annual basis and have been for some years now.

2.3.3 Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:

My written question today - written question 23 - asks the Chief Minister to give us some information about what the people who have accepted voluntary redundancy did, the 73 so far, so that we, the Members of the House, have some idea of what jobs have been lost. The Chief Minister has simply told me, and everyone else, that whether people are civil servants or manual workers, which I find less than transparent. I would like the Chief Minister to comment on his commitment to transparency in the light of his answer.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The Deputy raises a completely new matter of voluntary redundancy here. We are committed to greater levels of openness and transparency. Whether it is sufficient to meet the needs of the Deputy, we will have to wait and see when they are published.

The Deputy of St. Mary:

May I ask a supplementary?

The Bailiff:

If it has got something to do with the question, yes, Deputy.

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Yes, the question is about transparency and openness in relation to the U.K. and we are completely in the dark as to what services have been lost or reduced as a result of that particular programme.

The Bailiff:

I am sorry, you have drifted too far off on the first one and that is even further off. Now, does any other Member wish to ask any questions? Senator Ferguson, do you wish a final reply to the final question?

2.3.4 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

No, I thank the Chief Minister for his commitment to transparency and I look forward to seeing the results.

2.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier for the Chief Minister regarding the lessons to be learnt from the current Irish crisis:

What lessons, if any, does the Chief Minister think can be learnt from the current Irish crisis and what impact or implications does he see this crisis having on Jersey?

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

The Irish crisis is indeed unfortunate for the whole of the European economy and poses a significant problem for Europe. However, while there are, no doubt, lessons to be learned from the crisis on a national scale, I do not think that there are any immediate lessons or direct implications for Jersey other than, perhaps, we should learn not to overreach or over-commit ourselves and not to borrow to excess.

2.4.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I am surprised the Chief Minister has not commented on the corrosive effect on small island states that can exist between politicians, bankers and property developers which, in Ireland’s case, were the major factors in the economic collapse of the Irish state and which is condemning the Irish people to 10 years of austerity. If the Chief Minister is interested I will provide him with the details of 2 books on the Irish crisis, Ship of Fools: How Stupidity and Corruption Killed the Celtic Tiger by Fintan O’Toole ...

[10:00]

The Bailiff:

This going to be a precise question, Deputy, is it?

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Will the terms of reference include a fully-costed and funded way forward because it seems to me, the drift of what the Minister is saying that we know where we are going, we have got New Directions, but we need to cost and fund the operation of the health service into the future?

The Deputy of Trinity:

Yes.

2.7.9 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

I just find it so amazing that having needed the money from the Health Insurance Fund, the department is able to find an under-spend. But having said that, finally could the Minister please advise what the tender process was and how many tenders were received?

The Deputy of Trinity:

There are 2 points to that question and I will deal with the second one first. It went through a full procurement process as set down. There were 6 terms of reference that went out to 6 firms that were shortlisted down to 3. I must stress that the allocation from the Health Insurance Fund, 2 weeks ago, was a totally separate health issue. That was to fund Health and Social Services on a year-by-year basis. This amount is only a one-off and those 2 things should not be confused.

The Bailiff:

Very well, we will come next to question 8 which Deputy Southern will ask of the Minister for Treasury and Resources. The Minister has asked, through a note, as to whether he can take slightly longer than normal to answer this question to begin with and then that can set the scene for the many subsequent questions on the same topic and I have agreed he can do that.

2.8 Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the removal of deemed distribution for locally-owned companies:

I look forward to a mass of detail. Following the E.U. (European Union) Code Group’s decision that Jersey’s deemed distribution system for Zero/Ten is in conflict with the E.U. code on business taxation, what consideration, if any, has the Minister given to the removal of deemed distribution for locally-owned companies? What is the estimated tax loss for each year? How is business tax avoidance to be stopped and how will any loss of revenue, resulting from this change, be made good?

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

At this stage there is nothing more - or little more - that I can add to the press release issued on 23rd November. We have been informed that on 19th November the Code Group reached a consensus that our present business tax regime gives rise to harmful effects. This is based on the E.U. Commission view that our deemed distribution provision is business and not personal taxation and it is discriminatory, a view that we have contested. However, we have also been informed that there has not yet been a formal assessment by the Code Group and there is a further process to go through before a final conclusion is reached. Apparently, the Code Group is to recommend that an E.U. Council high level working group be asked to review what is covered exactly by business taxation. The next step is for the Code Group to report on its activities to the Council of Finance Ministers, or ECOFIN (The Council of Economics and Finance Ministers of the European Union), and for the Council to consider that report at its next meeting next month. We understand that the reference to our regime will be by way of short statement and this will be the only document on the public record. The views expressed to the Code Group by the Commission are confidential and cannot be made public without the approval of the Group and the Commission. If ECOFIN agrees that the high level working group should undertake the review recommended by the Code Group, it is expected that the results of that review will be available for the Code Group to consider at its next meeting in February. Only then will it be possible, for certain, to say what action, if any, we need to take in respect of the deemed distribution provision or what the implications of that action might be.

2.8.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

The answer to the question is no; no consideration has been given. Does the Minister accept that in the light of the continuing controversy over Zero/Ten - the introduction of Zero/Ten after a mere 10 months - far from producing stability and certainty to business taxation matters, has brought exactly the opposite.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

No, and no.

Looking into the future and learning from the past, can the Minister give us a categorical assurance that Zero/Ten will survive this problem because the Code of Conduct Group looks at the whole package, not just this one element? If it will survive, given that categorical assurance, does that mean we will not be moving to a territorial tax?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Experience shows that certainly as far as statements are concerned one should be very measured and careful in what one states. The world is a continually moving situation and in 10 or 20 years’ time obviously the landscape in terms of international norms may well change so it would be unwise ... it was unwise for me to say previously in relation to G.S.T… a categorical assurance should not be given. But what I will say is we that we continue to keep our options open, we continue to engage closely with our colleague Crown Dependencies in terms of their options and their responses to the particular issue and I know that territorial tax, which was an issue which we continue to do work on… it was in the consultation that I issued a number of months ago and we continue to look at it but we make decisions in the best national and economic interests of Jersey.

The Bailiff:

Final question, Deputy Southern?

2.8.9 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Perhaps I can phrase the question somewhat differently. Since the Minister is unaware of how much money he might lose if deemed distribution is rejected, can he state what his estimates are for 2010 that deemed distribution will bring in, because he must have an estimate for the 2010 tax take? Further, can he assure Members that we have got total stability and certainty until February of next year and there afterwards nobody knows?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

The Deputy will be aware that Zero/Ten was brought in on 1st January 2009. That means that assessments will be made for that income for taxable year 2009, tax paid in 2010, but as far as the personal tax is concerned, it obviously will be paid next year and this year in relation to the way that the deemed distribution on personal tax ... I want to be absolutely clear with the Deputy that any alternative anti-avoidance mechanisms for personal tax will be revenue-neutral in terms of the personal tax assessments for Jersey owners of investment companies, et cetera, on their personal tax return. This is a personal tax measure not a business tax measure, any changes will be revenue-neutral. That is all the work that we have carried out. I want to be clear with the Deputy.

2.8.10 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Yet again the Minister has not addressed or answered the question which was what estimate does he have from the take from deemed distribution in 2010? He must have an estimate. He has got estimates for the overall tax take, which part of that belongs to deemed distribution and will he tell Members how much that brings in?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I refer the Deputy to my answer a few moments ago, and that is any changes in terms of an alternative ...

The Bailiff:

No, the question is what is the estimated tax next year from deemed distribution?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

It is difficult to say that in terms of the [Laughter] ... it is difficult because of the timing issue, but what is clear is the construct of an anti-avoidance mechanism can be replaced by deemed distribution, so all the calculations that we have done is that it will be the same, whatever that number is.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

This is a magic number that no one else is allowed to ...

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much, Deputy, that was not a question. We will move then to a question which the Deputy of St. Martin will ask of the Chief Minister.

2.9 Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding the alteration of the Napier terms of reference:

Could I just press, the Minister did not answer the second part, will he allow me to have the sight of the exchange of documents as per our agreement that I would have oversight?

The Bailiff:

I thought he said no.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The agreement was that the Deputy and myself should be kept fully informed of the outcome of the proceedings, I do not think it is extended to seeing every single item of correspondence going in all directions from all parties. That would strike me as being totally unnecessary and cumbersome.

The Bailiff:

Very well, we will move then to question 10 which the Deputy of St. John will ask of the Minister for Economic Development. Deputy.

2.10 The Deputy of St. John of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the remuneration of the Harbours and Airport Shadow Board:

Can the Minister explain how with payments of £650 for the chair and £450 per day per member for up to 40 days per annum - which equates to a minimum of £26,000 per member - these sums for membership of the Harbour and Airport Shadow Board can be considered to be an honorarium as stated in the advertisement for the position?

[10:45]

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

I agree there is more than one definition, and therefore interpretation, of the term honorarium. The definition used for the purpose of the advertisement to which the Deputy refers is a payment made to an individual for the provision of a service. The advert made it quite clear that membership of the board was to be paid. There was certainly no intention to be misleading by using the term honorarium. For the avoidance of any doubt, the members of the Harbours and Airport Shadow Board are not employees of the States of Jersey, rather they are on a contract-for-services basis to the Economic Development Department.

2.10.1 The Deputy of St. John:

Of the Shadow Board members, could we be told when this idea was conceived to have a board for the Harbours and Airport Committee and could I suggest that possibly it was conceived prior to our current Chief Minister taking office and, if so, could the Minister tell us why, for some months, it has been reported to me that the former Chief Minister had been part of the Shadow Board before we were notified in this House?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I made it quite clear in a statement that I made on 6th July this year that we were looking at changing arrangements for the way in which we manage both the harbour and the airport and I, at that point, made it clear that we were looking to appoint a shadow board. With regard to the second point the Deputy raises about the former Chief Minister, he is right in one respect, the former Chief Minister provided some free time to the Harbours Department with regard to the boat show. The Deputy is aware of that because I have already discussed it with him on more than one occasion.

2.10.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

It is relating to the question of money. I believe the chairman of this particular panel has also received, through his company, something like £90,000 for work done at the airport. Can the Minister confirm that there have been these relationships and do others have financial relationships with the airport?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I can confirm that the airport - and the harbour for that matter - has employed over a number of years different people to provide consultation and consultation services. Indeed the current chairman appointed to this particular Shadow Airport and Harbour Board has worked for the airport in the past and he has received payments for so doing.

2.10.3 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Unfortunately the Attorney General has had to leave the Chamber but as someone who worked for Education, Sport and Culture, honorariums was a term which we ran into great difficulty with and we had to stop to using. I just believe that honorarium being used in that context is completely inappropriate [Approbation] and I wondered if the Attorney General could give us some guidance on that. Because I think it is very worrying with these amounts of money involved.

The Bailiff:

No, this is question time to the Minister.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Then perhaps he could tell us.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I will happily give an answer to that. I think I have explained there are a number of different definitions of honorarium, although I take and accept the Deputy’s point, there was no intention for this advertisement to be misleading in any shape or form, the rate of payment was clearly stated. On that basis I believe as the process was overseen by the Appointments Commission that it was a fair, open and transparent process.

The Bailiff:

Do you wish a final question, Deputy of St. John?

2.10.4 The Deputy of St. John:

Yes, will the Minister confirm that an honorarium is a payment for which fees are not legally or traditionally required? If that is the case, will these members of the Shadow Board be donating their honorarium to charity?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

The Deputy has used one of the many definitions for this particular term. The answer to the second part of his question is no.

The Bailiff:

Very well, we move to questions 11 which Deputy Le Claire will ask of the Minister for Planning and Environment. Deputy.

2.11 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the treatment and management of ash water in St. Aubin’s Bay:

Yes, when the information comes through and it is reviewed and I am in a position to forward the reports to Members I will be able to do so. Until that time I am unable to do so.

2.11.6 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Could I ask one last supplementary, very briefly? What has been the reason for the delay? It has now been several weeks, why can the Environment Department not get a response from the Minister for Transport and Technical Services when it comes to ash water entering into the marine environment?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

As I said, there are 2 different laws. Water entering into the foul sewage system is the responsibility of Transport and Technical Services and they determine whether or not any of those waters are toxic or hazardous or would cause problems for the sewage system. It is only when waters are discharged out from the Bellozanne outlet, or indeed from any other parts of the network that are freely discharging into the marine environment that steps can be taken by Planning and Environment to determine whether or not that is a harmful process to the environment. As I said, I will do everything that is available to me to try and expedite the information coming to my department so that these reports can be freely distributed. I do not have a stick and the carrot is not working at the moment.

The Bailiff:

We the come to question 12 but, Deputy of St. Mary, I gather you feel you have got an adequate answer to this in the written questions and do not need to proceed. Thank you very much. Then question 13 is from Deputy Shona Pitman but she is unfortunately malade and therefore that will fall. So we move to question 14 which Deputy Southern will ask the Minister for Health and Social Services, but he is not here. So we will move to question 15 which Deputy Higgins will ask of the Minister for Treasury and Resources.

2.12 Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the publication of correspondence between ECOFIN and the authorities in Jersey regarding Jersey’s compliance with the E.U. Code:

Following the Minister’s press statement on 23rd November 2010 will he now publish to Members all papers and correspondence between ECOFIN and those acting on its behalf and the authorities in Jersey in the interests of openness and transparency and to enable Members to determine for themselves on the basis of the evidence whether they think Jersey has complied with the E.U. Code or not?

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

I just refer the Deputy to what I said that the documents of the Code Group are confidential and cannot be made public without the approval of the Group and the Commission.

2.12.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Supplementary? I noted the Minister’s earlier comment but certainly the documents in Jersey are not necessarily confidential and he should share the argument being put forward by the Jersey authorities to ECOFIN so they can make a judgment on whether they are complying or not. Does the Minister not agree that this paper should be published?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

There is obviously going to be certain papers that are confidential but the views expressed by Jersey in respect of Zero/Ten are clear. I will happily give the Deputy more information about the Jersey position but it is clear in all the documentation that has been previously submitted - that I issued on 23rd - and there is nothing really further that I can add.

2.12.2 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Yes, we seem to have a lot of discussions with ECOFIN and the various bodies. I would ask the Minister at what point do we start arguing or discussing with them from a less supine position.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Just to point out that we have not had discussions as yet with ECOFIN and in relation to the overall position of Jersey in relation to the Code of Conduct Group we voluntarily comply with it. That is the policy of Jersey in relation to being a good neighbour, a good co-operative neighbour but we think we have a very positive set of information to give in relation to what our industry does and the fact that it is not harmful within Europe. I think it is good to engage and to explain and that is exactly what we are doing.

2.12.3 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

But given the fact that there is now international competition on corporate tax rates - witness the discussions on the Irish tax rate of 12.5 per cent - at what point will the Crown Dependencies start, as I say, discussing from a less supine position?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I do not think I have ever been described as supine and neither has Jersey. We are explaining; we are communicating about what Zero/Ten is. The fact is that all the information that I have in relation to the Code Group’s conclusions is that the issue is deemed distribution and there is a view, as I rehearsed previously, that that is a business tax issue: we represent that it is not. We will continue to explain that position in a forthright way and in an equal partnership way in the way that we have always done with our engagement with E.U. previously. I refer the Senator to the decision that we have made in terms of opening-up a Brussels office with Guernsey. That will improve communication and understanding about what the Crown Dependencies are and what we are not.

2.12.4 The Deputy of St. Mary:

The questioner, Deputy Higgins, asked about the papers and correspondence between ECOFIN and the Jersey authorities and the reply of the Minister was that the documents of the Code Group are confidential.

[11:00]

Can the Minister please answer whether he will publish the papers and correspondence of ECOFIN - which is a political body and is not shy and is quite happy to publicise its findings - to us, especially the early correspondence about whether indeed there was any indication from them about the probabilities of Zero/Ten being acceptable or not?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

These issues have been rehearsed on many occasions in this Assembly previously. Any conclusions by ECOFIN will be published in terms of what I have already said. We expect that a short statement will be made in respect of Zero/Ten, and it is the interpretation of what that conclusion is that is important. I would just refer my earlier answer to the Deputy and that is that we have not had discussions with ECOFIN. We have had, over a number of years, discussions with the Code Group and I refer my earlier answer to the confidentiality of Code Group papers and the E.U. Commission. They are confidential and it is them that keep them confidential.

2.12.5 Deputy M.R. Higgins.

Will the Minister approach ECOFIN and ask them to release them from the confidentiality, because of the concern in the Island, so we can have further information and make a decision on this matter?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I was asked a few moments ago whether or not we would be less supine: we have to be realistic in relation to requests such as the Deputy makes. We do not run… we do not really influence the procedures and policies and the confidentiality of documents of bodies like ECOFIN, and I will continue to publish what information I can in relation to the conclusions of ECOFIN but there are going to be no surprises, I do not think, in relation to the conclusion of ECOFIN, that is the statement I have already rehearsed and explained to Members what we think the statement will be by ECOFIN and that is that Zero/Ten gives rise to harmful effects and that is because of the issue of deemed distribution which we have rehearsed.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

My question was would the Minister request ECOFIN to release their confidentiality?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Can the Assistant Minister confirm that under the immigration policy and the new licensing, as housing qualifications come down to 10 years the non-local requirement for working is going to go up each year to 10 years so there is parity? Is this completely now abandoned or will the Minister, because of the unemployment problem, look into raising the non-locally qualified year-on-year until we are 10 years on both?

The Connétable of St. Clement:

Yes, currently our ‘qualified for employment purposes’ is having been resident in the Island for 5 years. The Migration Advisory Group have recommended to the Chief Minister that that should remain. Do not forget we do have to support business. If unemployment is to go down we have to encourage businesses to become economically successful. We do not want to put too many burdens, too many hurdles in the way of businesses to increase their business and therefore create more employment opportunities locally.

The Bailiff:

I am sorry, Deputy, there are others who want to ask questions. Senator Perchard.

2.14.7 Senator J.L. Perchard:

The Assistant Minister said that his department has already taken action to reduce the number of licences issued to businesses and that one would assume should have filtered through or be filtering through into unemployment levels. Could the Minister estimate as to what the levels of unemployment would be had this action not been taken?

The Connétable of St. Clement:

During the past 12 months I can tell the Senator that locally qualified employment in the private sector rose by 390 while non-locally qualified employment fell by 420. I am sure the Senator can do his sums.

2.14.8 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville:

Could the Connétable indicate what percentage the non-local qualified employment figure has been reduced by and is the effect of his actions immediate?

The Connétable of St. Clement:

Yes, the actions are immediate and the percentage reduction in the number of non-locally qualified people in employment is about 3 per cent over the last 9 months.

2.14.9 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

With 1,290 people registered unemployed and a potential 1,700 people unemployed generally, there will always be an element - usually for health reasons - who cannot work, but the overwhelming majority are actively seeking employment. The Minister for Economic Development grants licences to companies to employ non-local labour and the Minister for Social Security pays out millions of pounds a year in benefits to local unemployed. Does the Minister not see the opportunity here to reduce this number drastically?

The Connétable of St. Clement:

Drastically or significantly and this is what we are attempting to do but of course there has to be a match between the skills required and the skills available. I think we are certainly finding in the construction industry they were having some difficulty with finding people with the appropriate skills and hospitality has always been traditionally a sector where it has been difficult for employers to find people with local qualifications who wish to make a career in that area. We are certainly working with Social Security to try and resolve those particular issues but there will also be a need, I have got no doubt, for a proportion of the working population to be non-qualified in the sense that we use that phrase.

If I may, a supplementary? Will the Minister agree to talk to his Controller of Income Tax and seek a number - a sum - for the amount of revenue that might be produced in 2010 by deemed distribution? An estimate, please.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I would refer the Deputy to the answer that I gave and that is it is going to be difficult to work out exactly what, because of the economic situation ... the Deputy clearly does not understand that corporate profits and the whole world in relation to the way that individuals receive income has changed dramatically. It is very difficult in a world in which markets have been turbulent and income tax receipts are forecast. I will be able to give an estimate but I would say in about 12 months’ time.

2.15.6 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Is the Minister misleading the House when for example the Fiscal Policy Panel state in their report that the affect of Zero/Ten in 2010 has been estimated at around £80 million with the remaining £50 million being due to the economic downturn? Is he misleading the House?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am not misleading the House. The issue of deemed distribution ... the Deputies want to say that changing the deemed distribution is going to be harmful… is going to cause a deficit. I am confident that it is not, and indeed deemed distribution will accrue to the revenues of the States next year. If the Deputies understand the way that deemed distribution works, and perhaps I should send a briefing note about it, then they will better understand and they will be able to ask alternative questions.

The Bailiff:

Deputy Le Claire, do you have a final question?

2.15.7 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I do. I would like to first of all request you to consider what might probably not be a point of order but continuously it seems that we put questions to the Minister and he changes the subject and then gives us an answer on the change of subject, avoiding the answer that we have requested. I have just listened to 3 supplementaries with a tail-end of answers he did not give to previous questions taking up time on this subject which is about alternatives. In my question on alternatives I specifically asked the Minister, and I would like to ask a supplementary on this, whether or not he had considered the consequences in relation to the amount of time it is going to take to draft legislation for a territorial tax which in some people’s views may take up to 5 years. I wanted to know - although he has said that he has looked at that, that was as much as he said - and I would like to ask a supplementary. First of all, can he answer the questions; and, secondly, how much time has he considered it will take to draft legislation if we need to move to a territorial tax, which is an alternative that he has circulated to Members?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I apologise to the Deputy if I do not answer his questions. This is a complex area and I do try and inform Members to the best of my ability to the issue. To answer the direct question, in the event that we would - and it is a big if and it is not something which is currently being the policy option that we are progressing - consider that it would be in the best economic interests of Jersey to move to a territorial system the Deputy is right that it would take certainly 3, 4 or 5 years probably, in order to draft that legislation, for it to be considered properly by the Assembly, for us to understand the economic impacts, to consult and do all of those things. But that is not the favoured policy approach of Jersey at this present time.

The Bailiff:

Very well then, we move to the next question which the Deputy of St. John will ask of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services. Deputy.

2.16 The Deputy of St. John of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding remediation measures to address poor quality asphalt work on some of the Island’s roads:

Has any action been taken by the Transport and Technical Services Department and the contractors to rectify the poor quality of asphalt work on Queen’s Road and on the footpath between Rue de Galet and First Tower. If so, would he detail the cost of this work and the amount paid to the contractor, and advise whether the works were undertaken by the same contractor as Victoria Avenue.

Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade (Minister for Transport and Technical Services):

I would first of all - in case he has forgotten - refer the Deputy to an answer to a written question I gave on 6th July to a very similar question. But in summary the T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) Highways and Infrastructure Maintenance Team are not aware of any poor quality asphalt work on Queen’s Road. The surrounding areas to some of the manhole frames have cracked but this is relating to underlying movement as a result of a bad winter, not quality of workmanship on the asphalt. The contractor for this work was Brenwall Limited and A. Le Sech Asphalt Limited. The contractor on Victoria Avenue - Trans Jersey Limited - did not have sufficient time to complete the repairs to the northern pathway before traffic management was withdrawn on 16th July. This was in order to complete the works for the Battle of Flowers. However, they are listed as a defect and will be remedied by the contractor before the end of the maintenance period which will be before 29th April 2011 at no cost to the States.

2.16.1 The Deputy of St. John:

In response to the Minister’s comments on Queen’s Road, will he confirm that the manhole covers in fact were retrofitted and therefore defects have occurred from the retrofitting of these manhole covers in the asphalt around them and has nothing whatsoever to do with the deteriorating weather in recent weeks and days, given there has been pot holes around the manholes since the start of the summer when I brought my scooter into town?

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

I am responsible for not monitoring the Deputy’s every movement, I am not aware of the depth of detail the Deputy has on this matter and I am prepared to find out and report to him later.

2.16.2 Senator J.L. Perchard:

On the quality of work undertaken by subcontractors, would the Minister comment on the work that was undertaken on The Esplanade with, in particular, the central reservation and has he noticed that on the central reservation, between the red asphalt and the kerb stones that we are now growing a fine crop of grass in places? Will he comment on that?

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

Yes, I have noticed and am disappointed but of course the trouble with all municipal services around the countryside, as the Deputy will be aware, is there are severe restrictions on the type of herbicides that can be used and we are really extremely restricted of what can be done. But the department is aware of it and will be taking action to deal with this in the best way it can in an environmental sort of way.

The Bailiff:

Do you wish a final question, Deputy, on this one?

2.16.3 The Deputy of St. John:

I am sorry we are getting short-changed in time given other questions have had 10 minutes. So given the footpath between First Tower and Rue de Galet over the last few days, large pools of standing water 2 or 3 metres across have obviously frozen and I have observed people having difficulty walking along that footpath. Will he get the contractors to do the work sooner rather than later?

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

Yes.

The Bailiff:

We come to the next question which Deputy Maçon will ask of the Chief Minister.

2.17 Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour of the Chief Minister regarding the justification of ‘Deemed Distributed’ measures:

Further to the response given on 20th October 2009, over a year ago, when I asked the Chief Minister whether the introduction of the deemed distributive measures which discriminate against Jersey-owned Jersey companies in direct contravention of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developments (O.E.C.D.) directive was justified, is he still able to justify the measures in light of the recent announcement by the E.U. Code Group?

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

I think, like the Minister for Treasury and Resources, there is little I can add at this stage to the press release issued on 23rd November and my written answer to question 12 today. We have been informed that at this meeting on 19th November the Code Group reached a consensus that our present business tax regime gives rise to harmful effects. That is based on the view of the E.U. Commission that our deemed distribution affects business, not personal tax, and is discriminatory - a view that we have contested. We have been informed that there has not yet been a formal assessment by the Code Group and there are further discussions to go through before any final conclusion is reached.

2.17.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Given that the Minister for Treasury and Resources does not feel that it is appropriate for him, as Minister for Treasury and Resources, to ask for the confidentiality of the ECOFIN report to be waived, given that the Minister is responsible for international affairs, will the Chief Minister ask for this?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Although I am indeed responsible for international affairs, what the ECOFIN Council publishes is entirely a matter for their own decision and I am and Jersey is totally unable to influence that decision.

[11:30]

2.17.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

May I move the Chief Minister on to the third item of the E.U. Code on Business Taxation, item 3, and will he state how the application of a zero rate applies to international business companies and how that accords with test 3 which says: “Whether advantages are granted, even without any real economic activity and substantial economic presence within the member state offering such tax advantages.”

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Very well then, we move to the next question, which the Deputy of St. Mary will ask the Minister for Health and Social Services. Deputy.

2.19 The Deputy of St. Mary of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the engagement of KPMG:

Can the Minister explain to Members why she has engaged KPMG to review the work of the department, what the cost of this work will be, what it will cover and how KPMG came to be selected? She does not have to repeat things that have already been said… I mean, in the sense of the cost: we know what the cost is. Thank you.

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

Members will be aware that this question has already been answered by a media release, which was issued to all States Members as well when the project was made public. However, for clarity, I am pleased to be able to provide the information. It is a blueprint of effective provision of high-quality and sustainable services which is urgently required. To undertake this task, I have engaged KPMG, a consultant company with extensive experience in health and social care policy strategy and service design, both in the U.K. and other countries. KPMG was selected through a formal tendering process.

The Bailiff:

Deputy, do you wish a supplementary?

2.19.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

That was a fairly brief answer, as to saying that their selection for an £800,000 project was as a result of a formal tendering process. How many applicants were there, and can the Minister give us some idea, in view of the size of this contract, what sort of process was involved in selecting the successful applicants?

The Bailiff:

I thought, Deputy, the Minister in a previous question had given the number of people that were shortlisted, so if Members do not listen, it is not terribly satisfactory to ask the same question again.

The Deputy of Trinity:

I did get that question.

The Bailiff:

The second part is new. The second part, I think, was the process.

The Deputy of Trinity:

Yes, the procedure… the set of companies. There were 3 that were shortlisted in the end and it was overseen by an independent group with an independent chair, and it was ratified by the Ministerial Oversight Group.

2.19.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

The Minister described this as an urgent review. Can she therefore explain why it is going to take some 10 months to come to a White Paper, which will then take a further debate and deliberation before we find out what is going to happen?

The Deputy of Trinity:

In the request by Deputy Jeune for the information behind, it gives a timeline for strategic roadmap development and consultation, and in that process there is a 3-month consultation. It is very tight, and I think that will be self-evident when it has been issued to States Members by the end of the day.

2.19.3 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

Could the Minister advise Members, did the need for this review come about as a result of the report that the Minister said her new Chief Officer would be doing, and I thought presenting to Members within 6 months, because that 6 months is now up.

The Deputy of Trinity:

The report will come to Members before the end of the 6 months, which is up at the end of December. This is an important issue, as I have said many times, and now we have a permanent Chief Officer, this is something that needed to be in place and we needed to go forward with it.

2.19.4 Senator J.L. Perchard:

The Minister and many Members will know, as is the normal practice when a complex report like this is being undertaken, that the authors will come back after several months and say that it is increasingly complex and they will require more time and a bigger budget. What, other than the timelines as outlined by the Minister, has she done to ensure that in fact this does not happen on this occasion?

The Deputy of Trinity:

I hope that is not the case. This is, as I said, a very tight timescale and the Strategic Overview Group and the Ministerial Group will keep a very tight rein on it.

2.19.5 Senator J.L. Perchard:

Just a supplementary: so I can take it from that the Minister will give this House a guarantee that the budget will not exceed the quoted numbers of £800,000?

The Deputy of Trinity:

I hope so, but I can never guarantee anything. But if it does for some reason or other, then the Ministerial Oversight Group will want to know why.

The Bailiff:

Deputy of St. Mary, do you wish a final question on this one?

2.19.6 The Deputy of St. Mary:

Can the Minister clarify what steps will be taken to allow States Members to at some point in the process speak with the review team, perhaps at the Green Paper stage? Has she included that in her thinking and have they included that in their thinking?

The Deputy of Trinity:

This is a consultation not only for States Members, but for public and third sector and focus groups. As I said before, this is very important, and I apologise if I keep repeating myself, but this is a very important piece of work, and everybody needs to be fully engaged in it. The timeline does say that there is political debate, scrutiny and public consultation between March and May 2011.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Could I just ask, I did put my light on earlier and you sort of nodded. I thought you were nodding to me that you had acknowledged it. Is that the case or not?

The Bailiff:

I fear not.

Deputy A.E. Jeune:

Excuse me, Sir, may I just ask a point of clarity from the Minister?

The Bailiff:

Well, no, I think you have already asked your question, Deputy. We have got one more question to do. I think I called upon the Deputy of St. Mary. I am sorry to Deputy Higgins if I failed to see his light, but I think we will move on to the final question, which Deputy Trevor Pitman will ask of the Minister for Treasury and Resources.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Thank you for your eminently fair judgment, Sir. I thought it was quite perfect.

The Bailiff:

The winner usually does.

2.20 Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the raising of the G.S.T. tax burden for individual taxpayers:

How does the Minister reconcile the raising of the G.S.T. burden for individual taxpayers with the Council of Ministers’ continuing failure to bring proposals to the States for approval to introduce a level playing field with regard to the taxation of non-local registered companies, and how and when will this finally be rectified?

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

The position regarding taxation of local registered companies is an unintended consequence of Zero/Ten. When Zero/Ten was introduced, there were no viable alternatives possible. A lot of work has been carried out to identify ways of addressing this issue in the past and no solution has been found. It has proven to be an extremely challenging issue to resolve. I committed, in the business tax consultation, that I would look at ways of dealing with this matter. This review is underway, and I will bring a proposition to the Assembly once the review is completed and we are of course also clear now about the outcome of the Code Group conclusions.

2.20.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

A supplementary? I really should just ask the Minister, when will that review be finished? However, could the Minister inform us whether this unhappiness that is definitely out there contributed to his sudden apparent u-turn on exemptions for G.S.T that we were talking about on food, et cetera?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I think that is probably a new matter, but I look forward to the opportunity of clarifying that my position on exemptions has not changed, because I have had quite a few calls about why have I changed my mind on exemptions; my mind has not changed. Food exemptions are complex, they are expensive, they would deprive revenue, but I respect and I understand some Ministers and some Members of this Assembly wish to have an option which is revenue-neutral in terms of G.S.T. and that is the only reason why I have brought forward this proposition. I am the only person that can bring forward amendments under the Public Finances Law, so that this Assembly, as a body, can make their mind up in relation to 5 per cent flat low rate or 6 per cent with food exemptions. I will be of course arguing about that on the actual debate subsequently.

2.20.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

If I may take us back to the previous answers, will the Minister state following his extensive conversation with officers what alternatives he has for anti-tax avoidance measures in personal taxation measures?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

That is, I think, not related to the original question, but of course the Deputy would be aware that as Minister for Treasury and Resources and any Minister, he - or her - would be engaging in extensive consultation and advice with officers. All I can say in relation to both of those issues is that those options are being considered in terms of the original question by Deputy Pitman. It would be wrong for me to speculate on options in relation to either of those issues. I am not going to speculate and bring uncertainty but the position is, as far as the original question is concerned, that I will bring forward proposals as soon as I am clear of the Code Group arrangements and the other issues that I have mentioned.

2.20.3 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

This is relating to balance and it is to do with the thing here. Will the Minister now admit to Members and to the public that the deficit in 2010, that £80 million, as indicated by the Fiscal Policy Panel in their latest report, is down to Zero/Ten and £50 million is down to the cyclical, rather than the spin that he has been using to date?

[11:45]

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am standing here thinking of spin, and the Deputy, I wonder how many times does he need to have an explanation? The original deficit caused by Zero/Ten was dealt with. There is nothing in the F.P.P. (Fiscal Policy Panel) report that conflicts with anything that I have said. I welcome the F.P.P.’s report, I welcome their conclusions. The original deficit that was a consequence of Zero/Ten was dealt with by this Assembly by the introduction of G.S.T. at 3 per cent, 20 means 20, the economic activity and the cost savings that were all set out in the original deficit. It is a reinvention of history to say that the current deficit is caused by Zero/Ten. It is not.

2.20.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Yesterday I spoke with Marion Bell, one of the F.P.P., who confirmed to us that there is an ongoing cost of the Zero/Ten. This is where the £80 million is an ongoing cost.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I welcome those Members who were able to attend the F.P.P. I thought they had some important conclusions and some important guiding principles for the budget debate next year. I think that the Deputy is misinterpreting the advice and the comments made by F.P.P. What is clear is as a result of the economic downturn, our income has been impaired, and there is a structural deficit which has been incurred. That is the first element of the deficit in 2012 which will reoccur. The other one, which is a difficult thing for me to say to this Assembly, is that spending has been rising, and the conclusions about economic growth and the way that economic growth should interact with spending is an important consideration which should not have escaped Members when they read the F.P.P. report yesterday.

The Bailiff:

Deputy Trevor Pitman, do you wish a final supplementary?

2.20.5 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Yes, please. Could the Minister just do a nice simple answer: will this be rectified before the next election?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I hope so.

3. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Social Security

The Bailiff:

Very well, that concludes questions on notice, so we now come to questions to Ministers without notice, and the first period is the Minister for Social Security. Deputy de Sousa.

3.1 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

Recently, the Minister has received a dental report from the Scrutiny Panel. The response to that is due over the Christmas period. What guarantees has he got for the panel that that will be given to Members of the Scrutiny Panel in time for the Christmas break?

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

Of course that will depend on when Members are taking their Christmas break. I understand that the response is indeed required by 20th December and I aim, in conjunction with the Minister for Health and Social Services, to have the response prior to that date.

3.2 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

We talked about the unemployment figures earlier today, and as we know that youth unemployment makes up a significant proportion of that, can the Minister please inform the Assembly how many apprenticeship spaces are available and whether the Minister feels that there are enough and, if not, what is the Minister going to do about it?

Deputy I.J. Gorst:

I always feel that there should be more apprenticeship places available. I come to this from the aspect that we should be training as many people as we can, that we should have as many apprenticeships as we can. Of course we must engage with the local business community and the States as an employer to ensure that more and more are available. We have seen during this economic downturn more apprenticeships available. The Skills Executive and the Skills Board are working to increase the number of apprenticeships. We have increased the number of places on the Advance to Work scheme; we have increased the administration training places; we are increasing the trust in company training places; we are increasing also and looking at rolling-out retail training as well, so I always think that there should be more, but we are doing everything that we can and it is at the forefront of our aims.

3.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

In the light of the potential reintroduction of prescription charges in 2011, will the Minister inform Members of the current numbers of those income support claimants who prior to 2008 were H.I.E. (Health Insurance Exemption) recipients with free prescriptions and access to G.P.s and for whom household medical accounts were set up? Also state whether household medical accounts are to be maintained and how income support claimants will be treated following any changes to medical, clinical or pharmaceutical charges?

Deputy I.J. Gorst:

I wonder where I have heard that before? As the Deputy will know, he had submitted this very question as a written question for the next States sitting. I have had notice this morning that he has now withdrawn that and obviously his intention was to ask it as an oral question. I do not have those pieces of information with me, and I am sure Members would not expect me to do so. The H.I.E. system was prior to my appointment as Minister, therefore I would not have those available and therefore the premise of the whole question I am afraid I am not able to answer. However, perhaps he would like to maintain it as a written question for the next sitting and then I will be able to provide the numbers he requests.

3.3.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

May I ask the central core question, which does not require detailed information: state whether household medical accounts are to be maintained and adapted to any new charge system?

Deputy I.J. Gorst:

Household medical accounts are maintained. However, they are, as all elements of income support are, under review. I will be very shortly announcing what I am going to propose for the reintroduction of prescription charges. At this point, the Deputy will have to wait to see what that is, but those on income support will be catered for within those proposals.

3.4 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I wonder if the Minister for Social Security might wish to comment upon the international report issued by the O.E.C.D. (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) and highlighted in today’s Daily Mail that suggests inflated salaries of G.P.s are depriving millions of people in the United Kingdom of 3 years of their life?

The Bailiff:

I am not entirely sure the Minister is responsible for the health of the United Kingdom, Deputy, but...

Deputy I.J. Gorst:

Hopefully nor for the editorial content of the Daily Mail. It may surprise the Member to find out that I am not a reader or subscriber of the Daily Mail. It is difficult for me to comment. However, should he wish to point me in the direction of what one would hope was research that the editorial comments arose from, then of course I am always willing to look at that. It would seem to be surprising that an individual’s salary could ...

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

3.9 The Deputy of Grouville:

Is it the case that G.P.s are able now to advertise their rates and if they do not, or they cannot, should they not be able to, and indeed, be encouraged to do so?

Deputy I.J. Gorst:

This is a discussion that I had with the Deputy last week, and I am not aware whether they are or are not. It would seem strange to me that they were not able to advertise their rates, but I am led to believe that perhaps they are not. I personally think it would be a positive thing if they were in a controlled way allowed to advertise their rates so that members of the public did realise that there is a difference ...

The Bailiff:

Sorry, could we have a bit more quiet, please. I cannot hear what is being said.

Deputy I.J. Gorst:

... that there is a difference in what G.P.s charge for particular services that they provide to the community. It is right that there is a difference, but individual members of the community need to know that, then they can make informed decisions.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to ask any questions of the Minister? Yes, Senator Routier.

3.10 Senator P.F. Routier:

Has the Minister taken into consideration what is happening in Ireland with regard to minimum wage? There is a proposal that they are going to reduce the minimum wage. Does he have any intention of reviewing Jersey’s minimum wage?

Deputy I.J. Gorst:

As the previous Minister knows, minimum wage is currently reviewed on an annual basis. It was not envisaged that it would be initially, but due to the difficult economic conditions, I have requested and they have agreed to do that annual review. I have proposed that there be a 2 per cent increase in the minimum wage for 2011. I think it is fair to say that in Ireland, they did see some quite dramatic rises in the minimum wage, and now what they are finding is that that was out of kilter with the economic conditions that they are currently facing and the difficulties that they are facing, and it is putting employers off employing. The evidence that has been gathered by the Employment Forum is that that is not taking place within our community. There are always those who want to see the minimum wage lower than it is, but we in this Assembly have a duty to ensure that it is a fair and appropriate minimum wage, and I believe that the proposal that we will be debating with regard to that in the New Year is fair and appropriate. I hope that Members will support it, but it will be reviewed again next year to ensure that it continues to be fair and appropriate.

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Planning and Environment

The Bailiff:

Very well, that concludes questions to the Minister for Social Security, so we move now to questions without notice to the Minister for Planning and Environment.

4.1 The Deputy of St. John:

Will the Minister explain why the Fort Regent Don Theatre is used by the Planning Applications Panel when disabled people have to attend, given the venue is totally inappropriate? Only last week, I saw 2 disabled persons at the Don Theatre. Is it usual for one party to receive information about a decision before the hearing is held? Finally, it is usual for panel members to have their back to applicants when addressing them?

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

Thank you for the question. The reason that the Fort Regent Theatre was used was that the Planning Applications Panel had such a large agenda it had to be split into 2. They do excellent work and they consider matters most carefully and that resulted in the hearing having to be extended over 2 periods. Unfortunately, the usual rooms at the Société Jersiaise and at St. Paul’s were not available and the Fort Regent Theatre was the only place available, so I am sorry if it was unsatisfactory, but it is a rare occasion that that theatre will be used. I am afraid I cannot remember the other 2 parts of the question.

The Deputy of St. John:

Is it usual that panel members would have their back to the public when addressing them, and also, is it usual for - I am starting to forget it now myself - for the ...

The Bailiff:

One will do, Deputy, I think.

The Deputy of St. John:

I was just going to finish the question.

The Bailiff:

I know, but we cannot have more than one subject covered. I think I allowed you too many in the first one.

The Deputy of St. John:

Those applications that meet our architectural standards tend to get approved very quickly. Indeed, the vast majority - over 90 per cent of our applications - are dealt with within 13 weeks. That I think is a pretty good record and it is better than most other jurisdictions. That does not mean of course that there are not instances where we are slow, and indeed, some times when we are very slow, but the vast majority are dealt with appropriately, as far as I am concerned.

4.10 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I wanted to come in earlier to follow the Deputy of St. John, because I concur 100 per cent with him. Could I seek an assurance from the Minister for Planning and Environment, because we are aware of the difficulty in finding suitable accommodation for Planning Application Panel meetings, but can I have an assurance from him that Don Theatre will not be used? I do not think it is an appropriate premises and there must be other rooms in Fort Regent that could be better used, or indeed, around the Island. So can I have an assurance that Don Theatre will not be used in future?

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I wonder, without cramping the Constable’s style if it might be an appropriate time to adjourn.

The Bailiff:

Well I was just going to inquire to see whether he is going to accept this one you see, Deputy. Minister, do I understand from your comments that you will be accepting this amendment?

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

I have a few brief comments; I am ambivalent. I am quite happy to propose the adjournment should Members so wish.

The Bailiff:

My question was, will you be accepting the amendment?

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

I will be accepting the amendment.

The Bailiff:

How long do you propose to speak for then, Connétable?

The Connétable of St. Mary:

I probably will speak for maybe up to 5 minutes because I just think there are a few examples just to illustrate why I think this important.

The Bailiff:

Do Members agree to hear the proposer? The vote is called for on whether to adjourn. Very well, the adjournment is proposed, this should take up the rest of the time until 12.45 p.m.. The appel is called for on to whether to adjourn. The Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 24	CONTRE: 13	ABSTAIN: 2
Senator B.E. Shenton	Senator T.A. Le Sueur	Senator J.L. Perchard
Senator S.C. Ferguson	Senator P.F.C. Ozouf	Connétable of St. Mary
Senator A.J.H. Maclean	Senator A. Breckon
Senator F.du H. Le Gresley	Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of St. Ouen	Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Helier	Connétable of St. John
Connétable of Grouville	Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Connétable of St. Martin	Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Connétable of St. Saviour	Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
Connétable of St. Clement	Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)	Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy of St. Martin	Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)	Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy of St. John
Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

The Bailiff:

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]

5.2.2 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I rise to second this amendment. In particular the word which I have singled out is “practical” and I would ask Members throughout this debate to hold that word in their minds throughout. In this whole policy people do need to think about the practical options about how people can get around. The Constable has done a lot of hard work and she concentrated to mostly speaking on families and of course she did mention the elderly and infirm. I would go further and say that also in some jobs - some occupations - a motor vehicle is the only option in order to be able to do that profession as well. But I welcome this amendment and I will save what else I have to say for the main debate.

5.2.3 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

Just to speak briefly to the amendment. My proposed policy does not propose any disproportionate increases in motoring cost other than the possibly the cost of public parking. The cost of parking is significant to people’s travel choices and our research suggests that if we are to reach our 15 per cent traffic reduction then a modest above inflation increase in parking cost is likely to be necessary during the next 5 years. I hasten to add though that before we consider this, a bus service and other improvements will be put in place first so their impact can be accurately assessed and, most importantly, so the alternatives are practical and in place. If the impacts of these improvements are greater than our research suggests then happily no above-inflation increases will be necessary. I think the definition of ‘available to all’ will mean different things to different people and we will not have a bus service running along every minor road but we will have a comprehensive bus service covering all 12 Parishes, which starts earlier and runs later than it currently does so that people have a good public transport option. For a few people who live in a particularly remote location their public transport option might involve a short drive to a local car park or a walk before catching the bus. I would conclude, therefore, that the Connétable’s amendment is not inconsistent with my Sustainable Transport Policy as we do propose to improve the alternative, particularly with respect to an Island-wide comprehensive bus service before considering whether increases in parking charges are necessary. I would also add that although the Connétable’s report states that her amendment would result in a reduction in the funds available to the policy equal to the proposed increased in motoring costs, this is incorrect as the policy has been developed on the understanding that it will receive £500,000 per annum funding, this being one quarter of the anticipated income received from the Vehicle Emissions Duty. The V.E.D. (Vehicle Emissions Duty), as we call it now, has been introduced in September this year and there are no proposals to increase it disproportionately. If there are to be increases in parking costs they are not to be expected to increase income as there will be a reduction in parked cars resulting from the policy and this will more than negate the effect of an increased rate.

[14:30]

So funding for the policy is not, therefore, dependent on disproportionate increases in motoring costs and viable alternatives are to be made available to all. I can, therefore, support the Connétable’s amendment.

5.2.4 Deputy J.B. Fox:

Briefly, just as this proposition has come from the Constable of St. Mary, I would like to remind the House that even St. Helier has its remoteness. We go to the borders with Trinity, St. Lawrence and St. John and being one of the old-fashioned Deputies that goes around from house to house - which seems about 8,000 - you get to speak to an awful lot of people, admittedly you do not get to speak to them all. But the one general comment that relates to this is that when you live up Mont Cochon way or the top-end of Vallée des Vaux and places like that, you do not have the opportunity of doing anything else - unless you are young and fit - than to go by car because there are no buses and, therefore, they tend nowadays to go to shops outside of St. Helier because of the difficulties and the cost of parking and, therefore, the traders in St. Helier lose out. The other side of the coin is that if they want to go and visit Clarkson House Hospice, for argument’s sake, or they live in one of the sheltered homes, shall we say, at Le Pouquelaye, the bus service ceases in the evening, very good for the daytime but they are trapped: they cannot get out. So I just bring this, for this particular amendment, to the attention that this is a broader sphere than those of you that just live in the country. Thank you.

5.2.5 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I do not think Deputy Maçon even drives a car, I can only conclude that he is about to buy a new one. But I am sure that did not influence his support. I too will support this amendment, I think it is very sensible and I do try to vote for sensible amendments. Perhaps we should go a tad further and try and encourage everyone - and I know it is not possible for a lot of woman - to pick people up and give them a lift. I regularly do that to the public and the rumours that I will not let them out until they vote for me are just not true. Thank you. [Laughter]

5.2.6 The Deputy of St. John:

I would like to congratulate the Connétable: maybe she might like to sit on my Scrutiny Panel because this is obviously one that went through, we did not notice and, therefore, I am obviously pleased to support her as I will be supporting the Minister with the overall policy and thank you for picking this one up.

5.2.7 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I think the proposer has highlighted something that will come up again in the debate, which is the way that things connect up. I just want to say a few words about one thing she said about the one thing that would drive someone to need to use their car would be taking a child, for instance, to St. Mary’s School for 8.30 a.m. and then there is not another bus until 9.15 a.m. and so the trip has to be carried on - the commute to work if it is in town - by car. That does highlight the way that all these things are connected up. If we do vote the overall policy there is in there a schools travel co-ordinator funded and that will mean that the whole school - the pupils, the parents and the staff - will develop school travel plans which will then encourage children to walk, cycle, or be accompanied by walking buses or whatever, using environmentally friendly modes to get to their school safely. Then that issue there falls away because that parent has more options available to them. So these things are connected up and I would just say that, in defence of the Minister really, he said that the way of dealing with all these different requirements - as mentioned by Deputy Fox and by the Constable in proposing the amendment - is complicated, there are a lot of different needs and different requirements. The Constable of St. Brelade rightly said it will be a mix… it will be a mix of solutions. That is where he is trying to take us, I do not think he is trying to take us to Utopia in 5 years’ time, it would be nice but that is not what the policy is trying to do. It is quite a commonsense mechanism for getting us to somewhere a bit better than where we are now and I will be supporting this because the thrust is the same as what the Scrutiny Panel said, that the alternatives have to be in place. But I do not think we can be too fine about this and say that everything has to be perfect until something else happens. It will be a process and there will be people who are inconvenienced as they are now by not being in the perfect spot at the perfect time. But please, please let us not trip over small details in the general direction of this policy. Thank you.

5.2.8 The Connétable of St. Mary:

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed. Thank you, Deputy Maçon, for seconding me and for also highlighting the fact that complex journeys, journeys where you have to go to more than one destination in a day, where there is a continuation of the journey, they are another reason why sometimes it is simply not possible to take the leisurely route of a bus, or a cycle, for example, or to walk, and the bus service may not be flexible enough at the moment. I note what the Minister says about modest above inflation increases but I do not know his definition of modest really, whether that really is suitable. I have to take him at his word but I will keep reminding of the use of the word “modest” if I need to. Deputy Fox: I thank you, of course there are other remote areas apart from St. Mary, I simply speak from experience because that is what I know best. I take your point exactly about Clarkson House having recently had a relative there for a long time, transport links are difficult. That is something of course that I am sure the Minister has noted down, I see him scribbling. I thank the Deputy of St. John for his support and for the offer of a job should I need one, thank you. The Deputy of St. Mary: I agree, a school plan will be a great benefit and I know that all schools are on target to have one, I think it is by 2012 or something like that. In many areas, especially in what I call the semi-urban areas - like La Moye, areas like that- the school traffic plan is fabulous, walking buses, et cetera, are great. But predominantly they are good when there is a pavement or there is some infrastructure. A lot of the people I am talking about live down a green lane somewhere: the bus is never going to get them, I understand that. These other measures will help, they will not necessarily solve the issues but I take the point, it does not have to be a complete answer for everybody - one complete answer for everybody. Different things will help different people but we need to make sure that we have this network of things in place which will mesh together. Not everything has to be in place but one thing I will pick the Deputy of St. Mary up on, I am not talking about an inconvenience for travellers, I am talking about a necessity. These are not the people who will not give up their cars no matter what; these are the people who cannot. It is not an inconvenience if you see your child in danger. Every time I drop my daughter up at St. Peter’s Valley where there is no refuge for her I worry that before the bus comes some driver will come up with the sun in his eyes, will have something distracting him, a squirrel run across the road and he will swerve or whatever, and my daughter has nowhere to go. That worries me every single time I drop her off and when I carry on my journey and the bus passes me a few minutes later I think: “Good, she is going to be safe in a minute.” That, for me, is a real concern. I think it is a real concern for most parents and I mentioned the Deputy of Grouville is quite right to highlight the need for shelters, but the need for refuges is equally important and we need to build that in. I have gone so far in the past as to suggest to the Minister that you should not have to pay for your bus journey unless you can get on it from a safe place and I hoped that would focus his mind, but I do not think it has so far. So it is not a matter of convenience, it could be a matter of safety, it could be a matter of keeping your employment because the employers often go that extra mile to help the families who have got children, they will allow them the odd sick day when the children come down with a fever overnight. But if you are consistently late, if you consistently have to leave early, in this economic climate that is a real problem and a real issue to your job security. So be sure, we are not talking about inconvenience, we are talking about necessity. I have said enough, I move the amendment and I call for the appel.

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for then in relation to the amendment lodged by the Connétable of St. Mary. I invite Members to return their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 43	CONTRE: 0	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator T.A. Le Sueur
Senator P.F. Routier
Senator T.J. Le Main
Senator F.E. Cohen
Senator A. Breckon
Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Senator F.du H. Le Gresley
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Mary
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
Deputy of St. John
Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

5.3 Sustainable Transport Policy: second amendment (P.104/2010 Amd(2))

The Bailiff:

We come next to the second amendment which is lodged by the Connétable of St. Helier and is particular to paragraph 2 of that amendment. Although it is quite lengthy I think the Greffier should read it out but, Connétable, I understand you are withdrawing paragraph (e), is that right?

The Connétable of St. Helier:

Yes please.

The Bailiff:

Very well, so that will not be read out.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Page 2 after paragraph (a), insert new paragraphs as follows: “(b) to bring forward within one year of the adoption of the Policy comprehensive strategies designed to facilitate and encourage walking and cycling; (c) to carry out a review of the transport requirements of the mobility impaired or ‘disabled drivers’, including the administration and operation of the ‘Blue Badge scheme’, and to report back to the States with recommendations for any changes or improvements; (d) to implement a scheme to enhance pedestrian safety in Midvale Road by the end of 2012; (f) to research and develop proposals by the end of 2011 to enhance pedestrian levels of service at the following locations (i) the junction of Wellington Hill and the Ring Road; (ii) the junction of Bath Street, Peter Street and Beresford Street; (iii) the junction of Gloucester Street and the Parade; (iv) the pedestrian exit across Little Green Street from the Green Street Car Park; (v) the Queen’s Road roundabout; (g) to bring forward, in conjunction with the Property Holdings Department, by the end of 2011, proposals to provide increased shopper parking at Snow Hill; (h) to work with States Departments, especially the Harbours Department, to achieve the release of at least 25 per cent of the privately leased parking spaces in States’ ownership for short-stay shopper parking, and to enable the provision of increased scooter or motorcycle parking; (i) to request the Minister for Transport and Technical Services to take the necessary steps to provide that the revenue in the Car Parking Trading Fund from any above-inflation increases in parking charges will be ring-fenced to fund improvements in the provision of alternatives to the private car, including improvements to encourage walking, cycling and bus travel; (j) to request the Minister for TTS to bring forward by July 2011 proposals to extend the opening hours of Liberation Station in conjunction with late bus services; (k) in paragraph (d), before the words “low-emission” insert the word “smaller;”.

5.3.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:

Despite the length of the proposition Members will be pleased to know that I am not going to speak at length, particularly given that the Minister has broadly speaking accepted the amendments that I brought, albeit it with some caveats which are contained in his own amendments, and I am very happy to accept the amendments of the Minister to these amendments when we get there. So hopefully that will also speed-up the debate. I would, however, just like to go through the list and really just preface it with the remarks that I make in the first paragraph of the report, and for the benefit of those Members who have not read it yet, I am just going to read out the first paragraph: “There is little to disagree with in the high level aims of the Sustainable Transport Policy but there is an absence of practical measures that could achieve these. In particular, the proposed 15 per cent reduction in peak hour traffic levels, given the competing States policies which will lead to more vehicles on our roads such as growing and diversifying the economy, population growth to maintain the proportion of economically active residents, and focusing new development in St. Helier. Although achieving the last item reduces the need to commute in and out of town. The policy will also fail because of the amount of funding it seeks.” That is all I am going to read from the report and I think the purpose of my amendments is to try to give some teeth to the policy really, very good high level objectives and while the Minister did not want to get involved in a detailed debate about whether we need a pedestrian crossing outside Green Street Car Park, my experience of 13 years in the States of asking for a pedestrian crossing outside Green Street Car Park is that we do not get this in a policy somewhere it is never going to happen. Effectively the shopping list here of improvements seem to me to be pretty uncontroversial. Who would argue that the situation at the bottom of Wellington Hill when the children are going to school is satisfactory? I have had numerous complaints from parents and also from businesses in the area that the bottom of Wellington Hill is dangerous and it needs to be dealt with. Who would argue that the major car park of Green Street should have some kind of crossing to get from the car park over to Grenville Street and into town?

[14:45]

Who has been down Midvale Road as a pedestrian and found that a comfortable or safe experience, particularly in the morning rush hour? Let us not forget that the rush hour, particularly in St. Helier, is composed of thousands of people walking to work as well as all the school children. I am not going to go through the whole list; I think they are very clear. These are things that have been on various agendas during the last decade since the last transport policy was brought to the House. Nothing has really happened to bring any of these about and so that was why I felt a certain degree of frustration in looking at the policy and feeling, well, even some of them are put in the ‘too difficult’ box. Speaking of the ‘too difficult’ box, Members will be aware that I have withdrawn the amendment to do something about Halkett Place, south of Waterloo Street. That, of course, in the policy is highlighted as the one part of town which really needs to be tackled but the Minister then says: “Well, there is too much traffic to do anything about it.” What I have agreed is that, because of the representations from the Chamber of Commerce members, that has been withdrawn in order that further discussions can take place with the market traders, with the Chamber of Commerce, and indeed meetings have already been set up for the new year to try to take this process forward. There is a real danger I think that people who like to knock sustainable transport immediately assume that anybody who wants to make the streets safer is anti-car and that is something I have learned to live with, I have got broad enough shoulders to cope with that. I know that even when I can afford to buy an extremely expensive motor car and drive it happily around St. Helier it will not make any difference, I will still be considered anti-car. But I have to say that there is a real worry that if we do not embrace the kind of aspirations that the Minister has set out here and which I am trying to make a little more concrete, that areas such as the Waterfront will be much more attractive to people than the town centre of St. Helier. It is very important that St. Helier can compete with rival attractions like the Waterfront and we will not do that if we insist in running rush hour traffic through the heart of our historic town. But that, as I say, is a matter for another day. The suite of amendments here seem to me to be entirely sensible and I am quite happy to answer any questions on them. I hope that Members will agree that the needs of disabled drivers or the mobility-impaired need to be taken more seriously, we need to review the number of disabled spaces we have around town, the way they are enforced, the fact that we have all seen people sprinting away from cars parked in disabled areas and we are concerned about that. Indeed, from the point of view of St. Helier, it does seem to me wrong that one Parish is administering the scheme on behalf of the States. This seems to me a scheme that really does need to be reviewed and possibly put in the capable hands of the Minister for Social Services who has an independent medical panel who might be able to bring some consistency to the whole application process. I want to briefly refer to the proposals for car parking in the amendments. Perhaps characteristically, people who took issue with my amendments only focused on the reference to Halkett Place, they did not seem to see that there is an effort to bring forward a shoppers car park at Snow Hill, one that makes use of that cutting and maximises its potential for shoppers car parking, right next to the town centre. This amendment is seeking to really tie the Minister down to work with Property Holdings and to bring forward increased capacity for shoppers in Snow Hill. Perhaps more radically the amendment is seeking to transfer some of the 6,000 spaces which are in the ownership of the departments of the States to the shopper and to the public. Now, I asked a question back in June 2009 asking Property Holdings to come forward with a list of all the car parking spaces that is currently being leased out by Housing, Harbours, Education and so on and the astonishing total - if we take out the car parks - of 6,000 spaces are used as cash cows by States departments. What I am suggesting in this amendment, and it has been amended by the Minister, a proportion of those spaces should be transferred to the shopper and the visitor. If I can give just one specific example, the list that we were given in June tells us there are 93 spaces currently on the Albert Pier on monthly parking arrangements, private commuter parking arrangements run by Harbours and there are just 10 spaces given over to parking for shoppers. With the opening of Liberty Wharf I would suggest that the parking on the Albert Pier should be available to everybody, it should not be sold-off to commuters largely so that they can enjoy a private car parking space. Those spaces belong to us all and we should all have access to them. Equally radically, and I hope this will appeal to the Constable of St. Mary, the amendment (i) asks that any increased parking charges over inflation should be ring-fenced for improvements to public transport and the like, and that, I think, answers her real concern that the price of parking will be put up before the improvements are in place that give people an alternative. So I do not think that is too controversial. Towards the end of the list I am seeking to keep Liberation Station open much later and to provide late bus services. Again that is something which I am sure everybody will welcome. I have also included the word smaller with low-emission vehicles. One of the things about low-emission vehicles is they can still be very big, it is also important we encourage the use of smaller cars where people have personal circumstances which permit, and so I have included that word as well. I hope that these amendments will meet the support of Members, I apologise if they are seen as unduly detailed but after 10 years of trying to bring these improvements about I really felt I had no other option. I very grateful to the Minister for the positive way he and his officers have taken them, I am also grateful to him for delaying the debate in order that the correct lodging time could be provided for these amendments. I am very happy to answer questions, but otherwise I propose the amendment.

The Bailiff:

Are the amendments seconded? [Seconded] Very well. Then of course we have amendments to the amendment and we need to take those next. They will have to be done separately but the Constable has already indicated that by and large I think he will be accepting them. So I therefore ask the Greffier first of all to read the first amendment lodged by the Minister for Transport and Technical Services.

5.4 Sustainable Transport Policy (P.104/2010): second amendment (P.104/2010 Amd.(2)) – amendment (P.104/2010 Amd.(2) Amd.) - paragraph (d)

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

On page 3, part 2, paragraph (d) after the words “by the end of the 2012” insert the words “subject to appropriate consultation.”

5.4.1 The Connétable of St. Brelade (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):

Part 2(d) of the Connétable’s amendment requires me to implement a pedestrian safety scheme in Midvale Road. The obvious means of improving the safety of pedestrians there would be to make the road one-way so that the footpaths could be widened. A scheme has been developed by T.T.S. in conjunction with the Parish and this would be consistent with the principles of the S.T.P. (Sustainable Transport Policy) and analysis of the traffic flow suggested that the increase in traffic delay on this rounding road network would be modest. It should be noted, however, that a proper public consultation including that with the emergency services has not yet been carried out, and would need to be before plans are finalised. I have, therefore, proposed an amendment which will ensure appropriate consultation is carried out.

The Bailiff:

Is that amendment seconded? [Seconded]

5.4.2 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I recently attended the Minister’s office with his Assistant Minister and his department to ask about pedestrian improvements around the Island, I was going to bring a proposition to formulate an ongoing understanding of the priority of pedestrian improvements and I was told by the officers and the Minister and his Assistant Minister that as an ongoing body of work the last thing they really wanted was a bunch of politicians throwing their chefs hats into the kitchen. However, this morning changed my view that we have got bags of time for this kind of stuff. I know the Constable first got into politics because his son was run down by a car; he wanted to do something about it in St. Helier. This morning on the way back from school I had to stop to help a child who had been hit by a car. The child was okay but by the time the ambulance came I was looking at a child covered in blood who was looking into my eyes - a little tiny 7 year-old - he asked me several times: “Am I going to survive?” It was heartbreaking. I really think that these kinds of delays are unacceptable. They are similar to the sorts of delays that we saw from the Minister for Transport and Technical Services of previous days in relation to rear seatbelt provision. The Minister knows, because I was told at that meeting months ago, that Midvale Road is a prime target for a one-way system. To now come to the States and ask us to change this and give them until after further consultation because they have not spoken to the fire department and the police department and the ambulance service, in my view, is just a ridiculous situation. The Minister can stretch out his hand and touch the other Minister to ask him what his department thinks about this proposal. We are too long in introducing pedestrian safety, in town especially, and I for one ... although I have been very patient with the Minister on pedestrian safety issues and tried to work with him, my mind today has been changed. Because I do not want to look in another child’s eyes and try to reassure them that they are going to be okay when they are asking me: “Will I survive?” At the rate we are going I am not sure I can continue to give that answer.

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

I just rose to say basically that I support the proposition of the Connétable and the amendment. I can understand that the Minister for Transport and Technical Services wants to carry out some sort of consultation with interested parties. Midvale Road has been a cause of concern certainly since I have been in the States since 2002 and as somebody who regular walks up and down Midvale Road I am at times horrified by the speed of the traffic travelling up and down there, so I do welcome this amendment. I understand exactly what Deputy Le Claire is saying here, having witnessed a much younger child get hit by a car on the Queen’s Road roundabout last year, although I have to say that there was possibly not enough supervision going on with regard to that child, it is quite horrifying when you see a child hit by a car. So I do welcome this amendment and I hope that the Minister can endeavour to carry out this work as soon as possible in order that safety measures are put in place as soon as possible.

5.4.4 The Connétable of St. Helier:

I am sure the Minister is perfectly capable of answering for himself but I would just like to point out to Deputy Le Claire - and I absolutely take on board his concerns - that what the Minister is proposing here is not to delay the scheme but to consult first. The date in my amendment is still the end of 2012 and that is because this particular amendment is to implement the scheme, not merely to design it. One of the other amendments he is seeking to delay because I have just asked for the design, here he is not trying to delay he is simply trying to consult and that is why I support him.

5.4.5 The Deputy of St. Mary:

At first when I read the amendment I said to myself: “Fine.” Then I saw the amendment to the amendment, subject to appropriate consultation and I ticked it, I thought: “That is all right.” Then I heard what Deputy Le Claire said and it is not so much the emotional impact of what he said, although that was pretty great, I looked again at the wording and it does disturb me and I think it should disturb Members because notwithstanding what the Constable has just said, the Constable in his original amendment says that he is asking the Minister to implement a scheme to enhance pedestrian safety in Midvale Road by the end of 2012. Implemented, done. But the Minister’s amendment says “subject to appropriate consultation”. That implies to me that if the consultation cannot be done in the time frame then the delay carries on beyond that so what I am seeking from the Minister is an absolute categorical assurance that 2012 is when this will be implemented by and “subject to appropriate consultation” means he will fit that in into that timeframe with no caveats. It is not acceptable to use that “subject to appropriate consultation” as a delay on top of it that might take us beyond the end of 2012. So unless the Minister can assure this House that the end of 2012 is the absolute deadline for implementation then I will not be supporting this amendment and I would urge others to do likewise. If, on the other hand, he can assure us that is still deadline and the consultation will be fitted in within that then that should be fine with all of us. Thank you.

[15:00]

5.4.6 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Very briefly, with reference to (e), which has been withdrawn, there were 450 cars per hour which would be travelling along Halkett Place. The Constable of St. Helier has very kindly agreed to withdraw but just to illustrate the point ...

The Bailiff:

Well, Deputy, I am sorry, we are dealing at the moment with an amendment which concerns solely ...

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes, I was illustrating the point, the fact that these cars would then go north or south up the north of St. Helier and the south of St. Helier, thereby exacerbating the traffic problems already. I am just making the point that this all is happening but it must be done in a staged order or it will be chaos and I urge Members to support the amendments.

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

If Midvale Road is to be a one-way system surely the obvious road to use for either the in or the one-way is Clarendon Road alongside, I hope that is looked into. [Laughter]

5.4.8 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

In answer to Deputy Le Claire I would say that I am always pleased to hear comments, not only from him but also other politicians, because they are in touch with their constituents and feeding information to the Executive is an essential part of the Government we have. The point I think that needs to be considered by Members is that a lot of the proposals in this Part 2 will require funding and this is one of them. In particular the scheme in Midvale Road will cost, we think, £379,000 and this implies that some financial support may be coming from Parish funds, though there is no indication of how much at the moment. The majority of funding for all the measures proposed will need to be met by States budgets and quite candidly we do not have that funding in our budget and that is one of my difficulties. I think my amendment is reasonable and pragmatic and while I sympathise with Deputy Le Claire’s experiences this morning I urge Members to support the amendment.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Can I ask the Constable to explain why it was when he proposed this amendment he did so on the basis that it was due to consultation that had not taken place with the emergency services, then he summed up by saying he did not have the money?

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

No, I certainly do not have the money. The implications are all of Part 2 of the Connétable’s amendments have a cost and in some ways the debate is the wrong way around. I think Part 3 asks for the funding and Members need to be aware that without funding these elements cannot proceed.

The Bailiff:

Very well, is the appel called for in relation to the amendments? This is the amendment of the Minister to paragraph (d) of the amendment lodged by the Connétable of St. Helier. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 36	CONTRE: 8	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator T.A. Le Sueur	Connétable of St. Lawrence
Senator P.F. Routier	Deputy of Grouville
Senator T.J. Le Main	Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)
Senator F.E. Cohen	Deputy of St. Mary
Senator A. Breckon	Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Senator S.C. Ferguson	Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Senator A.J.H. Maclean	Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Senator B.I. Le Marquand	Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)
Senator F.du H. Le Gresley
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Mary
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
Deputy of St. John
Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

5.5 Sustainable Transport Policy (P.104/2010): second amendment (P.104/2010 Amd.(2)) – amendment (P.104/2010 Amd.(2) Amd.) - paragraph (f)

The Bailiff:

Very well, then we move next to paragraph 3 of the amendments lodged by the Minister for Transport and Technical Services and I will ask the Greffier to read that amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Page 3, part 2, paragraph (f) for the date 2011 substitute the date 2012.

5.5.1 The Connétable of St. Brelade (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):

This concerns 5 junctions where the Connétable wishes to see enhancement of pedestrian services. While the amendment addresses a level of detail which I would not normally consider appropriate in a States debate on transport policy, we will develop pedestrian improvements at these and other locations in accordance with the principles of the strategy. I am mindful of the significant resource implications of the many issues to pursue following the adoption of the S.T.P. my amendment simply changes the deadline from 2011 to 2012.

The Bailiff:

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]

5.5.2 The Connétable of St. Helier:

While the previous amendment seemed to me quite reasonable in that it was looking for 2 years to carry out consultation and then implement a scheme, this and the next amendment are seeking an extra year merely to carry out the consultation and do the desktop studies. This one relates to 5 junctions around the main town of the Island which have been demonstrated statistically and in the Island Plan to need attention. The next one is to do with Snow Hill Car Park. I am just pleased that the Minister has accepted to do them at some point. It does seem to me that 2 years is quite a long time to draw up feasibility studies. Perhaps if he had said: “Well, we will do Snow Hill Car Park in a year and we will take 2 years.” Or vice versa, perhaps if he had said: “We will do these important pedestrian junctions.” What else is more important in his policy after this has been developed than the situation you have at Queen’s Road roundabout on the mornings when children are trying to get Rouge Bouillon School? I mean, if there are more important things perhaps he will tell us when he sums up. So I will not lose sleep over this amendment being approved, but I certainly think that the department ought to be able to bring forward schemes within a year for this and indeed for the next amendment. So I shall probably oppose the amendment.

5.5.3 Deputy J.A. Hilton:

I agree with everything the Constable has said with regard to this amendment. I think 2 years is basically too long to be working-up some scheme to improve pedestrian safety. The problem we have got in St. Helier we have got right now and certainly I was copied-in on some correspondence which I believe the Constable received as well from a hotelier on Queen’s Road who was complaining to us about how one of his guests was almost wiped-out on Queen’s Road a couple of weeks ago due to speeding drivers. I think it has been allowed to go on for far too long. We need to put pedestrian safety right there at the top of the agenda in St. Helier. I did not think I would ever say this but it strikes me that the biggest problem we have in St. Helier is speeding vehicles and Midvale Road, Queen’s Road, New St. John’s Road are all areas that we do have great difficulties with and as a mother who used to drive her children up Wellington Road to school I am well aware of the problems of children trying to cross the junction there as well. There are 2 things I am thinking, it would be wonderful if drivers gave priority to people whether they be children or adults either trying to cross the road on a zebra crossing or at some sort of pedestrian refuge. It would be absolutely great if we automatically stopped and allowed them to cross. Whether that is ever going to happen in St. Helier I do not know but I think it would help. Secondly, I am getting increasingly cheesed-off and depressed with the speed of traffic in St. Helier and I am seriously thinking maybe the time has come for us to consider putting speed cameras in if that is the only way we are going to slow traffic down in St. Helier to safeguard pedestrians, children and adults alike. If car drivers are not going to slow down and drive appropriately for the conditions then I am afraid it may come to that one day.

5.5.4 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

My youngest daughter was knocked down by a car some 3 years ago in Midvale Road and I feel absolutely strongly about this as well as my Constable and my fellow Deputy, Deputy Hilton. This has to be done now; there cannot possibly be any reason for a 2-year delay. It seems to me that the department is very tardy in what it does. I will be voting against this amendment and I will be voting against the main proposition because it is just too woolly like the Strategic Plan was.

5.5.5 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I do not want to dwell on my comments earlier but it is difficult to put them out of my perspective in relation to today’s debate. It is ironic really that it was today of all days that something occurred. The feeling of fear is something that we have a responsibility to tackle as a jurisdiction, not only the actual consequences. I remember on other occasions looking into pedestrian safety issues where I had to demonstrate that there had been fatalities and was issued a map by the department to show where the injuries had occurred and where the fatalities occurred. In one particular area I was shown a map that had not got enough red spots to warrant a crossing. It really did flow from the Minister’s speech in summing up what the problem is; it is about money. I am terribly disappointed the Minister for Planning and Environment has just popped-out - he does not normally pop-out for long, but maybe his Assistant Minister will take it on board, - Percentage for Art: that is brilliant, yes, Percentage for Art, making a great community to come and look at. How about a percentage of development for pedestrian safety? Because there are more cars coming into town, there are more people coming to live in town, the vehicles are getting more powerful, people are not necessarily getting more capable of driving them. I drive a car so I am not against cars, but I do believe that the issues of speed, as mentioned by Deputy Hilton ... another part of the proposition I had was to reduce the speed limit within the Ring Road to 20 m.p.h. or 25 m.p.h. I think it was, and that was scotched at the meeting with the Minister and his Assistant Minister. It draws me back to the fact that at that meeting I left the room at least hopeful that the scheme that was coming for Garden Lane, which has been 5 or 6 years in the making which I had to go and get Parish funds to pay for ... which was promised in the Fall still has not been delivered to safeguard children entering Garden Lane so they could get up to Rouge Bouillon still has not even begun. All of those issues on New Street which run into that and all of those proposals were part of the Island Plan and the amendment that I brought to the Island Plan which was accepted in 2002 was to increase the pedestrian facilities in New Street to cater for the people that were taking their children or the children that were walking backwards and forwards from the schools. It is the ‘Safe Routes to Schools’ projects and the money that this Minister has not got because his previous Minister did not fight his corner well enough. I would rather see this Minister doing away with his compost operation, £750,000 a year for the benefit of £50,000 worth of mulch, and putting up money into pedestrian safety. So, again, I am sorry, my views have been severely affected possibly only for today, I do not know, but certainly for today that I am very pro-pedestrian safety today because I have witnessed how unsafe it is at the moment in town. I am sorry, Members may not be able to have any empathy for me but that is fine, I do not want it, but they should have empathy for the child that was knocked down that was looking at me and saying: “Am I going to survive?” at 8.20 a.m. in the morning.

5.5.6 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Just a couple of points. I have to say I have got quite a bit of sympathy with the Minister when he says he would not normally take on board this fine a detail within a plan. Only at lunchtime, instead of a lunch, I met with T.T.S. funnily enough and officials from the Parish to do with not children but elderly residents and the rat-run around Hilary Street and Berkshire Court and it is interesting that while we stood there with a gentleman from T.T.S. in a nice yellow coat people slowed down. As soon as he disappeared and I stood there for another 20 minutes with the residents it was back up to 40 miles an hour easily. So while I say that - and I have got sympathy with the Minister - I am going to vote against the amendment because I think the Constable is quite right, he is really bringing this out of frustration and maybe 2 years is too long. I think we have got to err on the side of caution here and Deputy Le Claire is quite right, St. Helier is not really safe for pedestrians in many cases. People can be unbelievably selfish and unthinking and I think the Constable deserves support in this. I think on this one I cannot support the Minister so that is what I will be voting.

[15:15]

5.5.7 Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour:

I think we have got to be careful that we focus on reality here. The police reported when we looked at the speed limits that in fact only 3 per cent of accidents were caused by speeding. We were also informed that the vast majority of accidents involving pedestrians were caused by the pedestrians. Now, it is all very well to say if we lower the speed limits, as everyone is speeding, this is going to solve the problem. It is not. What we need to do is educate children more about safe walking. We need to educate adults more about safe walking. The number of times you see people just stepping off the pavement without looking… they are an accident looking for somewhere to happen. It does not matter how safe or carefully a driver is going, if a pedestrian behaves irresponsibly there will be an accident. Now, that does not mean that we are going to solve it by messing around with the speed limits. What we do need to do is try and keep pedestrians away from traffic. We need to try and have areas where they are focused on crossing safely and this may mean that we have more of these raised areas, because there is no doubt that cars do react positively to that and they are safer for pedestrians to cross on. But we have got to look at the whole thing, we cannot just focus on speed and pretend that this is going to make things safer. We need to look at a full range and I think the most important of all is education.

5.5.8 Deputy J.B. Fox:

I am pleased to follow a fellow sub-committee member on speeding because they were some of the points that I was about to raise as well. It is a combination of things that make is successful. But let us have no illusions that this is something new. For the last 39½, let us call it 40, years I have been hearing the same thing from the time when I first joined the police force to before I joined the police force. In those days there was half the traffic, half the pedestrians and half everything else but there was drinking and driving and there was speeding et cetera. In fact a young lady that lived not very far from me got run over and lost a kidney, but I am sure she is not the only one that I could quote but for the benefit of this few minutes that I shall be spending talking to you is that I am not going to mention police motorbikes again because you will laugh at me. [Members: Oh!] But it was one of the best deterrents that we had and one of my duties every morning, first thing in the morning was to make sure that the Ring Road was clear of vehicles that were impeding… it was to slow down the motorists, it was to tell silly people that were doing silly things that they were likely to cause themselves injury or somebody else injury. The amount of times that I slowed down... last night, for argument’s sake, in the dark there was a paper boy coming down Mont Cocho - as I happened to be going up there- without any lights on in dark clothes only, followed a few hundred yards later by a kid crouching down on a skateboard. These are all things that cause accidents and you cannot have new junctions and everything else. The one thing is though which is successful is the ‘Smileys.’ The ‘Smileys’ are extremely successful. If you want to do something positive continue using the ‘Smileys’, you can move them around and they are very, very effective and they also tell the authorities what speed people are going, how many there are, even when they appear to be switched-off, and they are very, very effective.

The Bailiff:

Can I just remind you this amendment is on the date by which the matter ...

Deputy J.B. Fox:

This is coming to it, Sir, I did start it off with 40 years, if you recall. [Laughter] I am just catching-up. But I was coming to the date. I will be retired in 12 months’ time and I would like to see some improvements before I retire, so I shall be voting against this amendment. That I hope will keep you happy as well, I will sit down. Thank you.

5.5.9 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I want to make a couple of points. The first is very strictly on the amendment, which is about the delay, and I worked for a short while at Public Services, as it then was, and I witnessed the Esplanade Car Park, if Members recall that big car park with lots of planting near what is now the Tourism Office. That was designed from pretty well start to finish when I was there, and I was only there for 3 months. That was a big project. One person designed that whole car park with everything that goes with it - the planting, the watering, the lighting, the whole lot - in 3 months. So just remember that when you are considering how long it might take an officer to design 5 small pedestrian safety improvements. That is my first point. The second is, I really have to take up what the Constable of St. Saviour said, and remind Members of what Deputy Le Claire said. The feeling of fear is something we have to tackle as a jurisdiction. Road safety is not just about people not being hit. It is about people knowing that they will not be hit. Feeling safe. Feeling secure, and I am sorry, I do not want to see a dangerous environment mitigated. I want to see a safe environment, and I will be speaking more about road safety when it comes to my own amendment, and I will resist the temptation to do so now.

5.5.10 The Connétable of St. Mary:

Very briefly, speaking to the timescale, I am also of a mind to mention what the Constable of St. Brelade mentioned. I have got a number of issues in the Parish of St. Mary, which I have had dealings with the Roads Committee about, and we invited Transport and Technical Services to attend our meeting to discuss particular aspects. I know there are things in the pipeline there. The Constable of St. Helier has brought his out in this amendment, focusing the Assembly’s attention on the now, but I am aware there are finite resources and I just am concerned that by not allowing the full timescale up to 2012 there will not be sufficient money available for the Minister to adequately prioritise the most important things. For example, in St. Mary, we have the Bethlehem Junction which I have been working with T.T.S. on and we have a solution to a junction which has claimed lives, and which is repeatedly the site of accidents, and they are not necessarily - in fact I do not think ever - speed-related. They are layout-related and we have identified ways that that can be mitigated and made safe. I am anxious to see that the department is allowed to prioritise on importance and in improvement to public safety. I am not denying the need for any of the amendments, only of the changes that the Constable of St. Helier is calling for. I am just saying there are other ones not in this proposition that are perhaps equally laudable, and I would be supporting the delay to 2012 in the hope that the Minister will target them in a list according to their priorities, and to achieve the maximum benefit for safety for road users in the Island generally.

5.5.11 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I may have misheard the Constable of St. Saviour when he was talking. Did he say: “Lower speed limits would not reduce pedestrian accidents” and also that many of the problems are caused by the pedestrian themselves? On the latter part, I can agree that sometimes it is pedestrians who are at fault. They do step on the road occasionally; they do want to cross the road, which is even more important, because what we have got is a situation, if I talk about St. Helier. I live on the inner road - St. Aubin’s Road - and over the last year and a half the volume of traffic on that road has gone up phenomenally. Much of it is because of the road works that were done on Victoria Avenue and cars are now coming down the inner road. It has got so bad that, okay, I am reasonably able but I certainly know that the elderly cannot get across St. Aubin’s Road without great difficulty. I was a good boy scout and I have escorted a few elderly ladies across the road, but I feel like I am taking [Aside] ... I have escorted a few people across the road but I can tell you that it is even dangerous getting across myself and so it is at times speeding when the roads are not terribly busy, but certainly it is the volume of traffic, and quite simply you have to take your life in your hands sometimes and get halfway across and hope that someone is going to stop before you get across the other way. So we have got major problems, and these problems are here now and I am afraid putting it off even longer is not going to be the answer. In fact - I hate to say it - I may end up having to bring a proposition, certainly for St. Aubin’s Road, of bringing in a speed limit of 20 miles an hour sometimes. Also, in terms of St. Helier, I am even beginning to think the unthinkable - I do not particularly want to see it - but we may have to think at some point in the future, if we want to have these improvements in town and to protect people, of bringing in some form of congestion charge for people coming into St. Helier.

5.5.12 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Very briefly, having my own pedestrian crossings which people have waited a decade for, which T.T.S. have still not managed to deliver on, I most certainly will be supporting the Constable of St. Helier.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak? I call upon the Minister to reply.

5.5.13 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

I thank Members who spoke. First of all regarding consultations and desktop studies: I would contend that these are absolutely necessary and certainly in instances where this does not take place my department will be severely reprimanded, so I think Members must understand that that is, I think, an essential part of any road change or structural change in the road layout. What I must really emphasise is that my department has resource limitations. We have the rest of the Island to consider apart from these amendments brought by the Connétable of St. Helier recently. We have a list of an arm’s length to deal with these things but very limited staffing. Members will be aware of the tight financial constraints under which we work. But having said that, we have a small amount of funding and we try and prioritise as necessary. The Connétable of St. Mary mentioned the Bethlehem Junction where there was a fatality, we have to deal with that. Every particular junction - all these particular junctions - will have different issues, whether they be to do with services running through, which will have to be dealt with beforehand… and this is really what concerns us. In all practicality we have got to be able to get these in by the end of 2011. In practice, 2012 is not far away. We are only talking about a year away. So I would rather be reasonable about it and have 2012 and be practical and get them done in that time. I would suggest that if every Connétable in this Chamber had brought their wish list to this debate we would be here for an awful long time and we would be in exactly the same position because we would not be able to achieve many of them. I was disappointed that Deputy De Sousa said that she was not going to support the policy. I mean basically her stance is to do nothing, which I do not think is going to be any good to anybody. There is no doubt about it, that I think Deputy Le Claire suggested a percentage of grants being used for pedestrian safety. I would suggest that that is the case in certain areas, and I am sure that the Minister for Planning and Environment is aware of that and the need, and I know that, certainly in the new development at Bel Royal, there have been some elements of pedestrian safety incorporated. The Connétable of St. Saviour mentioned the speed limits and I think a speed of 25 m.p.h. was suggested. Well, the focus of the speed review policy was to reduce the different numbers of speed limits and principally the proposal that will be placed in January will be to have a 20 m.p.h., 30 m.p.h. and 40 m.p.h. and Members will be able to decide on those at that time. My department does focus on pedestrian safety as a whole and, as I mentioned in my initial presentation, we look at the whole thing holistically and it is essential that we do this to avoid wasting resource. In terms of the Esplanade Car Park, which the Department of St. Mary mentioned, I think when that was developed there were rather more funds available and very often that sort of work was contracted-in. Work of the nature that we are talking about now is all done within the department and, as I suggested, we have limited resource. My amendment is, I think, sensible and pragmatic and achievable, and I would ask Members to support it.

The Bailiff:

Is the appel called for? Yes, the appel is called for then in relation to paragraph 3 of the amendment brought by the Minister to the amendment of the Connétable of St. Helier. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 29	CONTRE: 17	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator T.A. Le Sueur	Senator P.F. Routier
Senator T.J. Le Main	Senator A. Breckon
Senator B.E. Shenton	Senator F.du H. Le Gresley
Senator S.C. Ferguson	Connétable of St. Helier
Senator A.J.H. Maclean	Deputy of St. Martin
Senator B.I. Le Marquand	Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Connétable of St. Ouen	Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Connétable of Trinity	Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Connétable of Grouville	Deputy of Grouville
Connétable of St. Brelade	Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Connétable of St. Martin	Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)
Connétable of St. John	Deputy of St. Mary
Connétable of St. Saviour	Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Connétable of St. Clement	Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Connétable of St. Peter	Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Connétable of St. Lawrence	Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)
Connétable of St. Mary	Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
Deputy of St. John
Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)

[15:30]

5.6 Sustainable Transport Policy (P.104/2010): second amendment (P.104/2010 Amd.(2)) – amendment (P.104/2010 Amd.(2) Amd.) - paragraph (g)

The Bailiff:

We come next to paragraph 4 of the amendments lodged by the Minister and I will ask the Greffier to read paragraph 4.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Page 3, part 2, paragraph (g), for paragraph (g) substitute the following paragraph – “(g) to carry out a review of the proposal for increased shopper car parking at Snow Hill in conjunction with Jersey Property Holdings, subject to availability of funding for feasibility studies, and to bring recommendations to the States by the end of 2012”.

5.6.1 The Connétable of St. Brelade (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):

There are many significant issues to consider with regard to the possibility of a shoppers’ car park at Snow Hill, and this will involve Jersey Property Holdings, the Planning Department, T.T.S. and Education, Sport and Culture. Various schemes involving parking, housing and new access have been mooted but detailed feasibility work, and its associated funding, are required to bring a scheme forward. My amendment will provide for a deadline of 2012, rather than 2011, and for the proposal to be subject to the availability of funding to enable this work to be completed thoroughly.

The Bailiff:

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on this amendment?

5.6.2 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

The car parking in Snow Hill is obviously a difficult one to plan correctly for. Obviously accessibility to Snow Hill, which is a group that is currently being led by the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture - I am sure he would be pleased to hear his name associated with something else other than schools - he is doing a body of work right now with the Constable of St. Helier and Deputy Pitman in that regard. I do not have a problem really with this one but I would just like to point out, something the Minister said in the last amendment, which made it sound very subtly enticing for possibly the odd Member that voted with it. We are only talking about a year’s difference. In actual fact, no we are not. We are not talking about a year’s difference at all. This is the end of 2011 to the end of 2012, so it is not a year’s difference from where we are, it is 2 years difference from where we are, and if it is anything like the air quality strategy, goodness knows when we will be debating it.

5.6.3 The Connétable of St. Helier:

I do not want to antagonise my fellow Connétables but ... actually it will not make any difference because they all voted against me on the last amendment, so you could argue you cannot have a worse position than that. It is just quite interesting to me that both the Minister and the Constable of St. Mary tried to effectively divide the Constable of St. Helier and the Deputies of the town from the rest of the Island to say: “Well, our shopping lists are just as important. The particular junction is just as important.” I think what Members have got to understand, and I do not know how many times I have said this in the last 13 years, we all have a stake in St. Helier and this amendment in particular should appeal to the country Constables because they need more shopper parking, and so do their constituents, and providing more shopper parking in Snow Hill is really important. That site is right next to the town centre and we have been talking about it for years. That is why I put this in as a specific proposal. Having said that, I think the Minister has a much better argument here than he had for the previous amendment. It probably will take 2 years to work up a scheme for this particular cutting. There are lots of complexities but at least let us make sure it is done in those 2 years and that other very important schemes out west and up north and out east do not take priority because we all have a stake in improving the parking situation in St. Helier.

5.6.4 Senator P.F. Routier:

I think a lot of Members are keen on improving shopper parking at Snow Hill. I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister for Transport and Technical Services, that in the lead-up to this Christmas that he was to suspend States Members parking for the Christmas period because there are spaces, if you walk through that car park on a regular basis, as I do, that were left empty during the Christmas period, so I would suggest from 20th December to, say, 1st January States Members parking should be suspended.

5.6.5 The Deputy of St. Mary:

This amendment, once again, talks about funding and we talked about funding before. We cannot do pedestrian safety measures fast enough because of the funding. Never mind the fact that the rate of return on safety measures is colossal. If you avoid one accident you save not only the blood and the heartache but you also save financially at the hospital and so on. But this is a proposal where instead of what the Constable said, which was to bring forward proposals by 2011, it has now become to carry out a review of the proposal by 2012. Not only that, it is subject to the availability of funding for feasibility studies. That rings alarm bells and, as someone has said already in the debate, it is almost a pity that we did not go straight to the Constable of St. Helier’s amendment about increasing the budget for the whole transport policy because we are tripping over this again and again. The half million… once you have a rolling programme year on year, it does not go all that far, and it certainly does not go far enough. Here is another case in point, that an ideal place to put some extra shoppers’ car parking - I know there are issues around it - is stumbling on this: “We cannot even find the money to look at the problem.” We had the same with Fort Regent. The very first thing that was said about improving Fort Regent: “We have not got the money and it is going to be very difficult.” I am sorry, I find this very negative and very disturbing and sad. To follow Senator Routier with his wheeze for getting a few more spaces up there right now, we could also take out some of the white lines and repaint them for a few spaces for the micro cars at the near end to town, and then you would get another 2 or 3 spaces out of that.

5.6.6 Deputy J.A. Martin:

Just briefly, I think what the Deputy of St. Mary has just said is a total move away from what the Constable of St. Helier is asking, and I would just like to ask and remind everybody it was not long ago that the Car Park Trading Fund had over £9 million for a multi-storey at Ann Court, was prepared to borrow £12 million, and put parking charges up by 25p a car [Approbation] and there was not much objection until it all fell apart within a year and nothing happened. None of that park… it is still gravel, and it is still temporary parking, so where has that money gone? If Snow Hill is not going to be your new shoppers’ car park you might as well shut shopping down in town.

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

I think we need to just remind ourselves what the Constable of St. Helier has asked the Minister to do and then look at the amendment in that light. The Constable of St. Helier has asked to bring forward in conjunction with Property Holdings Department by the end of 2011 proposals to provide increased shopper car parking at Snow Hill. He has not said you have to borrow or find funding. Let us think a little bit out the box. He said to bring proposals. What is wrong with asking a contractor or some private person if they would be prepared to provide that car parking to an agreed service level agreement without any funding from ourselves so that they can work-up the scheme. We could just tell them what we expect them to provide. Let us be a bit imaginative. Let us not keep finding reasons for not doing things. I think the timescale the Constable has allowed is quite sufficient.

5.6.8 The Connétable of St. Mary:

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

On page 3, part 2, paragraph (h) for the words “at least 25 per cent” substitute the words “a proportion”.

5.7.1 The Connétable of St. Brelade (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services)

Paragraph (h) would require States departments to convert at least ... I am recommending a proportion rather than “at least 25 per cent” of privately-leased parking spaces to shopper or motorcycle parking. The proposal would not impact on the budget in my department and it would be broadly consistent with the S.T.P. but no evidence is offered as to what is an appropriate figure, the effect it would have on other States departments’ budgets or whether demand for shopper or motorcycle parking at a particular location would justify the proposal. I believe, however, it is worthy of investigation.

The Bailiff:

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]

5.7.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Short and sweet, I would just like to hear the legal definition of “a proportion” because that will guide me on how I am going to vote, because it seems to me it could be woolly, in the least.

5.7.3 Senator P.F. Routier:

The proposition of the Constable of St. Helier does refer to the Harbours Department, and I would say that we are prepared to look at this openly and see what we can achieve, but I would remind Members that the Harbours Department does work with a trading fund and the income that we currently receive from the parking, which currently occurs within the Harbours Department, does support the trading fund and if we were to lose any income from parking we would have to balance the books in some way, shape or form. Whether that be in the way of increasing mooring fees or marina fees or harbour dues, that would need to obviously have to happen. I am quite happy to look at it but we would have to take that into consideration.

5.7.4 The Connétable of St. Helier:

I am pleased that the Assistant Minister went first because I was going to put him on the spot about it, and he has been extremely helpful and it is characteristic of him and his department. I also had a letter from the Harbourmaster pointing out that the crossing over to the Albert Pier, which tourists have to take in 2 stages, is quite impossible. Anywhere else you would take it in one stage. Harbours support an improvement there. I am delighted to hear that they are willing to look at increasing motorcycle and scooter parking in this area. There is a tremendous need for increased motorcycle parking, and Deputy Fox, in particular, has been doing a lot of work to identify sites that would provide them. Some of the private spaces currently leased out at that part of town would provide 100 spaces quite easily of additional motorcycle parking, and I welcome the co-operation of the Harbours Department as we try to release some of these spaces. In fact the amendment strengthens my amendment because it may well be that we will find more than a quarter of spaces currently being used as cash cows, by States departments, to release to shoppers and other users. That was a pig I saw flying past the window.

5.7.5 Deputy J.B. Fox:

I just want to carry on from that to say that while we were looking at skateboard parks as well, we were very conscious of the fact that there was an awful lot of parking there used for commuter or other private purposes. One accepts Harbours and Airport does derive an income from it but one could also accept that it does not have to be for the long-term 8 hour, or whatever it is, parking with the increased use of the old abattoir site as retail area, and the convenience now of shopping. There is a good opportunity to transfer some of that long-term parking, which could be in Snow Hill or elsewhere into shoppers’ parking, which would still generate an income. You do not necessarily have to have an income, but certainly the other thing, of course, is if we are to encourage motor cycles and cars, yes, I and officers of St. Helier, have been around looking for parking spaces for motorcycles and cars. There is a desperate need. Everyone is chock-a-block and any space like that, that can be utilised will be for the benefit of the residents that are visiting St. Helier. Basically there is a need at times to think out of the box, and if one thinks out of the box instead of what is traditionally looked at a ‘yes’ area or a ‘no’ area, then I think we could do a lot and I was pleased to hear the Assistant Minister’s open-mindedness in looking at a broader sense. But do not forget the Albert Quay. There is a lot of private parking there that is generating new income, which you could quite easily open-up to a shoppers’ car park which would, in time ... it will take 12 months or so, but in time would benefit a larger proportion of the community than is available now, and fill up Pier Road Car Park at the same time.

5.7.6 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

I am absolutely delighted to hear that the Minister is going to do a lot more to increase motorcycle parking. There is nothing more frustrating than to come into town on a motorcycle and go round and round and round trying to find somewhere to park it. It is just infuriating. For pushbikes as well, the more spaces we can have for those the better. I will support this for the Minister.

5.7.7 The Deputy of St. John:

As one of those Members who does use 2 wheels, whether it is pedal power or motor power, anything that helps with somewhere to park, whether it is one part of town or another, must be supported. But maybe the Minister might wish to look at areas around the steam clock - one of our lesser monuments - which in fact is a con because it is not a steam clock, it has its own power supply. The whole thing was sold to us: we bought a pup yet again. Maybe there are areas that he could quite easily park probably 300 or 400 2-wheel vehicles if this House has a mind, and if the Minister for Planning and Environment or the Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment are minded to take something away that is not as productive as it should have been.

5.7.8 Deputy A.K.F. Green:

It will be brief but I am just getting exactly to the amendment to the amendment: “a proportion”. We are very good at not setting targets and setting ourselves things that we cannot measure so we cannot see whether we have been successful. But there is nothing in the Constable of St. Helier’s proposition that says that we cannot go above 25 per cent - at least 25 per cent - if we can find 30 per cent, fine. But I want something we can measure our performance against. So I will not support the amendment to the amendment.

5.7.9 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I am very pleased to hear Deputy Green is supporting the publication of exam results. [Laughter]

5.7.10 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I just want to urge Members to take the wider view on this and just see the whole thing in the round. As the Minister for Harbours said, he might be able to find some spaces, but I do endorse what Deputy Green and Deputy Fox said. We have to see things in the best benefit for the most people, and I think shopping is a serious issue for the town and shoppers’ parking, particularly as of course, as we all know, we are losing spaces at the town park. There is an issue here and it is going to be a slow progress with Snow Hill we have heard. I think we have now just voted for 2012, so please let us vote for joined-up, not silos, not: “We cannot save you, we cannot find you a few spaces” but let us go with the Constable’s original amendment. Let us find these spaces and, by the by, I just have this vision of a canopy coming down off the steam clock enclosing and sheltering and covering from the elements the hundreds of cycles and motorbikes that will be parked there one day. What a lovely idea.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak? I call upon the Minister to reply.

5.7.11 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

The proposition that my amendment would not, as I say, impact on my budget but conversion of a proportion of States-owned parking would be consistent but the reason for my proposal of “25 per cent” being changed to “proportion”, and I take Deputy Green’s point that it may not work in all areas of the harbour. Now if he was being specific to a particular area I could understand that, but there are some areas of the harbour where it will not be needed, but other areas where it will be needed more, and I would prefer to see the flexibility left in so that we can gain more, and I take Deputy Pitman’s point. I would like to see more of these parking areas being put over to motorcycles particularly. The suggestion by Deputy Fox that it is an opportunity to convert from long term to shopper parking I think is good and warrants consideration. We have increased motorcycle parking considerably in the town area over the last year and we intend to do more. There is the next area to be converted on the Esplanade, opposite the Ogier Building, and that will materialise shortly. I take the Deputy of St. John’s point about the steam clock, which I do not have a lot of enthusiasm for, and do recall that area used to be called the Dump, and perhaps it ought to maintain its position. The proposition, I would say, is improved by my amendment and I would ask Members to support it.

The Bailiff:

Is the appel called for?

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

Yes, please.

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for in relation to paragraph 5 of the Minister’s amendments to the Constable’s amendments, and I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 23	CONTRE: 16	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator T.A. Le Sueur	Senator J.L. Perchard
Senator P.F. Routier	Senator F.du H. Le Gresley
Senator T.J. Le Main	Connétable of St. Helier
Senator B.E. Shenton	Connétable of St. Peter
Senator S.C. Ferguson	Connétable of St. Lawrence
Senator A.J.H. Maclean	Deputy of St. Martin
Connétable of St. Ouen	Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Connétable of St. Brelade	Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Connétable of St. Martin	Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Connétable of St. Saviour	Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)
Connétable of St. Clement	Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)	Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Deputy of St. Ouen	Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)	Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)	Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy of Trinity	Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
Deputy of St. John
Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

5.8 Sustainable Transport Policy (P.104/2010): second amendment (P.104/2010 Amd.(2)) – amendment (P.104/2010 Amd.(2) Amd.) - paragraph (i)

The Bailiff:

Finally, in this part we come to paragraph 6 of the Minister’s amendments and I will ask the Greffier to read that amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Page 3, part 2, paragraph (i) for the words “the revenue” substitute the words “any additional revenue”.

5.8.1 The Connétable of St. Brelade (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services)

Part 2(i), the Connétable has proposed the revenue from the above inflation increases in parking charges be ring-fenced to help the S.T.P. Our research identified the decrease in vehicles parked in public car parks as the 15 per cent reduction in peak hour traffic is achieved will more than negate the potential increased income if parking charges are increased. However, should our predictions be wrong then any income beyond reasonable requirements to the Car Park Trading Fund would be appropriate for S.T.P. funding. Changes to the States of Jersey Code of Directions would be required to enable this, however the Car Park Trading Fund is legally obliged to raise enough income to adequately cover the administration and maintenance of car parks, and in order to protect this income, which it needs, I propose an amendment to clarify that only the income forthcoming from the inflation part of the increase would be eligible.

The Bailiff:

Is that amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on this amendment? Very well, all those in favour kindly show. Those against. That amendment is adopted.

5.9 Sustainable Transport Policy (P.104/2010): second amendment (P.104/2010 Amd.(2)) – as amended

The Bailiff:

We then return to the debate upon paragraph 2 of the Constable’s amendment as amended, and the Minister had indicated he wished to speak.

[16:00]

5.9.1 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

The Connétable says in his report accompanying his amendments that there is little to disagree with in the high level aims of the Sustainable Transport Policy and I welcome that support. It is a high level strategic policy document and not a detailed implementation plan. He criticises the absence of practical measures to achieve these aims and has proposed specific projects to address this, and I would suggest that some of his amendments are really dealing with a level of detail which we would not normally deal with in the House in this debate. That said, I have looked at the proposals with the officers, and with minor adjustments that we have discussed, I am happy to support it. But the caveat is in terms of really the first paragraph (d) in terms of the Midvale Road, I would like the Connétable in his summing-up just to clarify how we might achieve the suggested £379,000 cost funding, which I have been given information that it may cost, because without that assurance I cannot support his amendments.

5.9.2 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I want to pick up that point that the Minister made later, but I want to start by looking at paragraph (b) in the proposer’s amendment: “To bring forward within one year of the adoption of the policy comprehensive strategies designed to facilitate and encourage walking and cycling.” Now the proposer has written at fair length in his proposal about pedestrian improvements and why these are so needed. The reason I want to speak just a little bit about what a strategy for cycling would look like is because it bears on the debate we are going to have when the proposer asks us to double the budget to £1 million from £500,000. There is a feeling that somehow we can deliver this transport policy on the cheap, and I do not think that can be done. I think the Minister was absolutely right when he said at the very beginning of his debate that there are huge benefits. We have to just remember that all the time when we consider the sum of £500,000 or £1 million, and if I just bear with Members’ patience to look at cycling as an example of the kind of strategic thinking that is necessary. It is not enough just to have a good idea and put it in somewhere or put it in somewhere else. There are a number of things that determine the fact that you need a strategy. The first thing is you have to get it right first time. It is not good government, it is expensive and it is demoralising and confusing for users if something is put in, then found to be wrong, and then taken out. You can only get it right if there is a certain amount of strategic thinking gone in beforehand. New developments have to be linked to a protected network. There has to be an idea in advance, like there is for cars, of where the routes go, of where we are promoting more cycling. There are clear ideas out there, but they need to be formalised and they need to be protected and then developments have to be linked into them. Changes have to be consistent and they have to be safe. I can give Members 2 examples of how consistency and safety have just gone to the wall in Jersey around cycling. One is if you go to Oxford Road, going down from Springfield into town, you are cycling against the one-way. There are provisions at each junction which steer the cyclist to the left, there is a little Island and a bollard, so you are forced to go to the left hand side of the road, and then you are taken across, I think, on a bit of orange tarmac, and then you are cycling against the traffic once more. There is no sign at the southern end - at the town end - of Oxford Road telling motorists that they are on a one-way and there will be cyclists coming the other way. It is a perfectly normal thing to happen, it is just that the signing is not in place so the motorists can get quite a surprise if they are not used to the idea that cyclists can come down Oxford Road into town. The other example is just up round the corner from this building; if you go up Halkett Place and turn right into Hill Street, you will find a green marking on the road with a bicycle on it, and that marking is on the right-hand side of the road. So although you have been riding down Hill Street on the left, as you should, and you come to the junction and you stop at the red light, and then you look up - if you are visitor, or even if you are a local - and you look across the road and you see that the green bit of tarmac with a white bicycle painted on it, is on the right-hand side of the road. How are you supposed to get from the left hand side of the road to the right-hand side of the road and stay alive? Maybe you wait or maybe you ... then you find yourself on the right-hand side of the road. It has not been thought through and in Bath Street you will find another of these green patches of tarmac with a cycle logo, I think, and a sign taking you to the right down Gas Place. That is in the correct position. So it just had not had the amount of time and thinking necessary to get it right first time, to be consistent, and safe. As we progress towards more people cycling, which is what this policy tells us is going to happen, and wants to happen, then attitudes will have to change and requirements in road layout terms and the attitudes of motorists and the attitudes of the cyclists themselves, will all have to change, and that will require thinking of quite a strategic level and then tactical and then awareness and training, for both the cyclists and the motorists. Again, that is all part of a strategy. Without a single focus for delivering that and making sure that it all sticks together properly the public will not have the necessary confidence, and the strategy needs to address different target groups. So it has to reach school children. It has to reach employers and employees and it has to reach the leisure cyclists. Those are different target markets and probably need to be approached in a different way. But the benefits are absolutely enormous and they probably should wait to the main debate. But I just wanted to put that in front of Members, to give an outline, just a taste of what a cycling strategy would look like, and to point out that it cannot be done for nothing. It requires sustained commitment and investment - not very great - over time. Then you put that alongside the demands we have been hearing about the pedestrian safety, the Constable of St. Helier saying he wants this, that and the other done, and he wants it done soon, and he is absolutely right. Then my Constable of St. Mary says: “We have got a problem in St. Mary” and so the funding issues pile up. I do just want to put that in front of Members ...

The Bailiff:

It rather sounds as if it is a speech which should be directed to that particular amendment.

The Deputy of St. Mary:

I am expanding on (b) and the fact that (b) should be there but reminding people that if they vote for (b), (c) - I do not know whether we are going to take them separately or together - if they vote for this package then they are signing-up to some expenditure, and in the back of their minds there has to be a little yes for when the Constable suggests that we should double this budget. There are ways of doing that which we can obviously talk about then, but I did want to say that. I want to say a few words on (h) as well about the parking. The Constable in his proposing speech mentioned about the number of parking spaces which he was told the States control in St. Helier, is 10,259 parking spaces. If you take out the 4,000 that are public parking spaces you end up with 6,000, but they are not all cash cows, as he suggested in his speech. A lot of them are housing car parks, they are for residents of Clos this and Estate that, so you would not be touching those necessarily ... well, you would not because they are residents parking but there are opportunities there. There are school car parks, there are parks like the car park in the middle of Springfield; can we not stick an extra storey on that, as the Constable has, in other forums proposed. There are flexible solutions on parking and there are also ways of turning some of that parking, particularly States employees parking around all our various buildings… they are never full. There is always a bit of fat. I notice that the civil defence bunker has 14 spaces. I cannot imagine that the 14 spaces outside the civil defence headquarters are always full. In fact, quite the reverse. So there is scope for using our parking spaces more intelligently and that is in this amendment, and I do urge Members to support it. There is one small point - the last one (k) - about smaller vehicles. I would not want that to be underestimated in Members’ minds. I am glad that the proposer mentioned, and it is in line with what the Scrutiny Panel thought about this issue of low-emission vehicles should have some kind of parking perk. They should be cheaper to park. We were a little bit sceptical about this and we did the sums, and in fact it is a huge subsidy to people who have the wherewithal to buy a low-emission car and get rid of their old one. He has rightly suggested that smaller should be added as a criterion. I remember being on the phone on Sunday and a lady from St. Lawrence rang and she described her personal experience of 2 cars passing on the St. Lawrence main road and because they were such big cars she was squeezed right into the wall and, as my Constable said, there was nowhere to go. She recounted that experience and said: “Why do we have to ...” and she even suggested, I think, that maybe people should be slightly discouraged from having such big cars. My comment that I made then, and I will repeat it, is that big cars on a small Island, they take this precious resource we have, which is space. They take it when they park, and they also take it when they drive along the road. So I would urge support, if we do take these separately for (k), because it is an important point. Finally (j), the proposer suggests proposals to extend the opening hours of Liberation Station in conjunction with late bus services, and he is absolutely right. The Scrutiny Panel on page 19 of our report went into some detail about the night time economy, not just in St. Helier, it is not just an issue of country dwellers going into town to the Opera House or the Arts Centre or to their favourite eatery. It is also an issue of town dwellers wanting to get out and spend an evening somewhere else. They need a bus to be able to do that, if they wish to do that by bus, and I think that option should be open. I do have a comment to make about that. We now have a late night bus service leaving at 10.00 p.m. I think or 10.05 p.m. going out through St. Peter to St. Ouen, when the Arts Centre and the Opera House normal performance would finish at 10.30 p.m. and the pubs of course do not close at 10.00 p.m. either. So it is that we are not there yet but this is an amendment definitely that (j) is in the right direction. In fact the whole amendment is in the right direction and I do urge Members to support all of it.

5.9.3 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I do not know what is going to happen in the future. I would just like to stand and congratulate the Constable of St. Helier for bringing the finite detail to an overarching policy, which I think is absolutely right. It has been criticised slightly by the Minister for Transport and Technical Services in saying this is not the usual approach. Well, beg my pardon, I do not remember having a debate in the recent future where any policy was brought before the States that we were able to agree to as a body. It seems to me if there is a policy of a Ministry, it should be the Minister’s policy. If it is law we can amend law. If it is a policy of the Minister and his department, and his department will carry out the duties of those policies, and we will be told for years to come: “You agreed to that.” So when they bring in parking charges which are outlined in the policy in this document in the future because it is part of the policy, and they decide to forward them, that is what we will be getting hit over the head with at the time, bludgeoned to death by the: “You agreed to that, it is not my decision. My department is just getting on and doing what it has been told to do.” That is fine but could I ask the Constable or the Minister, before we finally sign-up to this proposal here, to explain to me how it is that we go about amending these policies. The Minister said that if I was not satisfied that something was going to be delivered through the course of 2012 I would see that that was not going to be delivered and surely I would contact him.

[16:15]

I rise just to draw attention to a paragraph certainly that I do not think I will be supporting. Deputy Le Fondré raised some issues which I will not go over again but I do agree with. Paragraph (k): smaller. Smaller cars are not always possible for families to have, and I seem to be today sticking-up for the people who are not here to speak for themselves. We have a high proportion of people for whom at least one of the parents or certainly one of the grandparents is off-Island. For many of those families, the annual holiday is loading up everything into the car and going to see them. Most of these families cannot afford to have the small, low-emissions car that this amendment would seek and then have another car in the garage for the off-Island trip. They compromise and I hope that in compromising in the fullness of time they end up with a car of the size they need which is also low-emission. Over here, with the speed limits that we have, there is not the whole range of low-emission vehicles available because certain vehicles need bursts of speed of 50 miles an hour or more to burn up the debris in the anti-particulate filter, I think it is called in English. So, it is not always possible, and when you find a vehicle which accommodates your family and it is relatively low emission, you go for it and it may not be small. So it seems to me odd that we would add that criterion in when, of course, what are we doing? We are telling people what they can have. That is the nanny state. We should tell people what they should have as regards emissions, but the size of it surely is up to them. From what the Deputy of St. Mary said ... and, of course, I raised the issue of the roads with no refuges, but we cannot conflate the issues of size of vehicle and danger. When I was learning to drive - and I have been driving for some considerable time - I was taught that if I was on a road and there were pedestrians on my side of the road and there was an oncoming vehicle, I slowed down and waited until the vehicles coming towards me had passed and then pulled out. The scenario that the Deputy of St. Mary is referring to with the lady who had the unfortunate circumstance was bad driving. It was not a question of the vehicles being too big. Because if we are going to go to size of vehicle to help the pedestrians, then we are missing the whole point because what is one of the biggest vehicles on the road? The bus. Therefore, we have to concentrate on good driving standards. I believe it was Deputy Hilton who raised before courtesy among drivers. I was taught that and I would hope the Minister will consider filter-in-turns, inbuilt slowing down, inbuilt traffic calming, inbuilt giving way and courtesy. For the simple reason that I do not believe it will solve any issue whatsoever I would not certainly support smaller cars. They must be low-emission but if they are of the size the family needs, that is good enough for me.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak? Senator Ferguson.

5.9.10 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Following on from Deputy Le Fondré and the Connétable of St. Mary, I just wonder some of this is allegedly part of a plan and, therefore, presumably the Minister has costed this. But it seems to me that we have a lot of expensive projects here and we have no manpower and cost implications. Perhaps the Connétable would like in his summing up to say how much he reckons the whole of this programme is going to cost and to confirm whether this is already in the T.T.S. budget. He has assumed in his report ... he says: “Most of the proposals can be introduced without increasing the T.T.S. budget.” Well, I understand zebra crossings and pedestrian things like that do cost money, so please can we have an assessment of the costs and the manpower?

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

It is just quickly on the point of paragraph (e). Deputy Le Fondré was talking about the provision for the £1 million. It requests the Chief Minister to make provision in future draft Annual Business Plans for at least £1 million per annum. It does not ask to increase funding of £1 million per annum. What I believe would be the case for the States would be to ask for the Minister for Transport and Technical Services to prioritise that area rather than ...

The Bailiff:

Deputy, I am sorry, I may have not picked up Deputy Le Fondré if he dealt with this, but this is not before us at the moment.

Deputy T.A. Vallois:

Sorry, I was not sure. It is just a few people have mentioned it.

The Bailiff:

This amendment will be proposed separately. Very well, does any other Member wish to speak on the current amendments? Then I call upon the Constable to reply.

5.9.12 The Connétable of St. Helier:

That probably means I can disregard the last few speakers [Laughter] and their comments about funding. The Deputy of St. Mary I think rightly pointed out that the policy unamended really did nothing with the strategy for cycling. I appreciate there are those who dislike cycling and dislike cyclists in our Island and that is evidenced by the amount of anti-cycling press that the cyclists receive. But I think it is interesting, I get a lot of calls for what am I going to do about people who illegally cycle in the precinct, people who cycle the wrong way down roads, people who ride on the footpaths. Of course, without a cycle strategy it is very difficult to address that, and that is why I think it is really urgent that the department brings forward within a year a cycling strategy which will address issues like that and should tackle issues like number plates on bicycles, things like that, things that the public is very concerned to find out about. The Deputy mentioned that we need better signage. Some of the things he mentioned can be easily provided. He also I think rightly corrected my figures for the parking in the public portfolio. He said it is not 6,000, it is less than that. We do need to take that raw data that was so helpfully provided by Property Holdings and we need to break it down and to see where we can provide increased shopper parking in particular at low cost. The Deputy mentioned there are a number of sites in E.S.C. (Education, Sport and Culture) ownership, particularly around Springfield, which are under-utilised. The Robin Hood gyratory runs around a surface car park of some 45 vehicles, which is simply a waste of valuable land and it could take more. I thank Deputy Le Claire for his comments. He has indeed been pressing for particular road safety improvements for some time, and it is a fact I will come back to that the Parish of St. Helier has agreed to fund the particular junction improvements in Val Plaisant and Devonshire Place, which are States main roads, a bill that is going to be met following last summer’s Parish Assembly by the Parish. But again, he pointed to the horrendous cost in what happens if we do not attend to these matters: £36 million over 2 years. Members need to bear that figure in mind when they are considering whether we can really afford to increase our funding of transport over half a million pounds when we come to that amendment. I thank Deputy Green for his support. He particularly highlighted the fact that the policy does not really deal with the transport needs of the disabled. One of my amendments does. It calls for a review of the ‘Blue Badge’ system. Actually, no one has spoken about that today, but I can only assume that that has widespread support of the Assembly. Of course, the Deputy will know that disabled travellers benefit hugely from pedestrian improvements. They are, if you like, the number one priority on the transport hierarchy and they are the people who benefit most from wider pavements and streets that are easier to cross. I am not going to comment on everyone who has spoken. I thank everyone who spoke. Deputy Le Fondré is concerned about the loss of income if these amendments are accepted. If a proportion - we do not know how much it is going to be - of parking spaces currently in States Departments’ hands are transferred to public parking, what I would say is that, of course, they will still generate an income if they are transferred to public parking. They are not going to be free. People will still have to pay for them. The other point is I have been approached by a local private company that is desperate to get its hands on some car parking. It wants to show the States, it wants to show T.T.S., how to run a car park. There are private companies locally who would like to run a car park. I am sure they would happily take over the Albert Pier if Senator Routier would like to give us the whole of it for shopper parking. They will show how to maximise the parking and also how to make a system which does not punish people for being late. I do not want to digress too long, but I have recently had a person in tears in the Town Hall who was given I think a £60 parking fine for not getting back to their car in time - a disabled person, an elderly person - and we must do something about this terrible system we have running in our car parks with the scratch cards. It really is an urgent matter that I would like the Minister to address, although it is only referred to obliquely in the policy. The Deputy of St. Ouen, as the Minister did, queried the process. He said we should be waiting for an implementation plan. I would like to remind the Deputy ... well, he was not in short trousers when I did it, but a long time ago I brought the last transport policy to this House, back in 1999. This policy does not differ substantially from what I brought whatever that is, 11 years ago. Nothing has really happened in many areas, and that is why I highlighted some of the key areas which have not been dealt with since our last lofty and very supportable policy was approved by a large majority in the States. We have to really cut to the chase and say yes, there are some priorities. He queries whether the junctions that I have identified in some of the amendments are a priority. Well, he is the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture. Does he not agree with me that the junction at the bottom of Wellington Hill is perilous for students? Who would disagree that that is one of the worst junctions for our young people to cross when they are accessing many of the colleges? I know he has an issue about the colleges, but let us all agree that Wellington Hill is thronged with students of all types of school and their safety at the bottom of that hill must be paramount.

[16:45]

I really do not believe that you would find a junction out at St. Ouen that is a higher priority in terms of accidents and in terms of number of travellers that would be a higher priority than Wellington Hill. The Constable of St. Mary does not support proposals to favour smaller cars. Well, I do not quite know what to say about that. I was not talking so much about road safety here as about parking. It is self-evident that if we have some spaces in our car parks, not all of them but some spaces, given over for smaller cars and even in our streets where you could allow 2 smart cars to park end to end as long as the drivers know each other reasonably well, there is no reason why we should not be adapting our parking spaces to maximise the available space. We live in a small Island. Who would vote against a proposal to encourage the ownership of smaller vehicles? I do not know. The Constable says she will. I am going to finish with the Minister who is a bit concerned about the inappropriate level of detail and is particularly concerned about funding. Of course, we have not had the debate on the second part of my amendment on funding yet, but what I will say here is, and I say this in the comments on the amendment, there is a history of the Parish working closely with the States not only to fund but also to physically make the improvements that we are talking about here. Conway Street, Broad Street, Bath Street, quite recently we co-funded the crossing to the Library which was fairly important, although it was opposed by the Minister of the day. So, there is a precedent for the Constable to go to the Parish Assembly and to say: “Well, look, St. Helier is everybody’s but as residents of St. Helier we should probably be putting our hands in our pocket as ratepayers and putting some money into the scheme”. I am sure that is not something which is going to happen less in the future. I want to also just pick up a comment about residents’ parking which I think was made by the Constable of St. Mary. Why, she asked, have so many spaces that used to be free for the commuter and the visitor to St. Helier been handed over to the residents of St. Helier? This goes back to my point about 11 years ago. That was in the policy 11 years ago that we would create residents’ parking. It is one of the few things in the policy that has happened. But now the Constable of St. Mary seems to want us to remove it. Well, all I can say is that there was an opportunity for that to be rescinded and perhaps the Constable should have brought an amendment to the policy to ask for a review of residents’ parking. I would not mind a review of residents’ parking because, as Deputy Fox knows who sits with me on a working group, there are a number of issues within residents’ parking which need to be addressed. But given that that is not the case, residents’ parking in St. Helier and in other Parishes, urban Parishes, is States policy, approved by the States. Let us not go back and say that we do not want it after all. I am particularly anxious to get the Minister to support the amendments given that his amendments to them have all been accepted, but he is rather stuck on Midvale Road. That is the bottom line. What he realises is that £370,000 is more than half of the available funding for transport next year. That is why I brought an amendment to increase the budget because it is a nonsense to try to go forward and there is a line in the policy that says: “We are going to lead the world in transport policy”. Well, let us give up our delusions. We are not going to lead the world unless we find ways of funding transport improvements in an Island which has a high level of vehicle use, which has real problems in air quality pollution, which is something that only Deputy Le Claire mentioned, which has a real problem in terms of serious injuries and casualties on the roads. So, I am hoping that the second part, which will improve the funding, will be approved but it is a bit hard to know what to say to the Minister because we have not got there yet. What I will say is that he is currently only asking for one quarter of the money we are taking from the motorist in Vehicle Emissions Duty. We are not talking about the money that we spend when we buy petrol, we are talking about a particular duty that we are simply taking a quarter of. I do not think that is very ambitious. What I will also say to the Minister is you cannot have your cake and eat it. You cannot focus development on the town, you cannot focus new housing on St. Helier and not provide a safe system of roads. The North of Town Master Plan recognises that Midvale Road is a key problem. If Members care to check, it is in the Island Plan. The last Island Plan recognises that Midvale Road is simply not working: it is too narrow, it is too dangerous. So, I would ask Members to just recall the promises they have already made when they voted for the last Island Plan if they have a problem with my trying to bring forward Midvale Road and to remember that if they want St. Helier to be the dormitory and to take all this extra housing, then they have to vote proper funding and, indeed, support these amendments. I maintain the amendments.

The Bailiff:

First of all, Constable, how do you wish to have them voted?

The Connétable of St. Helier:

I was quite happy to take them en bloc but I suspect that Members would like to vote on them individually.

The Bailiff:

It is up to you. It is your decision.

The Connétable of St. Helier:

Could I suggest that we take (b) and (c) together, then we take (d), and I think then we will probably have to take them individually because of what Members have said.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

The Constable dismissed my query in a somewhat cavalier manner. [Members: Oh!]

The Bailiff:

Well, that is his privilege, Senator. [Laughter]

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Yes, but I cannot possibly start voting for something if I do not know how much it is going to cost and he has not given me the information. So I shall not be voting.

The Connétable of St. Helier:

If I could just say it is in the financial and manpower consequences, otherwise I would not have been allowed to table the amendments.

The Bailiff:

Very well.

The Connétable of St. Mary:

Could I just have some clarification please from the Constable? In relation to what he said about my objections to his paragraph (k), have I misread it? Was there an “or” that I have missed? Is he saying that he will not support incentives for using low-emission vehicles if they are large? I am confused.

The Connétable of St. Helier:

That certainly was not my intention. It was these are 2 characteristics of more sustainable modes of transport.

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

Just one other point of clarification, with regard to the 2(d) Midvale Road debate, I understood the Connétable to suggest that he would take the funding proposals to a Parish Assembly. Could he confirm that, please?

The Connétable of St. Helier:

It would depend on my being Constable and that might depend on my answer. Not all of them I think is the answer.

Deputy A.E. Jeune:

A matter of clarification. If we were to, therefore, support the (a) to whatever, is the Connétable saying that the funding will come from the Parish?

The Connétable of St. Helier:

I think I have already answered the question. I said I would be happy to take proposals for some funding for the schemes to a Parish Assembly if I were Constable.

The Bailiff:

Very well then, and you call for the appel, Connétable? The appel is called for, then, and the first vote will be on paragraphs (b) and (c) together. So, I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 48	CONTRE: 0	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator T.A. Le Sueur
Senator P.F. Routier
Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Senator T.J. Le Main
Senator B.E. Shenton
Senator J.L. Perchard
Senator A. Breckon
Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Senator F.du H. Le Gresley
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Mary
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
Deputy of St. John
Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

The Bailiff:

So then the next vote is paragraph (d), the one about Midvale Road, and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 42	CONTRE: 4	ABSTAIN: 2
Senator T.A. Le Sueur	Senator S.C. Ferguson	Connétable of St. Brelade
Senator P.F. Routier	Connétable of Trinity	Connétable of St. Mary
Senator P.F.C. Ozouf	Connétable of St. John
Senator T.J. Le Main	Deputy of St. Ouen
Senator B.E. Shenton
Senator J.L. Perchard
Senator A. Breckon
Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Senator F.du H. Le Gresley
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
Deputy of St. John
Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

The Bailiff:

Very well, then we come to (f), which is various specific pedestrian matters, and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 42	CONTRE: 6	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator T.A. Le Sueur	Senator T.J. Le Main
Senator P.F. Routier	Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator P.F.C. Ozouf	Connétable of Grouville
Senator B.E. Shenton	Connétable of St. Peter
Senator J.L. Perchard	Deputy of St. Ouen
Senator A. Breckon	Deputy of St. John
Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Senator F.du H. Le Gresley
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Mary
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

The Bailiff:

Very well, then we now move on to paragraph (g), which is Snow Hill, and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 47	CONTRE: 1	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator T.A. Le Sueur	Senator P.F. Routier
Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Senator T.J. Le Main
Senator B.E. Shenton
Senator J.L. Perchard
Senator A. Breckon
Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Senator F.du H. Le Gresley
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Mary
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
Deputy of St. John
Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

The Bailiff:

Then we come on to paragraph (h), which relates to States ownership of parking, and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 44	CONTRE: 4	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator T.A. Le Sueur	Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator P.F. Routier	Connétable of St. Peter
Senator P.F.C. Ozouf	Deputy of St. Ouen
Senator T.J. Le Main	Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
Senator B.E. Shenton
Senator J.L. Perchard
Senator A. Breckon
Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Senator F.du H. Le Gresley
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Mary
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
Deputy of St. John
Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

The Bailiff:

Then we move on to paragraph (i), which is related to the Car Parking Trading Fund, and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 37	CONTRE: 11	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator P.F. Routier	Senator T.A. Le Sueur
Senator B.E. Shenton	Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Senator J.L. Perchard	Senator T.J. Le Main
Senator A. Breckon	Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator F.du H. Le Gresley	Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Connétable of St. Ouen	Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Connétable of St. Helier	Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of Trinity	Deputy of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Brelade	Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
Connétable of St. Martin	Deputy of Trinity
Connétable of St. John	Deputy of St. John
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Mary
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

The Bailiff:

Then we come to paragraph (j), which relates to the Liberation Station, and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 43	CONTRE: 5	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator T.A. Le Sueur	Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Senator P.F. Routier	Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator T.J. Le Main	Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Senator B.E. Shenton	Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Senator J.L. Perchard	Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
Senator A. Breckon
Senator F.du H. Le Gresley
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Mary
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
Deputy of St. John
Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

The Bailiff:

Very well, then finally we come to paragraph (k), which relates to “smaller”, and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 34	CONTRE: 14	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator P.F.C. Ozouf	Senator T.A. Le Sueur
Senator T.J. Le Main	Senator P.F. Routier
Senator B.E. Shenton	Senator J.L. Perchard
Senator A. Breckon	Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator A.J.H. Maclean	Connétable of Trinity
Senator B.I. Le Marquand	Connétable of St. Martin
Senator F.du H. Le Gresley	Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. Ouen	Deputy of Grouville
Connétable of St. Helier	Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
Connétable of Grouville	Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
Connétable of St. Brelade	Deputy of St. John
Connétable of St. John	Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
Connétable of St. Saviour	Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
Connétable of St. Clement	Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)

5.10 Sustainable Transport Policy (P.104/2010): second amendment (P.104/2010 Amd.(2)) – amendment (P.104/2010 Amd.(2) Amd.) (paragraph 1)

The Bailiff:

Very well, then we come next to paragraph 1 of the second amendment lodged by the Connétable of St. Helier, and I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Page 2, paragraph (b) - in paragraph (b) delete the words “as set out in the policy” and substitute the words “including those set out in the policy”.

5.10.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:

I see it almost as a housekeeping matter, just to make sure that the policy is not ... that the Minister and his team are not closed to new ideas that come up in the course of developing their policies. So it is to make it an inclusive one rather than restrictive. That is all I will say on it.

The Bailiff:

Is it seconded? [Seconded] Minister, do you wish to speak on this?

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

I am happy to support the Connétable’s amendment.

The Bailiff:

Does anyone wish to speak? Deputy Le Claire.

[17:00]

5.10.2 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Maybe that does answer my earlier question, which was how does this go forwards as a process, where we have particular concerns about delivery, and it seems that this amendment, as explained by the Constable of St. Helier, we are able to in the future bring forwards more finite detail to this policy and change the policy where we believe it is not working. If that is the case, I will be happy to support it.

5.10.3 The Connétable of St. Mary:

It is just for clarification, really. I would just like to ascertain whether, if any measures come to light which would be added to those already in the policy, if there is a cost to those which is disproportionate to the motorist I would like to know whether they could not be approved without coming back to the Assembly.

5.10.4 The Deputy of St. John:

I have to inform the Connétable I will not be supporting this one given that we all have to take some pain at this time and it is for everyone to tighten their belts. Unfortunately, I cannot support this.

5.10.5 The Deputy of St. Mary:

Just to make it really very clear and simple, now that we have agreed a whole lot of specific policies and, indeed, a wide-ranging policy about strategies for walking and cycling, we have to vote for this housekeeping amendment because otherwise the Minister would be tied-down to only what is in his policy and would not be able to take on board what we have just voted for. So, really, we do not need to spend long on this, we just vote for it. I think the Deputy of St. John might have got wires-crossed or something, but there is no implication about this. It just allows to happen what we have just voted to happen.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak on this amendment? Deputy Maçon.

5.10.6 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I have to disagree. This either comes from new taxation or a reprioritisation of either T.T.S. or another department because it is asking the Chief Minister to make available £1 million whereas ...

Deputy J.A. Martin:

They are both speaking to the wrong amendments.

The Bailiff:

We are not on that amendment, Deputy. Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well, I call upon the Connétable to reply.

5.10.7 The Connétable of St. Helier:

The only substantive comment was from the Constable of St. Mary who asked about there being an impact on the motorist of any proposals that the Minister includes in his policy. The Minister is unlikely, I think, to adopt a policy that is not here which has an impact on the motorist without bringing it to the States for approval, and I am sure that is what he would do. So I do not think this would be a problem. I think some Members have confused this with the one about the funding, which of course we have not taken yet. I maintain the amendment.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Sir, is the Constable able to just satisfy my query?

The Connétable of St. Helier:

I hope so. The Deputy was saying basically he supported this amendment because it allows other ideas to be brought to the department in the course of the development of their policy and the implementation of their policy, and I agree with him. That is why I brought the amendment in the first place. I hope that answers the query.

The Bailiff:

Very well. Is the appel called for? Yes, the appel is called for then in relation to paragraph 1 of the amendment of the Connétable of St. Helier. I invite Members to return to their seats. The Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 43	CONTRE: 1	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator T.A. Le Sueur	Connétable of St. Mary
Senator P.F. Routier
Senator T.J. Le Main
Senator B.E. Shenton
Senator J.L. Perchard
Senator A. Breckon
Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Senator F.du H. Le Gresley
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Peter
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
Deputy of St. John
Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

5.11 Sustainable Transport Policy (P.104/2010): second amendment (P.104/2010 Amd.(2)) – amendment (P.104/2010 Amd.(2) Amd.) - (paragraph 1) amendment

The Bailiff:

Very well, then we come next to the amendment lodged by the Deputy of St. Mary and, in particular, paragraph 1 of that amendment. I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Page 2, paragraph (c) - (a) for the words “a vision zero target” substitute the words “an eventual vision zero target”; (b) after the words “on Jersey’s roads” insert the words “and to request the Minister to ask the taskforce to be set up by the Department for Transport and Technical Services to adopt formally within the first year a specific trend target for accident reduction by the end of the policy period, and to inform the States of this target and the rationale behind it”.

The Bailiff:

Deputy, just before I ask you to speak because it may assist, Minister, do I understand from your comment that you will be accepting this?

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

Yes, Sir, I shall.

5.11.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I have brought this amendment because I looked at the proposition with regard to road safety and road safety is a fundamental part of this strategy because, of course, we are increasing the number of people walking and cycling, i.e. the vulnerable modes of transport. So the road safety aspect does have to be built in. I must say that in dealings with Scrutiny and then with this proposition I had real problems. The wording, to remind Members of what the original wording is, is to request the Minister in conjunction with the Minister for Home Affairs and the Honorary Police to apply appropriate measures as set out in the policy to re-establish a reducing trend in road injury rates and to agree a vision zero target of no deaths or serious injuries on Jersey’s roads. I just had to read that again and then come to the conclusion that there was nothing concrete or definite there at all. It was just too vague. A vision zero target in the year dot is almost as bad as no target at all. Of course, we all want no accidents, we do not want any killed or seriously injured, even if we take the view that there will inevitably be some minor accidents here and there because that is life. But if we want to reduce the killed and seriously injured to zero with no timescale it is just a nice thought. That was my reaction when I read that and that is why I brought my amendment. The amendment says that the task group which the Minister is suggesting to set up will have to adopt formally a specific trend target for accident reduction by the end of the policy period. So they will have to say between now and 5 years’ time we are aiming to achieve such and such, killed and seriously injured down by so many per cent. They will have to inform the States of this target and why they agreed this target. It is about putting their feet to the fire. It is about making sure that the Road Safety Panel or, sorry, this new task group with the Road Safety Officer presumably will have to come to us with their target and their rationale. There are 2 aspects to this which are both really important. One is that I want to see a different style of government and it is about transparency and it is about this task group, which does have in its care a really important aspect of this policy, which is road safety. We have heard graphically from Deputy Le Claire earlier today about what the implications really are, what each of those K.S.I. (killed and seriously injured) ... although that child would not even reach the K.S.I. killed and seriously injured statistics. That would be a minor injury, one of the 350-odd a year that we have in Jersey. That was just a minor injury. So, we need the transparency. Members need to know what the target is and we need to know what the rationale is and we need to be able to say: “We do not think that is good enough” or: “That is all right, that is an adequate target to meet the aspirations of the community”. Remember, we are talking about injury and death here. We are talking about that and I think that the public look to us to ... and the Minister rightly said that in the last 3 decades we have had reductions year on year and that has been the trend in the U.K. as well. But in the last 10 years we have flat-lined. We have just stopped making progress and that has to be changed. The other aspect apart from transparency is, of course, as I have touched on, the importance of road safety itself. When we were debating cycle helmets, speaker after speaker said: “If one life was saved or even if one serious accident was to be avoided then ...”, yet we have 35 killed and seriously injured on average a year in Jersey and 350 road traffic collisions with injury. With injury. No downward trend in the last 10 years, and what was more alarming, and we saw it in the document, we have queried it in Scrutiny and we found that there had been no analysis of why these accidents happen, where they happen, what sort of turning movements were involved, who hit who, what the factors were. We know the raw data, it is sitting down at police headquarters, but no analysis has been done so we do not know why these accidents happen. We do not know why people are getting killed and seriously injured on our roads. To take just one example of how deeply in ignorance we are ... and this matters because we talked earlier about the priority to be given to different measures. The Constable of St. Helier was saying: “I want road safety measures here, here, here and here”, the Constable of St. Mary was saying: “But I want one here”, and we need to be able to take our decisions on an evidence basis. One of the things that came out of the speed limits review was the claim that the police said that the speed was a factor in 3 per cent of accidents. Speed was a factor in 3 per cent of accidents. Now, that statistic was not queried by the Speed Limits Panel as far as I know because it appears in their report and it appears unchallenged. But the Health Development Agency, which is the U.K. Government’s public health advisers, were arguing in 2003 for 20 miles an hour speed limits in residential areas, as Deputy Hilton was speaking about earlier. Its research shows that two-thirds of injuries to children on the roads could be prevented by lower speed limits. Two-thirds of injuries to children on our roads could be prevented by lower speed limits. So, that does not square with our local police saying that speed is a factor in only 3 per cent of accidents. It is out of kilter. The difference between 20 m.p.h. and 30 m.p.h. in road safety terms is massive. Then there is a huge London study which shows the cuts in accidents, K.S.I. - killed and seriously injured - if 20 miles an hour zones are put in place. In Hull as well K.S.I. went down by 90 per cent in the 7 years where Hull had a rolling programme of 20 m.p.h. In those zones killed and seriously injured go down by 90 per cent and collisions by 56 per cent. That is the sort of reductions that I want to see this Road Safety Panel target. That is what I think they should aim for. If there are any special factors in Jersey, they will have to elucidate them under this amendment, but we are talking, as I said, about injuries to people. We are talking about death and we are talking also about the savings which Deputy Le Claire also alluded to: £18 million a year in cost of accidents. That is the cost of the ambulance and the hospital care, the loss of ... in fact, I do not think it even includes the loss of earnings figures which have to be added to that. We were told in Scrutiny by one of the officers that the rate of return on investment in road safety measures is very large. Here we are, we have this kind of quibble about how much it is going to cost to put in this or that measure. As long as it is targeted, as long as it is evidence-based, this is a winner and we need to press the Road Safety Panel to deliver on this. It is about the priorities of this Assembly. That is really what this amendment is trying to seek out, and I do want Members to hold fast on this, hold their feet to the fire in a sense, make them produce a target that we and the public can be happy with, that we can scrutinise, that we can say: “Right, we accept that as a target and that is what we are going to try to achieve”. I move the amendment.

The Bailiff:

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Yes, Minister.

5.11.2 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

Before commenting on the Deputy of St. Mary’s amendment, I would first like to take this opportunity to thank him for his efforts and valuable contributions representing the Scrutiny Panel at a series of meetings with T.T.S. at the final S.T.P. arrangements. The Deputy has proposed an amendment in 2 parts, both of which are consistent with the recommendation of the policy. Road safety is a very important issue. The numbers of injuries on our roads is much lower than back in the 1970s and 1980s, but we can do much more to see that a reducing trend continues. Research and analysis of Jersey’s road injuries needs to be carried out to establish the best means of achieving this.

[17:15]

It was not possible to carry out that work in the S.T.P. timescales. The policy, therefore, proposes that a task group is formed to do that work. Ultimately, we should aim for a vision zero target of no deaths or serious injuries on our roads. It is my view that we cannot afford to do otherwise and that surely the protection of human life must be our ultimate goal. We are just discussing one part, I think, so I will come to the second part later. So, I support the amendment.

The Bailiff:

Paragraph 1, yes. Does any other Member wish to speak? Deputy Le Claire.

5.11.3 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

If one uses the documents that the States provides from the Executive and one looks at the Island’s health as tabled by the Medical Officer of Health, we see that the professionals that are being employed by the States that are being led by the Council of Ministers and their supporters are telling us these sorts of things. Traffic and Transport in 2008, in the Medical Officer of Health’s report, Jersey has one of the highest number of vehicles per head of population in the world and relatively little area to drive them on. It goes on to talk about the effects that that has upon us. In the Sustainable Transport Strategy the Minister has referred recently ... just then, to the fact that we have not seen the reduction that we saw in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s in terms of road safety. I stood up earlier and I said that it is estimated that it was £18 million a year. I got it wrong. It was actually more. It is over £18 million a year that it is costing and obviously we have not factored into those statistics the numbers of people that reports are not received from and the impacts that those people have in relation to the loss of earnings, et cetera. So, again, it would be very, very prudent, then, in my opinion to support this because of the fact that in the document it goes on to talk about how Sweden has a vision zero approach and how that has been drawn-up based upon statistics and how even within this document we have drawn our £18 million from a series of data using U.K. Department for Transport standard values for road traffic injury costs. So all of the statistics are there and the department is giving them to us in an overview. It has managed to tell us £18 million a year, but what it does not do - and that is the important amendment that the Deputy of St. Mary is bringing - it does not tell us what we need to invest in terms of money to make it less expensive for us. If, for example, instead of investing £500,000 the task force or the task group was to turn to us tomorrow and say: “If you invest £3 million you can drop it by 40 per cent, which will save you £9 million”, would we not want to take that on board? Would we not want to say as States Members: “Here we have an opportunity to invest £3 million and save £9 million”? Without this body of work that the Deputy is proposing and which the Minister has accepted, we will never be able to understand what we are doing. I question what we are going to achieve by just putting £500,000 into a policy each year when, as I said before, over £18 million a year is going to be spent on the hospital services and the ambulance services and the police services. Then we get back into the budget again and we all say: “Oh, we do not have enough money for this, we do not have enough money for that” because we need nurses, because we need doctors. Then when we are told that we do not have the money for the school milk and everything else to give to our rundown children, we are told: “Well, what would you rather have, doctors or nurses or policemen?”

The Bailiff:

Deputy, can I bring you back to the amendment of the Deputy, please.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I think it would be probably incredibly difficult for you to do so, I think I am that far off track, so I will just sit down.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak? The Connétable of St. Ouen.

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

While I will support this amendment, I have to give a warning that it is not going to be as easy to set percentage targets on the Island of Jersey as it is in London or Hull. We are dealing with very small figures in the first place, and so if the Deputy believes that by doing this process we are going to cut 50 per cent, that is not going to be easy to achieve.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well, I call upon the Deputy to reply.

5.11.5 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I thank all those who spoke. I think that last point is an important one. I personally was not envisaging a set target and obviously it is a small sample size, but what I am after is that this policy’s task group does the task and that we know it is doing it and that we know what their target is and we know why they are choosing to say X, Y and Z and why they are investing in places A, B and C to reduce accidents in the Island. I do take Deputy Le Claire’s point that this is ‘Invest to Save’ with knobs on. This really is an ‘Invest to Save’ area. I have the 1999 Transport Policy Strategy as brought to the House by the then Public Services Committee and they say there that a pedestrian crossing costs in the region of £10,000, even if you double that or possibly even triple it. For modifications of this kind we are talking quite small sums and yet the potential returns, as I said in my opening remarks, are huge. This is simply an amendment to make sure that this job gets done and I urge Members to support the amendment.

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for in relation to paragraph 1 of the amendment lodged by the Deputy of St. Mary. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 41	CONTRE: 0	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator T.A. Le Sueur
Senator P.F. Routier
Senator T.J. Le Main
Senator B.E. Shenton
Senator J.L. Perchard
Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Senator F.du H. Le Gresley
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Mary
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

5.12 Sustainable Transport Policy (P.104/2010): second amendment (P.104/2010 Amd.(2)) – amendment (P.104/2010 Amd.(2) Amd.) (paragraph 3)

The Bailiff:

We come then next to paragraph 3 of the amendment lodged by the Connétable of St. Helier and I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

On page 2 after paragraph (d) insert a new paragraph as follows: “(e) to request the Chief Minister to make provision in view of the draft Annual Business Plans for at least £1 million per annum to be made available to the Minister for Transport and Technical Services to fund the proposals set out in the policy” and renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.

5.12.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:

This is clearly a matter which concerns many Members, particularly those who thought they were voting for it when we did the last amendment, so now is their chance. I am not going to say a great deal about it because I think my comments about funding, inevitably, I had to make earlier on when justifying the approval of the amendments. I would direct Members who have not read them yet to the comments at the end of my report on financial and manpower implications. There are a number of proposals which do not require gold-plating. Someone referred to the cost of pedestrian crossings; well it is true that if you do them with pelicans and all kinds of add-ons, they cost an arm and a leg - about £25,000 - but a Jersey crossing such as have been introduced successfully throughout the town centre effectively involved a lick of paint. In some cases, to improve safety, they are on a raised table but, again, that is not an extremely expensive thing to do and so they need not cost a great deal. But there is no getting away from it. A proposal like the Midvale Road scheme, which has been supported by the Assembly, is estimated to cost about £370,000. Again, I suppose one can argue that the full cost of these schemes does not have to be met when they are first introduced. Some people do not like the Green Street traffic arrangement but it was put in, I believe, at the request of the then Deputy Routier by the Parish in consultation with Public Services of the day and it was done with a couple of bollards. It was like that for years until it was finally made permanent. People still complain about it to me but nobody who lives in Green Street complains about it to me and of course it has prevented the T.T.S. from ...

The Bailiff:

Can we have a little quiet from the Senatorial benches, please?

The Connétable of St. Helier:

The Green Street scheme, which was low cost when it was first introduced and did not cost much more when they did it, has prevented certain departments turning Green Street into a major artery and possibly a relief road for the incinerator. Why am I saying this? I do not believe that these schemes, even Midvale Road, need to be done in granite when they are first put in. I believe they can be done with trial schemes sometimes involving planters, sometimes involving bollards. Perhaps we can have some from the airport; they clearly do not need them. But, having said that, if Members feel that half of the money taken from Vehicle Emissions Duty - and that is the source of funding I have identified - if they feel that half of that money is too much to put towards these sustainable transport improvements then that of course is up to them. It is only a request to the Chief Minister. We have had comments from him which would suggest that he would be bound by the Members supporting this proposition. It seems to me that what this paragraph is doing is saying: “Let us have the debate another day.” In fact when I first tried to amend it I wanted to be more definite and the Greffier told me: “You cannot do that. The place to have this debate is in the Business Plan.” What I am effectively asking Members to do is to agree that when we debate the next Business Plan we will inscribe more than a paltry £500,000 to achieve what is a very ambitious sustainable transport policy. I have suggested that we should put half of the Vehicle Emissions Duty money aside for these kinds of improvements. Some Members may think that all of that money should go into transport. It is probably a good argument to be had but I would argue that that is an argument to have at the Business Plan. Unless Members want to have the debate twice I suggest they simply indicate that they would like the Chief Minister to be working on putting more money into transport. I think the question that Members will be asked, certainly by me if not by their constituencies, how could you vote for a transport policy which included many aspirations that are close to Islanders’ hearts, including a better bus service, including better motoring facilities indeed, including better walking and disabled facilities, including longer opening hours for the bus station and other things we have approved today? How could you vote for that and then say that we absolutely do not want to look at any increased funding to be taken from the money that we, as motorists, pay in these duties? But I will leave it to Members and I am willing to answer their questions.

The Bailiff:

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]

5.12.2 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

This to me is a high risk. I take the Connétable’s point with regard to the fact that he thinks it is probably a Business Plan issue and I tend to agree with him. My concern is that should the Members support this proposition the other £500,000 will effectively have to come out of my recycling budget and quite candidly that is pretty stretched already. I am sure Members would agree that we do not really want to be putting televisions in the incinerator because this is what it is all about. That budget goes towards exporting recyclates and I am very keen to preserve that and, of course, increase it if necessary. I am very pleased to receive additional funding towards a transport policy but I am well aware of the present dire economic situation and I fully understand that I am not going to receive any. The Minister for Treasury and Resources has elucidated quite clearly in his comment that any increased funding will have to come out of my budget. Regrettably I cannot support this part. Notwithstanding that, I am happy to work with the Connétable towards achieving the goals which we agreed in part 2, and will do my utmost to achieve those within my restricted budgets that I have.

5.12.3 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

This part of the proposition is exactly what the Fiscal Policy Panel, Comptroller and Auditor General and, dare I say it, the Corporate Services Panel have been hammering-on about. We have voted on a number of detailed suggestions, brought by the Constable of St. Helier, without any concept of the overall costs. In his financial and manpower implications, where the Connétable said that the details were there, well, in paragraph 1 there is a note that the Parish will make a contribution. But that is by no means a certainty. That depends on the Assembly agreeing with him and, as the Connétable said, it depends on the January elections. Then in paragraph 2 we have the cost of Midvale Road at £379,000 but he has got another 5 similar projects. If you cost them at £400,000 a project that is another £1 million. [Interruption] Thank you, yes. Sorry, I should have used my calculator.

[17:30]

That is even more of a point, there is another £2 million. I mean some of them may be possible at £10,000 a scheme but why was there a problem in telling me how much the whole thing was going to cost? In his third paragraph the Connétable happily removes the income from other States departments, but again he has not quantified it. I maintain that we do need to know the quantum of a proposal and we do not have this information. The Constable says that we should use V.E.D. for this purpose but somewhere in the depths of my tiny mind I seem to remember that V.E.D. was for environmental purposes. We cannot have it all ways and we certainly cannot spend money twice. We are effectively looking at specific projects without any real means of support in the context of a whole policy document. This is not good enough. We are conflating detail with overall policy. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory and I shall not be supporting this. [Approbation]

The Bailiff:

It is now 5.30 p.m. so I must invite Members either to adjourn or ...

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I propose the adjournment.

The Deputy of St. John:

Sir, we have probably only got a short while, several speeches, can we not finish this particular one and go to the main debate tomorrow?

The Bailiff:

Well, it is a matter for Members. Do you want to call for the vote?

The Deputy of St. John:

Can I put those propositions, Sir?

The Bailiff:

Very well. The adjournment is proposed. If you wish to adjourn you vote pour, if you wish to carry on you vote contre. The Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 38	CONTRE: 7	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator T.A. Le Sueur	Senator P.F. Routier
Senator T.J. Le Main	Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Senator B.E. Shenton	Connétable of Grouville
Senator J.L. Perchard	Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Senator A. Breckon	Deputy of St. Martin
Senator S.C. Ferguson	Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
Senator A.J.H. Maclean	Deputy of St. John
Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Senator F.du H. Le Gresley
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Mary
Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

The Bailiff:

Very well, the Assembly will adjourn, therefore, until 9.30 a.m. tomorrow.

ADJOURNMENT

[17:32]