Members will perhaps wish to mark Senator Bailhache’s défaut excusé in the sense that he is in the Island and in the building with the Ambassador from Romania, and he will no doubt be attending the States Chamber shortly.

1.2 The Deputy Bailiff:

First of all, in the usual way, I am very pleased to welcome his Excellency, the Lieutenant Governor. [Approbation]

1.3 The Deputy Bailiff:

I imagine that Members must already have noticed that I was pleased to welcome back the Deputy of St. Peter. [Approbation] As Members will know, she has been unable to attend the Chamber since last November as a result of illness and I know that we all wish her well and a complete recovery.

1.4 The Deputy Bailiff:

I also thought I would mention the Ceremony of Light which took place on 4th August to commemorate the declaration of the First World War. All Members and others who attended it have expressed the view that it was marvellously organised and sensitively orchestrated, and I would like to thank all those involved but especially the Bailiff’s Chief Officer, Mr. David Filipponi, who is at the heart of that organisation. [Approbation]

1.5 The Deputy Bailiff:

Now, before we come to oral questions I would like to draw to the attention of Members that we are privileged to have, in the public gallery, Dr. Jinga who is the Ambassador from Romania to the United Kingdom and I am sure Members will wish to express their greeting in the usual way. [Approbation]

[9:45]

QUESTIONS

2. Written questions

2.1 DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UTILITIES AND ISSUES WITH THJE J.T. BILLING SYSTEM:

Question

Does the Minister, as shareholder representative for utilities generally and Jersey Telecom in particular, consider that the Memorandum of Understandings which he relies on should include an ability to require adequate customer satisfaction?

Would he also, in relation to JT –

a) confirm that, as of July of this year, the billing problem had not yet been resolved, and state when final resolution is expected;

b) state why the company is not willing to supply its customers with a bill that is clear, comprehensible and easily understandable, and

c) advise, during the last year, on how many occasions customers have been wrongly charged via Direct Debit and the amounts involved?

Answer

The Minister is the representative for all the utility shareholdings (referred to as Strategic Investments) and Memoranda of Understanding are in place for JT and Jersey Post (being the two wholly owned utilities). There are obligations in these memoranda in regard to operational efficiency and acting in the interests of the community, which the Minister believes directly link to ensuring adequate customer satisfaction.

Specifically in relation to JT, the Memorandum of Understanding includes an objective to be as efficient as comparable telecommunications businesses not owned by the States of Jersey and the requirement to provide adequate customer satisfaction forms part of this objective. But it is also worth noting that standards for adequate customer satisfaction are governed by regulatory obligations set out by CICRA and theses are contained in JT’s Customer Code of Practice, which can be accessed via www.jtglobal.com or by following this link:

http://www.jtglobal.com/Global/Website%20Assets/footers/Code%20of%20practice/Customer%20Code_of_Practice_Jersey.pdf

In relation to the further questions, JT has advised the Minister that:

a) following cutover to the new operating platform there were 265 items listed for fixing with JT’s supplier and 260 of these have now been successfully closed. Of the 5 remaining items, it is expected these will be dealt with over the next quarter;

b) JT is committed to supplying its customers with bills that are clear, comprehensible and easily understandable, which is why it has delivered on the commitments already made (including those such as bigger print and easier to read colours that were raised by customers); and

c) during the cutover to the new system there were a number of direct debit errors which were dealt with by JT making direct contact with each customer impacted and immediately taking action to refund such amounts. Over the last year, there have been an average of 100 direct debit refunds per month, which to put into context for the 62% of customers that choose to pay by direct debit equates to 0.33% of direct debit payments (the average value of which was c.£50).

2.2 DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING FINANCIAL FORECASTS FOR 2016 TO 2019:

Question

Would the Minister provide the most recent estimates for income, expenditure and forecast surpluses/deficits for the years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019?

Answer

The draft Budget 2015 provides a revised financial forecast to 2015 at Figure 10.1 page 55.

The work being carried out by officers on Long Term Revenue Planning is considering all aspects of existing expenditure budgets and the requests for additional funding from departments for the next MTFP period 2016-2019, alongside the projections for States revenues. The work of the new Council of Ministers will be to consider which expenditure areas and services align with its strategic priorities and propose the allocation of available resources accordingly.

The Budget deals with 2015. It will be for the new Council of Ministers to propose appropriate tax and spending measures to deliver a sustainable MTFP for 2016-2019. It would be inappropriate for the current Minister for Treasury and Resources to set out future expenditure of the States. The next Council of Ministers and Assembly will agree their priorities.

However, the draft Budget 2015 also provides, in Figure 12.8 on page 64, an indicative financial forecast for 2016 and 2017 as part of an indicative economic impact assessment.

This indicates a breakeven position on a comparable basis to the existing financial forecast and is based on the latest income forecasts which extend to 2017.

As stated in the draft Budget 2015, page 63, the current assumption is that the next MTFPs will follow a strategy of balanced budgets, but this will be a decision for the next Council of Ministers and States Assembly.

2.3. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING DIVIDENDS FROM UTILITY COMPANIES:

Question

a) At the time the draft Budget 2015 was lodged, had the following dividends been agreed in principle by the Boards of the relevant companies -

i) Jersey Post - £5,000,000 (2014)

ii) Jersey Telecom - £3,000,000 (2014)

iii) Jersey Telecom - £3,000,000 (2015)?

b) In the time after lodging the budget was any communication or correspondence received from any of the utility companies challenging the level of dividends to be required?

c) As at 9 a.m. on Monday 1st September 2014 do the amounts included in the Budget measures to balance the Consolidated Fund (as identified on page 55 of P129/2014) in respect of dividends from the utility companies (namely Jersey Post and Jersey Telecom) remain unchanged and have they been agreed by the companies?

Answer

a) Initial dialogue between JT, Jersey Post and JNWWC and the States was carried out before the draft budget was lodged. For JT and Jersey Post it was in the form of emails and for JNWWC at the AGM and emails. At the time of the draft Budget 2015 being lodged Jersey Telecom and Jersey Post were informed that the Treasury and Resources Minister, on behalf of the States of Jersey, as shareholder, would be requesting the level of dividends included in the draft Budget 2015 report.

b) Discussions have been held with the utility companies since the lodging date. Emails, letters, phone calls and meetings have taken place. This has given the Treasury Minister the opportunity to explain the need for the Budget measures and for utilities to explain any consequences or challenges for them.

c) Now that the utility companies have had a chance to discuss the requests internally and had the opportunity to put the Minister’s proposals to their Boards they have communicated their position back and any changes in the proposed dividends will be explained within the further information to be supplied to members as part of the Treasury and Resources Minister’s draft Budget 2015 amendments.

2.4 DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO CREDIT RATING AGENCIES:

Question

Would the Minister inform members what data and reports were provided to the credit rating agencies in respect of the £250m bond?

Answer

For the actual bond issuance the only rating agency requiring information was Standard and Poor’s (S&P) credit rating agency. The timing of the Bond Issuance coincided with S&P’s half yearly annual review of the States of Jersey’s position. Information was supplied previously when the States obtained its initial credit rating.

The following is a list of information supplied before the bond was issued. S&P analysts have unlimited access like other members of the public to the States’ and JFSC main websites (for example: gov.je, statesassembly.gov.je) and would have reviewed latest statistical and other pertinent information available at that time.

Documents available in the Public Domain

2013 Accounts and Annex
2013 Summary Accounts
Accounts Slides (2013)
Statistics link from gov.je website - provided for S&P’s analysts to look at all published information available in May 2014
Parishes’ 2013 accounts as available
2012 and 2013 accounts for the Utility companies where available (Jersey Post, Jersey Water, JEC and JT Group Limited)

Documents provided not in the Public Domain

Draft Issuer Description Prospectus
Extract from one of the book-runners’ presentations listing likely interested parties for the bond
Draft bond issuance timetable and plan for the roadshows as at that time
Summary of the historical interest rate subsidies provided from the Housing Development Fund to Housing Trusts
Copy of the 2015 draft capital programme
Working draft of the presentation to future investors to show pension data. S&P would later have seen the final version.
Names of contacts at the JFSC

2.5 DEPUTY S.S.P.A POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PAYMENTS MADE TO THE FORMER TREASURER OF THE STATES:

Question

Further to the Minister for Treasury and Resources’ confirmation on 15th July 2014 that all payments will be documented in the States accounts next year, could the Chief Minister inform what the approximate amounts that will be disclosed in the 2014 accounts will be in respect of any payments made to the former Treasurer of the States for the period from 1st January 2014, including any amounts connected with her resignation, and would the Chief Minister disclose the amounts of these payments in answering this question rather than waiting until 2015?

Answer

The financial arrangements for the former Treasurer of the States were agreed in accordance with the SEB policy and guidance.

The amounts will be shown, as the Minister for Treasury and Resources has already stated, in the 2014 accounts.

The figures will reflect the total remuneration provided to the States Treasurer in 2014, in line with accounting practice.

2.6 DEPUTY S.S.P.A POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE SCOPE FOR TAX INCREASES IN THE BUDGET 2015:

Question

In light of the fact that the Jersey all-items RPI (annual averages for each year) shows that in the 5 years from 2008-2013 prices have risen by 13%, an annual average of 2.5% per annum, and that figures provided to me over the summer period by the Statistics Unit show that a person receiving no pay increases over that period will have seen a real-term fall in earnings of -13%, a person receiving a 1% increase per year a real-term fall in earnings of -8% and a person receiving a 2% increase per year a real term fall in earnings of -2%, does the Minister consider that he any scope for a tax increase in any area in the forthcoming Budget when a person would have had to have received a 3% increase in pay every year to have seen a real increase in earnings?

Answer

As indicated in Section 7 of the Draft Budget Statement 2015, taken as a whole, the proposed tax measures are broadly neutral when compared to the MTFP. Where tax increases have been proposed these are modest and targeted.

Alcohol duties

The Draft Budget proposes:

duties on spirits, wines and strong beer are increased by 1.7% (the March 2014 RPI figure) so as to maintain the value of the applicable duties in real terms;
duties on lower strength beers are frozen; and
cider duties are increased in order to harmonise them with the corresponding beer duties, resulting in a simplification of the impôts regime

Tobacco duties

Consistent with the established policy of increasing tobacco duties at a rate above the cost of living, the Draft Budget proposes an increase of 4.7%, an increase of 3% over the March 2014 RPI figure.

Fuel duties

The Draft Budget proposes an increase in fuel duties that would equate to an additional 1p on a litre of unleaded petrol.

Vehicle emissions duty

The Draft Budget proposes an increase in vehicle emission duty of 1.7% across all bands in order to maintain the value of the duty in real terms.

Stamp duty

The Draft Budget proposes increases in stamp duty on properties costing £1m+, this measure, targeted at higher end of the property market, is proposed in order to fund the proposed reduction in stamp duty on mortgage debt which is targeted at the lower end of the market (i.e. where the property on which the debt is secured is worth no more than £400,000).

Mortgage interest tax relief

Based on the data available the proposed £15,000 cap on deductible mortgage interest tax relief will affect approximately 250 taxpayers out of around 8,500 who benefit from the relief currently raising an estimated £100,000.

The Deputy’s question also highlights the importance of keeping inflation under control. The rates of increase in RPI for every quarter of 2013 and 2014 to date have been below 2%, this relates favourably to the longer-term behaviour (across the period of 1990-2012) of increases of 3.9% per annum on average. This highlights the importance of the recent focus on the development of a competitive, open economy, where new entrants to markets are welcomed, competition between businesses is encouraged and a strong competition authority addresses unfair pricing.

2.7 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING COURT PROCEEDINGS HELD IN PRIVATE:

Question

Will the Chief Minister, in view of his political responsibility for justice matters, state -

(a) whether he considers there is a place for court proceedings to be held in private in a democratic society such as Jersey and if so, in what circumstances he considers they are acceptable and/or justified including, in particular, whether he considers they are acceptable for cases under the data protection law?

(b) whether he considers that the full cost to the taxpayer of all cases heard in private should be accounted for openly, transparently and itemized so it is not hidden from the public by being merged or accounted for within other budget headings to ensure that those responsible for the public expenditure can be held accountable for the expenditure;

Answer

(a) The importance attached by the Courts of Jersey to ensuring that, so far as possible, proceedings in court take place in public is well established.

The general principles were summarised by Page Commissioner in G –v- A 2000 JLR 56 [1] at pages 59-60 as follows:

“(a) The general principle, beyond doubt, is that all proceedings should take place in public in open court.

(b) The constitutional, legal and practical importance of this principle is such that it should not be displaced except for compelling reasons.

(c) Whether to order proceedings in camera is something that must be determined in accordance with principle, and not on the basis of what the judge happens to consider convenient or reasonable. Potential embarrassment on the part of those who have to give evidence is not a sufficient reason, of itself, to justify a hearing in camera.

(d) The question (of principle) that has to be asked can be expressed in various ways but was put succinctly by the Lord Chancellor, Viscount Haldane, in Scott (or Morgan) v. Scott ... as follows ([1913] A.C. at 439): ‘I think that to justify an order for hearing in camera it must be shown that the paramount object of securing that justice is done would really be rendered doubtful of attainment if the order were not made.’

There are several classes of case in which it is well established that in camera hearings are often necessary. But they are no more than illustrations of this wider principle.

(e) The test is a strict one and I quote again from Viscount Haldane ([1913] A.C. at 438):

‘But the burden lies on those seeking to displace . . . [the general rule as to openness] in the particular case to make out that the ordinary rule must as of necessity be superseded by this paramount consideration. The question is by no means one which, consistently with the spirit of our jurisprudence, can be dealt with by the judge as resting in his mere discretion as to what is expedient. The latter must treat it as one of principle, and as turning, not on convenience, but on necessity.”

The general principles set out above apply to all cases, including data protection cases.

Even where the Court feels obliged to sit in private because it is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice, the Court will usually publish an anonymised judgment so that the public can be aware of what has occurred.

The general principles applied in Jersey, as described above, mirror those applied by Courts in the United Kingdom and elsewhere and I accept, for the reasons the Royal Court has given, some cases must be held in private.

(b) There is no difference in the cost of the Court administration as to whether a court sits in private or in public. All public expenditure must be accounted for in accordance with the rules that apply to the body that incurred that expenditure, and in particular the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005. The purpose of those rules is to ensure that those responsible for the public expenditure can be held accountable for the expenditure.

(c) I am quite satisfied that there is no adverse impact on the reputation of the Island in relation to holding cases in private, since the principles applied by the Courts in Jersey are the same as those applied by Courts in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

2.8 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING GUIDANCE GIVEN TO THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE AND STATES DEPARTMENTS:

Question

Will the Attorney General advise Members -

(a) whether he issues guidance to the Police and States departments on what crimes or regulatory breaches that they should or should not investigate or upon the degree to which any offence, criminal or regulatory, that is committed before they should take steps to institute a prosecution?

(b) whether he believes that such guidance should be published to the public in a transparent way so as to all can judge whether such guidance is reasonable in the circumstances?

(c) whether he has issued any such guidance to the States of Jersey Police with regard to cyber bullying or the operation of the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law 2008 and, if so, what guidance he has issued for the treatment of such cases.

Answer

(a) The Attorney General’s Code on the Decision to Prosecute is on the Law Officers’ Department website and provides guidance to Centeniers. In 2008, my predecessor re- issued complementary guidance for officers of Regulatory Departments. This document is also available on the Law Officers’ Department website. Those documents deal with both evidentiary and public interest considerations.

(b) Accordingly, the guidance referred to above is accessible to the public at large.

(c) In March 2012, following a number of matters involving use of the Social Media which were being considered by the Data Protection Commissioner and the States of Jersey Police, I issued informal guidance to both in the hope that it might assist them in determining the types of matter which I might regard as being appropriate for prosecution in the courts. That guidance is being reviewed. When that review is complete and the guidance is re-issued, I will consider whether it should be published on our website as formal guidance.

2.9 THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING THE I.T. ALLOWANCE FOR STATES MEMBERS:

Question

Would the Chairman provide the Assembly with a list showing the names of States members who have claimed some or all of the £600 IT allowance giving details of the amount claimed by each member?

Answer

Twenty-six States members claimed the full £550 information technology allowance between 1st January and 1st September 2014, totalling £14,300.

An allowance of £600 per annum per States member was made available from 1st January 2014. This was funded using the existing budgeted amount for States members’ information services provision. As 2014 is an election year, the allowance was prorated down to £550 to account for the fact that members who were not elected for a further term of office would receive remuneration, including expenses, until the end of November 2014. The States Members Remuneration Review Body has recommended that the £600 allowance is abolished from November 2014 (R.122/2014 refers).

The States agreed a number of years ago (P.225/2004 refers) that it was not appropriate to maintain a public register showing which members claimed remuneration and expenses and as a result this information has never been made public. In the same way the Committee does not feel it is appropriate to provide a list showing the names of those States members who have claimed the IT allowance.

2.10 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ASKED IN THE STATES ASSEMBLY:

Question

Will the Chairman of PPC produce in a tabular form information relating to the number and type of questions asked in the States Chamber by each member during the last parliamentary session (2011 to 2014) so that it shows the name of each States member, the number of oral questions with notice asked, the number of oral questions asked under questions without notice, the number of written questions asked and, in each case, to whom they were addressed.

Answer

This information requested is available on www.statesassembly.gov.je. It is not presented in the format that has been requested by Deputy M.R. Higgins, however it would take a considerable amount of time to classify and tabulate every written and oral question asked during the last parliamentary session, as well as every question without notice. This would be unlikely to be possible within the short amount of time available to answer the Deputy’s question and is not considered to be a productive use of officer time when the officers of the States Greffe who support PPC are busy with the awareness campaign for the elections.

In addition, there is a risk the publication by the Committee of a table detailing the number and type of questions asked by each States member could be misinterpreted as a form of ‘league’ table and would not serve to improve the productivity or efficiency of the States.

Information on the total number of questions asked and the identity of those who have answered them is published every year in the States Assembly Annual Report.

2.11 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE PROPOSALS FOR THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES CONFISCATION FUND AND THE DRUG TRAFFICKING CONFISCATION FUND IN THE BUDGET:

Question

Will the Minister give detailed descriptions of what capital schemes it is intended to fund to allow the use of £7.5m from funds held in the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund and the Drug Trafficking Confiscation Fund and explain how these schemes “fit the rules set on the use of these funds?” (see page 56 of draft Budget 2015)?

Is the Minister concerned that repeated use of ring-fenced funds such as Health Insurance Fund, the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund and the Drug Trafficking Confiscation Fund to cover general revenue shortfalls will bring the public’s trust in the ability of the States to properly manage its revenues to a new low and, if not, why not?

Answer

The allocation from the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund (COCF) and the Drug Trafficking Confiscation Fund (DTCF) will be used to offset the cost of the Police Relocation capital project. This is being proposed following outline approval from the Attorney General confirming that this is an appropriate use of the Fund in accordance with guidelines identified in Article 24 of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law. Due process is being followed with sign off from the Attorney General, Home Affairs Minister and Treasury Minister.

The COCF now incorporates the DTCF, as agreed by the States in the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorism (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 2014. The Fund was established to separately account for confiscations from criminal activity and meet international guidelines. In accordance with the law these funds can be applied by the Minister for Treasury and Resources, subject to the advice of the Attorney General, in supporting measures that prevent, deal with or facilitate enforcement of dealing with criminal conduct. These rules have been strictly applied.

The COCF has been used perfectly legitimately in line with the provisions of the law and has largely been used to provide funding for one off expenditure of a capital nature. If these allocations had not been made there would have been a greater call on public finances or other important projects that prevent, deal with or facilitate enforcement of dealing with criminal conduct would not have progressed.

The Health Insurance Fund allocations have been approved by the States to help meet the well-known pressures in Health funding, as part of the process of States agreement of the Health Strategy and sustainable funding,

This is good financial management, utilising all funds available to deliver services and assets. This is also entirely in line with advice from the Fiscal Policy Panel that we should maintain, and even increase, appropriate public expenditure to support the economy and not be constrained by the balance on the consolidated fund.

2.12 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE REVISED FINANCIAL FORECASTS ON PUBLIC SECTOR PAY AWARDS:

Question

Does the Minister accept that the proposals to manage the consolidated fund balance by removing 2% from the public sector pay budget (page 56 of the Budget 2015) effectively reneges on the agreement made by the SEB for a cost of living pay award in 2015 and, if so, how does he justify this proposal?

If not, why did he feel it was justified to refer to possible recruitment freezes (page 58) at a time when school rolls are rising and the Health and Social Services Department is already carrying vacancies for experienced specialist nurses? Did the Minister carry out an impact assessment of such a recruitment freeze on the level of public services provision before including reference to this in the Budget and, if not, why not?

Answer

Proposals for a pay review in 2015 have yet to be considered by SEB

The Minister asked that the proposed measures in the draft Budget 2015 be reviewed and agreed by both Corporate Management Board and the Council of Ministers ahead of the Budget debate. As a result of this further process Chief Officers have requested that the proposed 2% savings be based on gross expenditure and not specifically targeted at either will be or non-staff budgets. A revised set of measures to manage the balance on the Consolidated Fund will be presented to the States as part of the Minister’s Amendments to the draft Budget 2015.

Ministers and their Departments will therefore be able to take account of the impact on staffing levels and the levels of public service provision when determining how the savings are attributed in 2015.

2.13 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE REVISED FINANCIAL FORECASTS:

Question

Will the Minister state clearly when he was first informed of the potential for a fall in tax revenues in 2014 and 2015 and, in particular, of the size of potential deficits on the projected figures in the Medium Term Financial Plan?

When did the Minister start to consider the options laid out in the Budget for action on shares/dividends in the utility companies JT, Jersey Post and Jersey Water, will he give a detailed account of when the utility companies were informed of these measures and state what discussions and meetings took place?

Answer

The Minister continually takes an active interest in the latest available statistics which inform the trends of economic activity, jobs and income. He has made a number of statements over a significant period of time that the States needed to do everything in their power to secure income and economic activity in one of the most turbulent periods of recent times. The Minister, however, takes no part in the formal Income forecasting process.

The independent Income Tax Forecasting Group (ITFG) meets each year and agrees the Income Tax forecast which then informs that year’s annual Budget. A report is issued by the Economics Unit to assist in formalising the forecast position as decided by the ITFG.

The report written to inform the 2014 budget was issued in September 2013 and included a projected downgrade in income tax forecast for 2014 of £13 million and £26 million for 2015 compared to the MTFP figure.

A copy of this report was issued to States Members prior to the debate on the draft Budget 2014.

An updated report was produced in May 2014 by the Economics Unit to inform the draft Budget 2015 report. This resulted in the 2014 Income Tax forecast worsening to £31 million and the 2015 forecast worsening to £50 million. These forecasts led to the development of the proposed measures to balance the Consolidated Fund.

The proposed measures reported in the draft budget are potential options to balance the Consolidated Fund in 2014 and 2015. The Utilities are aware of the importance in meeting the dividend returns forecast in a year and also the Minister’s ability to request additional dividend returns for the wholly owned States’ Strategic Investments (JT and Jersey Post.)

Initial dialogue between JT, Jersey Post and JNWWC and the States was carried out before the draft budget was lodged. For JT and Jersey Post it was in the form of emails and for JNWWC at the AGM and emails.

The correspondence has continued since then and any revision to the numbers published will reflect these communications.

2.14 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE MEASURES TO BALANCE THE 2915 BUDGET AND THE IMPACT OF THESE MEASURES ON FUTURE BUDGETS:

Question

What assurances, if any, can the Minister give that measure taken to postpone spending on measures previously agreed by the States on Freedom of Information, early repayment of PECRS debt and the Long Term Care Fund will not be repeated in the 2016 budget?

What confidence does the Minister have that the estimates for tax revenues for 2016 can be relied on and what measures has he put in place to ensure that the emergency measures to balance the budget this year do not need to be repeated in coming years?

Answer

The preparation of the next Strategic Plan and MTFP 2016-2019 will be the responsibility of the new Council of Ministers, following the elections in October 2014.

The work by officers on Long Term Revenue Planning is considering all aspects of existing expenditure budgets and the requests for additional funding from departments for the next MTFP period 2016-2019, alongside the projections for States revenues. The work of the new Council of Ministers will be to consider which expenditure areas and services align with its strategic priorities and propose the allocation of available resources accordingly.

The tax revenue forecasts for 2016 will be reviewed again in 2015, in advance of the next MTFP and 2016 Budget and with the benefit of the 2014 outturn. The economic assumptions will also be updated so undoubtedly these forecasts will change. However, the Minister is confident that the current forecasts are based on the latest and most up to date information and economic assumptions.

There are no “emergency measures”. The use of the word “emergency” gives an inappropriate label to properly thought out measures to assist the economy. The proposed measures in the draft Budget 2015 are identified to allow existing public service provision and capital investment in the economy to continue in 2014 and 2015 and utilise available balances and efficiencies as recommended by the Fiscal Policy Panel.

The work described above on Long Term Revenue Planning will identify options for the new Council of Ministers to propose appropriate tax and spending measures to deliver a sustainable MTFP for 2016-2019.

2.15 THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING A REVIEW OF SPEED LIMITS AND THE INTRODUCTION OF PENALTY POINTS FOR DRIVERS:

Question

Further to previous questions on aspects of road safety, can the Minister advise whether it is still the Department’s intention to undertake a review of the Island’s speed limits and if so, indicate its likely terms of reference and the anticipated timescale?

Furthermore, will the Minister advise the current position with regard to the possible introduction of penalty points for certain motoring offences?

What priority will the Minister be giving these matters in any “legacy” report he may choose to prepare for the next Minister?

Answer

My Department is in the process of producing a Road Safety Strategy. Appropriate and well enforced lower speed limits and the introduction of a penalty point system are two of 35 potential actions within the draft Strategy. A significant amount of research and key stakeholder consultation has taken place to inform its development. Positive feedback has been received with regard to the proposal for penalty points. With regard to speed limit policy, it would be valuable to carry out a public consultation before finalising proposals and my Department is currently preparing documentation for that consultation.

Although work is well advanced in these areas, there is more to be done, including ensuring that the Minister for Home Affairs is supportive of the proposals, as many of them relate to enforcement. It would be inappropriate to launch a consultation on proposed changes to the current speed limit policy or to finalise the Road Safety Strategy, knowing that a new Minister may be in my place shortly and there will certainly be a new Minister for Home Affairs. The work will therefore be finalised after the elections.

An assessment of Jersey’s road injury data found that our serious road injury rate per head of population is 39% higher than in the UK and our road traffic accidents are estimated to cost the Island over £18 million per annum. This is evidence that we must invest more in road safety and I hope to be able to present the Road Safety Strategy to the States early in the New Year. If however I am not in a position to do so, I would certainly urge the new Minister to give the issue a high priority.

2.16 THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. MARY OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE BUDGET 2015 PROPOSALS ON FREDOM OF INFORMATION:

Question

The 2015 Budget Statement contains a proposal to reduce contingency allocation to Freedom of Information by £1million and gives the following explanation ‑

“In order to get ready for enactment of the Freedom of Information Law in 2015 a significant amount of the allocated budget was set aside for the recruitment of staff to work through department policies and procedures. The recruitment of these staff members has proved to be difficult with the levels of knowledge and experience available, which has meant that departments have had to use existing staff and knowledge. An element of the budget allocated to Freedom of Information could, therefore, be returned to the consolidated fund.”

Will the Chief Minister advise how the amount of this proposed reduction was identified, including identifying the departments consulted?

Is the Chief Minister confident that this proposal will not impact negatively on the long awaited implementation of the Freedom of Information legislation?

Answer

The original allocation of £4.788m for the implementation of FOI was reviewed and through prudent management of the delivery programme it was felt £1m could be saved by the end of 2015.

The Corporate Management Board, when considering the reprioritisation of funds to meet the new revised income tax forecasts, acknowledged that they will manage with the revised allocation to meet requests made under the new Law.

Due to the good progress that has been made within the departments and what has already been delivered, the implementation of the law is still on track for January 2015.

The final Regulations for the Law are currently being drafted and will be lodged in time for the new Assembly to approve, together with the Appointed Day Act for January 2015

2.17 DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING STATES’ WEBSITES:

Question

Does the Chief Minister accept that many of the States/departmental websites are far from optimal regarding user-friendliness and, if so, will he explain how this has happened and what, if anything, is being done about it?

Answer

Expectations of what makes a good website have increased over the last few years as the internet has become an indispensable tool in the lives of most of us. It was only four years ago that Apple launched the iPad. The existing www.gov.je site was not designed with tablets and smartphones in mind, yet today more of us use them to access the internet than PCs.

It is acknowledged that www.gov.je needs a design refresh. In May 2013, a local company 4Insight was commissioned to carry out independent usability testing on the site involving 30 members of the public. The headline results of that testing were made public on 23 May 2013 http://www.gov.je/News/2013/Pages/WebsiteCustomerResearch.aspx

A project was initiated to address the lessons of the usability testing. Six local companies contributed to the new design, which is intended to work as well on smartphones and tablets as on desktop PCs. It is now in the final stage of development and is expected to launch by the end of this year. independent testing involving members of the public is being planned to take place before the redesign goes live.

The new site has been designed to be usable by those with disabilities. The design team of local suppliers has received specialist training from the Digital Accessibility Centre. The new site is being tested by users with conditions including blindness, low vision, colour blindness, dyslexia, limited limb mobility, learning disabilities, deafness and Asperger’s.

Other States websites are also in the process of being redeveloped:

The States of Jersey Police web site www.jersey.police.uk was re-launched in February 2014
A new parish site www.parish.gov.je went live at the beginning of August – a good example of the parishes and States staff working together.
The www.jerseymet.gov.je site has been replaced with a new weather section on gov.je at www.gov.je/weather.
A new website for Andium Homes www.andiumhomes.je launched in July.
A project has been agreed to refresh the www.jersey.com site – vital for our Tourism industry.
The Jersey Law website (www.jerseylaw.je) will be relaunched in 2015.
Plans are being made to replace the www.jerseyairport.com site and to refresh the www.portofjersey.je site
A replacement www.jerseycourts.je site is being designed
Customs & Immigration are working with usability experts to improve the CAESAR website which islanders use to pay GST on goods arriving in the island.

The States has come a long way since 2008 when there were many separate departmental web sites, each with their own writing style, branding, navigation and domain name. Sites were often based on different technology, hosted by different companies, and looked amateurish. We have had a strategy since then to improve the States web sites by consolidating them onto a single platform, with consistently applied high standards for content based on best practice.

In 2014, SOCITM rated the gov.je website as ‘excellent’ and commended its ‘clear, easy to use content’. And in January’s quarterly Sitemorse survey, Jersey’s site was ranked 5th out of 429 local government sites.

2.18 DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE U.S. F.A.T.C.A. AGREEMENT:

Question

Can the Chief Minister confirm whether the cost of the US FATCA to UK businesses and individuals has been estimated at £1bn, and has he estimated the estimated cost to businesses and individuals (including trusts) in Jersey?

Answer

HMRC in 2013 when publishing draft regulations for compliance with the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) referred to an estimate of the cost to UK businesses over the first five years of between £1.1bn and £2bn. No equivalent estimate is available for the cost to Jersey businesses.

In considering whether such an estimate should be made regard has been had for the fact that, since the HMRC estimate was published, a global Common Reporting Standard for Automatic Exchange of Information to improve international tax compliance, which mirrors FATCA, has been adopted on which HMRC is consulting with businesses in the UK. In due course the UK will be publishing a Tax Information and Impact Note which will include an estimate of the impact on UK businesses arising from this expansion of reporting obligations.

Jersey has joined with the UK and 45 other jurisdictions in an “Early Adopters Group” committed to the implementation of the global standard and it is intended to consult with industry on this in line with the consultation exercise initiated by HMRC. This consultation will seek information on the cost of implementing the US FATCA and the global standard. From discussions with industry to-date it is clear that for the branches of the UK banks a significant part of the cost burden arising from the installation of IT systems is expected to be covered by the parent bank. This will not be the case with many trust companies, for example, who do not have a UK parent.

The cost burden of implementing the FATCA and global standard reporting requirements will be substantial. However, two important points might be made in this respect. Firstly, because FATCA and the Common Reporting Standard have global application, Jersey’s competitors will be equally affected and therefore Jersey’s relative competitive position should not be adversely affected. Secondly, and most specifically in respect of FATCA, meeting the requirements is unavoidable if international business is to be undertaken. Businesses in Jersey recognise that they have no alternative but to bear the costs incurred. For government there will be a consequence in that the implementation costs will impact on the level of taxable profits and the effect of this will be a factor to be included in revenue forecasts.

2.19 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING WORKERS IN POVERTY IN JERSEY:

Question

In the light of the findings of the Resolution Foundation that in the UK the number of young workers (aged 21 to 30) on low pay, defined as less than two-thirds of the median hourly wage, has risen to almost one in three (29%) what equivalent figures does the Minister have for young Jersey workers in poverty and, if none, will he agree to investigate this issue and report back to the States with his findings?

Does the Minister agree that in the light of the findings in the Jersey/UK comparison of the cost of living study from the Statistics Unit that the cost of living in Jersey is 20% greater than the UK, that our minimum wage is currently set far below a level which would eliminate in-work poverty and will he commission a major review of the minimum wage level, and if not why not?

Answer

The 2014/2015 Household Income Distribution Survey is currently being undertaken by the States of Jersey Statistics Unit. That data will enable analyses to be undertaken of income for different household types, including analysis by age and relative low income.

It is not the purpose of the minimum wage to address issues of poverty. The policy objectives of the minimum wage include to set a minimum standard for pay in the employment relationship and to remove the worst cases of low pay whilst taking into account business realities and supporting a competitive economy. In accordance with the Department’s 2014 business plan, work is underway to investigate the possible introduction of a living wage for Jersey and it is intended to produce an interim report on this by the end of 2014.

As the Minister stated in a response to a similar question from Deputy Southern on 18 March 2014, the level at which the minimum wage is set is determined on an annual basis, following the recommendations of the Employment Forum. The Minister does not intend to undertake his own minimum wage review. The Forum will take into account the available statistics and economic advice, including the ‘Jersey-UK Relative Consumer Price Levels for Goods and Services’ report for 2013. The Forum will make its recommendation to the Minister later this month which will be presented as a Report to the States.

2.20 DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE REVISED FINANCIAL FORECASTS:

Question

When was the Council of Ministers formally informed of the significant change in the income forecasts as compared to those included in the Medium Term Financial Plan?

Answer

Question

Will the Chief Minister give the Assembly details of the relationship breakdown policy currently applied under the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 2012, and explain how this policy is applied both to entitled persons and to persons licenced to occupy housing and, in particular, inform the Assembly -

(a) the effect on the separated partner’s right to occupy housing if such partner does not enjoy either entitled or licenced housing status in their own right;

(b) the policy in respect of Jersey born children, whether they can remain in their homes whilst in education and whether the policy recognizes the jurisdiction of the Family Division of the court in such matters;

(c) how many applications for one party to remain in their family homes have been made under this policy and how many have been refused;

(d) whether applications where one party is licensed are automatically refused and, if so, how the Chief Minister justifies such decisions;

(e) whether persons and their children refused consent to remain in their home are required to appeal to the Royal Court?

Answer

The relationship breakdown policy currently applied under the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 2012 (noting that policies under the Law are under ongoing review) is as follows:

Population Office

Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 2012

Marriage and Relationship Breakdown Policy

This policy was developed because of the increasing number of applications of this nature and specifically, to ensure that they were dealt with in a fair and consistent manner. The rationale behind it was that, provided the unqualified spouse or partner had been co-habiting and resident for the specified period, at the time of the marriage, or the commencement of co-habitation as man and wife, such person would have had the expectation of being able to house themselves and any children in satisfactory and suitable housing conditions. The fact that, for whatever reason, the relationship or marriage had broken down was felt, on housing grounds, to have a material and detrimental effect on the children of the relationship or marriage, many of whom had been born and bred in the Island.

The policy is reactive to the breakdown of a relationship where the unqualified partner or spouse could be faced with having to move into uncontrolled accommodation with any children of the relationship or marriage, and is not retrospective or applicable where the spouse or partner has Licensed status.

Policy

Because of the hardship otherwise caused to minor children of a marriage or common-law relationship if entitlement is not granted, Entitled status is granted to an unqualified spouse or partner provided that:-

(a) the unqualified spouse or partner has been married to, and/or living with, the Entitled spouse or partner in the Island for at least the previous five years; and

(b) the unqualified spouse or partner has been continuously ordinary resident in Jersey for at least the previous seven years; and

(c) the unqualified spouse or partner has care and control of the child(ren) either by means of a legal separation or a Court Order. Any permission granted to occupy accommodation will be conditional upon the unqualified spouse or partner in question continuing to have care and control of the minor child(ren).

In the case of a common-law relationship breakdown, no Court Order will be granted but care and control of any child of the relationship must still be with the applicant on a full time basis.

In response to the individual parts of the question and as to how the policy is applied:

a) A separated partner does not have the right to occupy Qualified property if they do not have Entitled or Licenced status, or if they do not satisfy the criteria for qualifying under the relationship breakdown policy. However, all cases are looked at on their own merit and decisions made accordingly, with due account of precedent. Where a partner owns the property, wholly or in part, they are able to remain in occupation, but would not have Entitled status to enable them to lease or purchase alternative Qualified property.

b) The Population Office would consider the Family Division of the Royal Court when making decisions under the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 2012, but having a Jersey born child does not give a Registered or Entitled for Work parent Entitled status or the automatic right to occupy Qualified property.

c) Applications under the Law for Entitled status on hardship grounds arise for a variety of reasons, and often marriage or relationship breakdown is combined with other elements of hardship. In addition, queries as to Entitled status that very clearly fall inside or outside the policy do not reach the stage of a full hardship application. Having noted this, 6 applications have been processed for Entitled status on the grounds of hardship/marriage and relationship breakdown this year, of which 4 have been refused.

d) The marriage and relationship breakdown policy applies to spouses of Entitled people, not Licenced people. The housing position of a Licenced employee, their spouse/partner and children, is inherently uncertain, being linked to continued essential employment for at least ten years. Many other Islanders continue to work toward their 10 years residence while living in registered accommodation.

(e) Applications are firstly submitted to the Population Office for a decision. The case may then be put before the Assistant Chief Minister and the Housing and Work Advisory Group for further consideration. Once these avenues are exhausted, it is for the individual to decide whether to seek Administrative Review or to appeal to the Royal Court.

2.25 DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE FORECAST SURPLUSES AND DEFICITS FOR 2016 TO 2019:

Question

Will the Minister inform the Assembly of the latest forecast revenue surpluses and deficits for the years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, based on the financial and expenditure commitments which have been submitted for approval in the Budget 2015 and will he give his assessment of the implications of these forecasts for the future management of States finances?

Answer

The draft Budget 2015 provides a revised financial forecast to 2015 at Figure 10.1 page 55.

The work being carried out by officers on Long Term Revenue Planning is considering all aspects of existing expenditure budgets and the requests for additional funding from departments for the next Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) period 2016-2019, alongside the projections for States revenues. The work of the new Council of Ministers will be to consider which expenditure areas and services align with its strategic priorities and propose the allocation of available resources accordingly.

The Budget deals with 2015. It will be for the new Council of Ministers to propose appropriate tax and spending measures to deliver a sustainable MTFP for 2016-2019. The next Council of Ministers and Assembly will agree their priorities.

However, the draft Budget 2015 also provides, in Figure 12.8 on page 64, an indicative financial forecast for 2016 and 2017 as part of an indicative economic impact assessment.

This indicates a breakeven position on a comparable basis to the existing financial forecast and is based on the latest income forecasts which extend to 2017.

2.26 DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE LABOUR REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLIC SECTOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS:

Question

Given the large number of public sector construction projects due to start, can the Chief Minister confirm that all labour needs will be met from within the current workforce and allocated licences? If not, how will additional labour be sourced?

Answer

As our economy recovers, some net migration will be needed in a range of sectors, including construction, servicing both public and private sector contracts. However the intention is to prioritise existing residents for the available work, and the Housing and Work Advisory Group will promote local employment when considering applications for licences.

Islanders are being supported by various government training initiatives, including the “back to work” and “trackers” programmes, in order to limit the need to import labour.

Back to Work, in partnership with the Jersey Construction Council, is already working to maximise opportunities for unemployed Islanders in Construction. By the end of this year, up to 200 locally qualified jobseekers will have had the opportunity to be trained as ‘Site Operatives’ on the Under Construction training course that is being run on the Waterfront and accredited by the Construction Council.

There are 58 students signed up to full time courses in Construction at Highlands and 192 studying part-time (23 at degree level, 73 on the Trackers apprentice programme and the remainder on either level 1, 2 or 3 construction courses).

2.27 DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE NEW VESSEL BEING ACQUIRED BY CONDOR FERRIES:

Question

Given that Condor intend to operate all their fast ferry services to the United Kingdom with one vessel, what back up arrangements, if any, will exist in case of breakdowns and other breaks in service?

Answer

Firstly, it is important to note that the new Austal 102 is a vastly improved vessel to the two aging 86 metre catamarans currently in service. In addition to superior sea keeping in heavier weather than the current vessels, the Austal 102 will be a more reliable ship. She can sail as fast on two engines as the existing 86s can sail on three engines. The 8000 series MTU engines and ZF gearboxes are well proven and the Benchijigua Express, which is very similar to the 102, has not missed a day's sailing for a technical reason in eight years.

Secondly, contained within the new Operating Agreement is a generic contingency plan. While circumstances of unplanned outage can be different from occasion to occasion, the generic plan would involve using a combination of the Southern Route High Speed craft to cover a Northern Route sailing during the day and greater usage of the Clipper vessel.

Condor Ferries are also intending further security measures during the start-up operation, including retaining one of the current 86 meter vessels as a contingency in the initial period. The final decision around this will be pursuant to the overall planning for the introduction of the new vessel, which is planned for March 2015.

Finally, the generic contingency plan in the Operating Agreement was negotiated prior to the outage experienced over the summer with the Clipper. Contained within the Operating Agreement is a Ferry Services Steering Group, comprising senior representatives from both Islands and Condor. This group will review the Clipper incident, and develop a broader contingency plan from the experience gained from this incident.

2.28 DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING A REVIEW OF PLANNING ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES:

Question

Will the Minister inform the Assembly whether any progress has been made by the Planning Department in implementing the essential improvements required to current planning enforcement procedures as identified in the reports of the Reg's Skips Inquiry, the States Complaints Board and most recently the Planning Officers’ Society and would he explain why there has been such a long delay in dealing with this matter and ensure that the States receive a full and detailed report outlining the remedial action taken?

Answer

In replying to this question I would like to provide additional information to help put my answer in context.

In 2013, POS Enterprises (POSe), the operational arm of the Planning Officers Society, was appointed to provide a team to visit the States of Jersey to do the following:

• take a forward look at how the planning service might develop over the next three years, to assist in focusing resources and efforts;

• consider how plan making for the Island might develop, in the light of relevant experience within the UK planning systems;

• make an independent assessment of how the Island’s planning system effectively balances environmental protection, heritage and the social needs of the Island against the need to see sustained economic performance and in the light of the Island’s long term strategic aims;

• review delivery of the recommendations of past reviews to identify any outstanding recommendations which might be seen as priorities in the context of the ideas for future development of the service.

Three past reviews were identified for examination:

• The Shepley Review of 2005 – which was intended to guide planning and building functions at the advent of Ministerial Government;

• The POS Enterprises Process Improvement Programme (PIP) review of the development control service in 2010 – which was commissioned in response to a Committee of Inquiry held earlier that year focusing on a specific high profile planning enforcement case;

• The Reg’s Skips Committee of Inquiry Report 2 of 2011 – which endorsed the improvements proposed by the PIP review and made additional recommendations about elements of the service and its operational relationship with other States departments.

The POS Enterprises Shaping the Jersey Planning System for the Future report was published by the department earlier this year and is available on the States website. Annex C, D and E of the report set out the progress made against each of the above previous report recommendations. These Annexes clearly show that most recommendations have been implemented and of those that have not been implemented, some have been overtaken by events and others are being progressed as Department resources allow. The report also recognised the important strides made in improving planning performance, protocols and information technology, and its recommendations are forming a useful basis to develop and evolve our planning practice over the next three years.

In relation to the planning and building enforcement function, the report acknowledged that a separate internal review was being undertaken by the Director of Environment (further details below) and it would be inappropriate for the POS review to comment in any detail on further action to be taken in this area. It did note that the enforcement policy and procedure guidance still didn’t incorporate policy priorities and there needed to be strong and clear leadership and management provided to the enforcement team.

One recommendation was made in this report relating specifically to enforcement procedures, as follows:

Recommendation 7.28

Arrangements should be made, at Director level, to complete the work on the following:

Point 3: A set of standard enforcement procedures and user guides, once the current internal review has reported and new arrangements are in place.

This recommendation was identified and captured in the internal review referred to below.

In October 2013, an internal review of how the planning and building enforcement service operates was requested by the Chief Officer of the Department for the Environment. This was prompted by an increase in Freedom of Information requests, requests under data protection processes, and individual cases and court cases highlighting the need to ask whether the administration of complaints through to investigation and possible formal enforcement action needed to be reviewed.

My department published the Shaping the Jersey Planning and Building Enforcement System for the Future – A Review – February 2014 report earlier this year and it is available on the States of Jersey website. The report includes recommendations and underpins the way the service develops into the future. I reviewed the report and recommendations with the Chief Officer of the department and an implementation plan was drawn up.

Appendix A below provides comment on each of the recommendation. Some recommendations have been completed and all others are being progressed.

With regard to the States Complaints Board findings referred to in the Deputy’s question, and as confirmed in my answer to Written Question 1240 (18th March 2014), my response to the Complaints Board findings have already been published and heard in public.

I renew my invitation to the Deputy to meet with me and some of my department senior officers to discuss enforcement activities further. I hope that we can clarify matters and answer any specific questions Deputy Young has more easily in a face to face meeting.

Appendix A: Shaping the Jersey Planning & Building Enforcement System for the Future – A Review – February 2014
Ref	Recommendation	Commentary
	Policy and Process
1.1	Policies and procedures should be captured and documented and made into operational reference document which can be published. Significant work was put into the drafting of policies and procedures documents by the team and these would be a useful starting point for this task.	This is a significant piece of work which will lay the foundations for a consistent and professional approach to enforcement. Owing to resource implications, completion is likely to be year-end, 2014.
1.2	Practice Note 4 should be re-published to reflect the policies and procedures. There are already in existence some standard operational documents and templates including letters and notices to parties involved in complaints and notifications of suspected breaches.	This work forms an integral part of 1.1 above
1.3	A suite of standard documents should be established that clearly refer to the policies and procedures as appropriate and should be a reflection of the different stages of the enforcement process.	On-going, as and when documentation is required. Enforcement Notices are now consistently and accurately worded and state policy based reasons for taking the action.
1.4	A protocol for the investigation of complaints should be established that applies to all complaints and generates a “story of investigation”. Part of that process should include that everyone involved in the process is kept informed of the investigation at appropriate points and any actions or decisions made in connection with a complaint would be recorded and explained.	Completed and will form part of 1.1 above
1.5	Prior to a notice being served, a review of the case by the LOD should first ensure that the notice is an appropriate way of pursuing the breach and that the steps up to the point of serving the notice, would be considered reasonable in court.	Completed
1.6	On a further point the LOD suggested that they should be tasked with ensuring that any Notice is served on appropriate persons by first agreeing who those parties are.	Completed
1.7	Appropriately branded Department specific letters / forms and communications including witness statement forms should be drafted and agreed upon by ET and management and used instead of those currently being used. All standard forms and templates should be reviewed not only by the management team but by a third party with a sound understanding of enforcement and planning issues. The documents should be bespoke and appropriate for use in investigations and for presentation to court.	Completion by end September 2014
1.8	The policies should include a scale of prioritisation. Other jurisdictions set these priorities and it should not be too difficult to apply them to the context of Jersey.	Completed, with a bespoke triage system for Jersey Planning and Building.
	Systems and Admin
2.1	Administrative support should be provided to the team out of current resources. From discussions, this need not be overly onerous a requirement and should not prejudice other workloads.	Completed – however, resource implications mean that full technical support is not always possible.
2.2	A proper understanding of the capabilities of the Merlin system should be explored, discussed, and the findings used to support the creation of the process notes discussed above.	Merlin is not fully adapted to the Compliance function and resource implications mean that Compliance Officers still have to adapt to the IT systems rather than vice versa.
2.3	Along with understanding Merlin, I@W should be integrated into the operation of the team in order to capture and manage all documentation generated in an investigation.	Ongoing
2.4	A set of process notes should be drafted with simple instructions on handling and recording information consistently. This should be based on methods agreed by enforcement officers and their management in conjunction with a Merlin expert.	This work forms an integral part of 1.1 above. A draft is currently undergoing scrutiny with the Law Officers.
2.5	A system for formally notifying applications / decisions would be a big step forward in opening communication. Weekly publication and decision lists should be actively shared with the team and acknowledgement recorded that they have been looked at.	Completed
2.6	A system should be instigated whereby the ET regularly (suggest monthly) report back to the planning and building Directors on workload and cases.	Monthly monitoring reports are now produced and circulated to Directors
	Records Management
3.1	The management of the ET should work with the officers, and the department officer who has been given the mandate to deal with data protection issues to generate a robust system which works for all parties.	Ongoing. Draft produced.
3.2	There should be included in the process of issuing a Notice a definitive step of including the Notice on the register. There should then be a means to indicate where a Notice has subsequently been withdrawn on that Register. The Register should be made available online.	Completed, other than the on-line Register. The States’ Web-Team is currently costing this element of work.
3.3	Letters must be generated to identify key stages of an investigation and to set out the formal position of the department and e-mail should only be used for informal correspondence. In conjunction with the implementation of Recommendation 2.2. – the use of I@W – the ET will ensure the proper storage and retrieval of all documentation in connection with investigations.	With growing customer expectation of email correspondence, the Team still uses email where it is obviously the preferred method of communication with a customer. The Department is still moving towards a paperless office and email as a recognised form of communication forms part of this strategy.
	Enforcement Culture and Officer Behaviour
4.1	An agreed plan of ongoing training for enforcement officers and those involved in their supervision should be put in place and this should be updated as required.	Compliance Officers have attended National courses / conferences over the last two years. However, owing to budgetary constraints, funding for training is very limited. The Team is affiliated to the National Association of Planning Enforcement.
4.2	It is recommended that appropriate training be sought by the DoE to give the ET as many tools as are required in order to carry out their function in the manner discussed.	As 4.1 above
4.3	The team should be renamed as the Planning and Building Compliance Team and the respective post descriptions should be amended accordingly	Completed
5	Consistency of P&B Services Enforcement with broader DoE Enforcement
5.1	The LOD suggested that ET officers among other SoJ Enforcement teams should liaise, with a view to adopting more common processes as good practice.	The Compliance Team regularly works in partnership with agencies such as Police, Population Office, Income Tax, Tourism as well as other sections within the DoE.
5.2	Cases for prosecution must only proceed with the authorisation of the LOD (Cr).	Completed
6	Management, Location and Officer Support
6.1	The management line from the team to the CEO should be clearly defined and roles and responsibilities established and communicated internally.	Completed Compliance Officers report to Compliance Manager who, in turn, reports to Director (Planning) on a weekly basis. A Ministerial & Management meeting is held weekly for information flow in either direction.
6.2	Active caseload management should be introduced. The production of reliable weekly caseload lists of outstanding investigations should commence and then the lists used to hold regular caseload discussions with individual officers, within the team and with internal customers of the team.	Completed
6.3	It is recommended that an office facility be found for the ET within the main operating body of Planning and Building Control officers at South Hill and that consideration should also be given to their need for a secure and soundproof room for the carrying out of recorded interviews under caution.	Completed
7	Performance Management Reporting
7.1	A better understanding and use of the merlin system (as previously recommended) will enable performance information to be extracted. This ability will enable targets to be set and performance against these targets should be published and proactively made available to customers of the department.	Monthly monitoring reports are now produced and circulated to Directors. Additional targets should be fed into the next Departmental Business Plan. The monitoring reports are not yet publically available as we are still checking the reporting mechanism for accuracy and completeness.
8	Other Issues
8.1	The suitability of Article 7 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 should be examined. It could prove to be crucial in protecting matters of acknowledged interest and providing a deterrent to unauthorised development but only if it is demonstrated as a successful tool will it carry any credibility.	Completed

2.29 DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE REGENERATION STEERING GROUP:

Question

Will the Chief Minister provide an explanation why the States have still not received a written report from him on the work of the Regeneration Steering Group as he promised in response to my previous 2 questions?

Answer

The information requested related to the composition, discussions, decisions and directions of the Regeneration Steering Group. However, the Group’s primary function is to provide advice and guidance. This has highlighted that a fuller report answering both the questions posed and an outline of the status of the various projects considered by the Regeneration Steering Group would have merit. This fuller report is being finalised for presentation to the Assembly before the end of September, bringing together responses from other Departments. I apologise that it has not been completed sooner.

2.30 DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE PUBLIC SECTOR REFORM PROGRAMME:

Question

Does the public service reform programme entail a reduction in the numbers of permanent employees and, if so, what targets have been set for the next 5 years and how do they impact on the different pay grades?

Answer

The Public Sector Reform is designed to ensure a sustainable and affordable public service that provides essential services to Islanders efficiently and effectively.

As services are redesigned and e-government gathers pace, there will be an impact on the skills and staff required to deliver services as they develop and change.

The Reform Programme does not set targets for staff numbers. It is the responsibility of Departments to work within the budgets and staffing parameters agreed by the States Assembly in the Medium Term Financial Plans.

2.31 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING ACCESS TO PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES:

Question

Will the Minister -

(a) set out how members of the public seeking the urgent assistance of mental health professionals for friends and family members who are suffering psychotic episodes or other conditions that require admission, voluntarily or by compulsion of law, to Orchard House, St. Saviour or to some other institution can get the help they require and the procedures that must be followed in such cases;

(b) inform Members whether a person who calls for assistance in these cases is compelled first to contact their GP to arrange for a psychiatrist to consult the person being referred and whether this person will be billed for both the GPs consultation and also that of the psychiatrist who is called out to assess the person who needs urgent medical assessment and treatment at a cost of £100s and, if so, whether she considers this is reasonable;

(c) explain what she considers to be an acceptable or reasonable timescale for a person to be seen by a doctor, psychiatrist or to be taken to Orchard House or a similar institution from time of first request for assistance or from examination by a psychiatrist?

Answer

(a) Any member of the public requiring ‘urgent assistance’ in regard to their mental health has immediate access to the Adult Mental Health Liaison Service located at the Emergency Department in the General Hospital.

This service is available on a 24/7 basis and provides immediate access to a triage assessment, including relevant access to a specialist community psychiatric nurse, staff grade psychiatrist and Consultant Psychiatrist, as required.

The outcome of an immediate assessment of a person in urgent need of assistance, may lead to further inpatient assessment and/or treatment which can be accommodated in one of two ways:

firstly, and preferably, on a voluntary basis, which can be facilitated by the psychiatrist
secondly, via detention under an Article of the Mental Health Law

(b) As with access to all secondary care services, the most advisable route is referral by the individual’s GP, who will have a holistic view of the patient, and both medical and psychological history. This knowledge is fundamental in being able to provide good mental health care.

Referrals from GPs are prioritised, depending on the risks identified. Any GP can request an urgent appointment through the route outlined in (a).

Wherever possible, urgent assessment is undertaken within the Emergency Department at the General Hospital, which allows for any physical symptoms or conditions to be addressed, enabling a comprehensive mental health assessment to be completed.

GPs are not part of the Health and Social Services Department. They are run as private business and set their charges accordingly. The Minister for Health and Social Services has no control on that issue, although work is ongoing with GPs to develop a Primary Care Strategy for improving access to primary care services to all patients.

In terms of provision that is made within the Health and Social Services Department, any person in need of immediate compulsory psychiatric treatment under the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 1969 is exempt from charges, under the conditions of the Health and Social Services Residents and Non-Residents Charging Policy.

In the context of charges that are made for services provided by the Health and Social Services Department, the Minister believes this is an appropriate position.

(c) The national average for an immediate response where urgent assistance is required is for a patient to be seen within 30 minutes in the UK, and the Minisiter is proud to say that in Jersey, the average response time is just 20 minutes.

This is a consistently high standard which has contributed to the Community and Social Services Department’s National Accreditation by the Royal College of Psychiatry, and to the Mental Health Liaison Service successfully achieving ‘excellence’ status for its services, one of only three authorities across the UK to currently hold this accolade.

GP referrals made to the Adult Mental Health Service are screened on the day of receipt.

Where a referral indicates a significant risk, the referred patient is seen on the same day, or at least within 24 hours of the referral being received.

Where a referral is made on a ‘routine’ basis, the patient pathway involves a letter from the Adult Mental Health Service being sent to the individual seeking their consent to become involved in the service.

Once confirmation of consent has been received, an appointment is provided within a maximum three- week period.

This standard also exceeds expectations in the national standard set in the UK through NICE guidelines.

2.32 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REAGRDING THE NUMBER OF WORK PERMITS ISSUED:

Question

Will the Minister advise Members of the number of work permits that have been issued in Jersey over the last three years and give further information regarding the nationality of each the people granted a permit, their profession or skills and the sector in which they will be working and the duration of the permit?

Answer

Work permits are issued in accordance with the Immigration (Work Permits) (Jersey) Rules 1995 and in accordance with the Work Permits Policy and Procedures issued by the Home Affairs Minister.

787 work permits were issued in the 3 years between 01/09/2011 and 30/08/2014 (this figure also includes those cases where an individual immigrant has been issued with more than 1 work permit within that period).

Of these 787 work permits:

309 were for skilled employment positions and were valid for between 1 month and 1 year :

326 were for skilled employment positions and were valid for between 1 and 3 years;

7 were for skilled employment positions and were valid for between 4 and 5 years.

145 were for un-skilled positions in the hotel and catering sector for returning workers and were valid for between 6 and 9 months.

The nationalities of the immigrants concerned are shown below, along with the number of work permits issued to each:

Albanian	1	Japanese	4
Armenian	2	Kazakh	1
Australian	34	Kenyan	155
Bangladeshi	8	Kuwaiti	1
Bahaman	1	Lebanese	1
Brit Nat Overseas	2	St Lucian	2
Brit Overseas Cit.	1	Cit. of Sri Lanka	4
Brazilian	2	Moroccan	1
Barbadian	1	Malian	5
Cit. of Botswana	1	Mauritian	20
Canadian	24	Malawian	4
Chinese	11	Cit. of Malaysia	11
Egyptian	4	Nigerian	1
Hong Kong	24	New Zealander	22
British citizen	11	Pakistani	14
Georgian	1	Filipino(a)	27
Ghanaian	1	Russian	1
Guyanese	1	Singaporean	3
Croat	2	Tongan	2
Indian	268	US Cit.	24
Iranian	1	Kosovar	1
Israeli	3	South African	57
Jamaican	1	Zambian	1
Jordanian	1	Zimbabwean	19

The 787 work permits were issued in the following sectors:

Entertainment	20
Finance	324
Hotel & catering	179
Information technology	167
Law	14
Medicine / Health	32
Other (Lifeguards / sports coaches / etc)	51

Most work permits are issued for periods between 6 months and 3 years; very exceptionally a work permit may be issued for a period of 5 years.

Data which cannot be readily retrieved:

In order to ascertain the duration and profession / skills related to individual work permits each of the 787 immigrant records involved would require separate examination in order to extrapolate the required information; such research cannot be undertaken in the available timescale.

Furthermore, the amount of time which would be required in order to fully answer the question is disproportionate to any public benefit in so doing.

If the questioner has concerns in relation to any specific category or categories of work permit then I would suggest that he re-present a more specific and targeted question.

3. Oral questions

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I do not have the precise date but a copy of that report was issued to States Members by email, I will get the date, and in advance, prior to the Budget debate, and the supplementary note, which is included in the actual published documents, obviously has all of the forecasts in 2013-15.

The Deputy Bailiff:

The Minister will provide the date to you.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Exactly, but it is all there. There is some revisionism going on, I think.

3.1.3 Deputy J.H. Young:

The Minister has referred to making the States aware of this major shift in our income tax forecasts and that these were published, he says, at the time of the 2014 debate. Could he help us? I see that a report was in fact lodged, R.149/2013, on 3rd December 2013. Could he remind us when we approved the States Budget - on what day - and how much time we had had an opportunity to look at that detailed report with his revised forecast?

The Deputy Bailiff:

It is a matter of public record, Deputy.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

It is not a memory test, I do not have those dates in my head but I know that the revised forecast ... there is this misunderstanding, I think, that the baseline numbers that are approved in the Assembly to base the Medium-Term Financial Plan, those are not changed. They are what they were at the time and of course they will change with the benefit of hindsight, and I am getting lots of questions today about a revised forecast down. I happen to have had lots of questions in 2011 and 2012 where apparently also the forecast was different when in fact there was £27 million more revenue and in 2012 there was £30 million more revenue. These numbers will change. Forecasts are forecasts. The nearer you come to the time, the more accurate they will become; they are like weather forecasts, and the fact is there is now this extrapolation that there is some sort of major issue and problem. These numbers will change based upon latest economic information, which is, a lot of it, completely outside the Island’s and the Treasury’s concern. I do not make the weather, I do not make the forecasts; they are what they are.

3.1.4 Deputy J.H. Young:

Supplementary, Sir. The Treasurer spoke about these forecasts as weather forecasts. Would he not accept that the weather for the last 30 years has been that our income tax forecasts have been underestimated and that we have always overachieved it and therefore a change to a deficit situation is something he should have highlighted up front on page one and at Budget time and with all the papers?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Absolutely not, and this whole debate that seems to have emerged over the summer that first of all there is somehow a problem with a deficit, that there is somehow a problem with income tax forecasting, is simply, I think, revisionism. It is just not the reality. The fact is that the Income Tax Forecasting Group has, in previous times… and Members have seen this chart; sometimes, yes, the Treasury is prudent but in previous recessions the Treasury did overstate income. It is not a criticism, and the forecasts, somehow to now say that forecasts which were done in 2012, because the income is not being met, is somehow a criticism of the Income Tax Forecasting Group is unfair. The world changed between the beginning of 2012 and later on. The Eurozone, double-dip in the recession, problems in the U.K. (United Kingdom). Of course the income was going to change. The key question is what would you do about it?

Deputy J.H. Young:

The Minister said I was criticising the Income Tax Forecasting Group and I want it put on record that is not the case.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you, Deputy. Final supplementary, Deputy Le Fondré.

3.1.5 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

The Minister has tried to say that the forecasts are like weather forecasts but it was very, very clear in 2012, and I refer to comments he has made in the press and the media recently and the Chamber of Commerce, that particularly Scrutiny, you have got some eminent advisers on advisement, identified the issue of the forecasting in 2012. They raised extreme concerns, and in 2013. Surely now the M.T.F.P. is basically in tatters because of the state of where we are, and surely the Minister, by ignoring the warnings that came through, must accept some form of responsibility for that.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

The Minister takes complete responsibility for looking at forecasts and I use the analogy of the farmer at the Chamber of Commerce. The farmer does not make the weather, does not make the forecasts, neither do I. There is a difference between long-range forecasts and short-dated forecasts, and what you do is you respond. We knew that the economy internationally was under serious threat. What do we do? We then deliver more fiscal stimulus, more help for the economy. When those income forecasts went up in 2011, the first thing I did was bring a proposition to this Assembly to spend more money - on £27 million - for the Housing Department. Where was Deputy Le Fondré criticising then the fact we had overachieved the number? What a prudent Minister for Treasury and Resources, like an informed farmer does, is he takes action, and if you think the weather forecast is going to be wrong economically you get the fertiliser out, you get the irrigation pipes out and you stimulate the economy. He says that Scrutiny has observers. [Approbation] Well I take my advice from the F.P.P. (Fiscal Policy Panel), people like Dame Kate Barker, Joly Dixon, and they are saying the Budget is absolutely right. Do not compromise the recovery; help it and run deficits, and we are doing that because we have got responsible politics and this Assembly has supported not having a structural deficit which means we can invest and we should invest. Is that a problem? I do not think so.

3.2 Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier of the Chairman of Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding campaign group expenses in relation to the forthcoming referendum:

What provisions, if any, are in place to ensure that there will be a level playing field in terms of what expenses the campaign groups are allowed to incur for the upcoming referendum on the future of the Constables in the States?

Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

There is no provision in the Referendum (Jersey) Law 2002 to govern the level of expenditure incurred by campaign groups in promoting their preferred option. In the reform referendum campaign held in April 2013, defined campaign groups emerged for the 3 options and this enabled a publicly-funded website and leaflet to households to contain statements from all 3 groups. If united campaign groups emerge for the forthcoming referendum, funding could be made available to do similar things. If 2 clear groups emerge, the ‘Yes’ campaign group and the ‘No’ campaign group will have the opportunity to make their argument on the vote.je website and in the leaflet, which will be sent to all households, a maximum word count would be set. The cost would be met from the funding stipulated in P.118/2014, the Referendum Act, which identifies funding for the printing of ballot papers and a media campaign not exceeding £30,000. In the absence of any statutory body, there is no one in Jersey with the authority to define which campaign group has official status for the content of the website and the leaflet. It is therefore necessary for campaigners to come together to promote their preferred options and make themselves known to the committee and the Greffe and P.P.C. The P.P.C. could only use public money to promote the referendum if there were 2 very clearly identifiable groups that were fully representative of those campaigning for both sides and P.P.C. would urge either of the groups to come forward as soon as possible. Thank you.

3.2.1 Deputy S.Y. Mézec:

The short answer to that question was none. So that means that this referendum is in breach of section 2.2 of the Venice Commission’s code of good practice on referendums. So my second question to the Chairman is: does he know how many other criteria of the Venice Commission this referendum is going to breach?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I have not had an opportunity to compare and contrast the Venice Commission with our Act. Members will be aware, of course, that this was not the proposition and question that the Privileges and Procedures Committee brought forward. At the eleventh hour, the States Assembly decided upon another question, and accepting the democratic will of this Assembly, P.P.C. - through all the apparatus that we have - are doing what we can in order to enable a fair and balanced referendum should clearly identifiable sides on both sides come forward. Thank you.

[10:00]

3.2.2 Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:

Irrespective of the question which the Assembly foist on P.P.C., does the Chairman not consider that it is P.P.C.’s responsibility to promote the referendum, and does he think, in a mature democracy, we have embarked upon a process which we have not really fully prepared the public for?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

There are 2 questions there. Of course it is P.P.C.’s responsibility to promote information around this area and if 2 campaign groups do not come forward we have some draft contingency plans, but it is not P.P.C.’s preferred route. With regard to the second question of do we feel that the public are aware enough for this question regarding the composition of the Assembly. One would hope that some of the issues raised in this particular debate, looking at this particular aspect, should have been well covered in the previous referendum and the previous information that went out because it does concern the role of the Constable which was crucial in that referendum as well. Thank you.

3.2.3 The Connétable of St. Mary:

Supplementary, Sir? Does the Chairman feel that the public are currently focused on the fact there is a referendum at all? It is my experience, asking people, is that quite clearly they are not.

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I take that on board and accept if there is more public awareness that does need to be done, I will undertake to make sure that that occurs. Thank you.

3.2.4 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I was just going to ask the same question as the Connétable of St. Mary but I will build on it. Is the Chairman saying that he has budget in P.P.C. for the referendum but he has done nothing in order to ... 6 weeks away from a massively important constitutional question to be put to the public, that he has nothing effectively to inform the public of that? Is he just saying we are going to rely on a previous referendum to have the arguments properly elucidated for the ‘yeses’ and the ‘noes’ of which the ‘noes’, you know were perfectly valid for their thing but there is no vehicle in order to explain both sides of the argument? This is a dreadful situation and will he please confirm what his proposals are and get on and do something extremely quickly? We are 6 weeks away, are we not?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I will repeat myself for the Senator. I did say that P.P.C. does have contingency plans if no 2 groups were to come forward. That work has been drafted but the preferred route in order for the referendum is for 2 clear campaign groups to come forward on the ‘Yes’ and the ‘No’ side, but there is work undergoing at the moment through the Greffe in order to provide an informed debate should that not come to pass. Thank you.

3.2.5 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Sir, can I just have a supplementary? When will that decision be made to trigger that, and is the information ... is he able to share the information that he has got in terms of contingency? When will the decision be made and can he share the information within the next 48 hours that he has already drafted?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

If we work backwards, the booklet which will go out regarding candidates, and therefore any information on the referendum, will be needed to be had by noon of Friday nomination week, and therefore I would imagine the intended proposal is to see if by the first nomination day of the 16th, whether the groups will come together, which we believe is a realistic timeframe, so that we can make sure that all the information, when it goes out for candidates in the referendum, can be contained and given to the public all in one go. Thank you.

Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:

My question has been asked.

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

I wonder if the Chairman could indicate whether his committee has learnt any lessons from the Scottish referendum because, as with the Minister for Treasury and Resources, I do feel we are possibly witnessing a slow car crash here. Thank you.

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Following on from the Deputy’s own proposition where he requested P.P.C. to look at the referendum processes and procedures, we have, from that report, incorporated certain elements. I am quite happy to get back to the Deputy to explain exactly what those are, in future. Thank you.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

But I wonder if he could identify what those elements are because I cannot feel the excitement building up at the moment. [Laughter]

The Deputy Bailiff:

I think many listeners will be thinking what is the point in having prescriptions free or otherwise if one cannot afford to see the doctor in the first place. [Approbation] Does the Minister, referring to written question and written answer 22, acknowledge that if we had a flat rate of social security, be it at a lower rate of 5 per cent or even the same rate of 6 per cent, we could have more than enough money coming into the fund to pay for both prescriptions and free doctor’s visits for all residents?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

As I said in my opening answer, I am concerned about the cost of visiting the G.P. but I maintain that these are private businesses… and we have recently seen one new practice opening, which seems to be prepared to accept the benefit that we pay as sufficient remuneration for children and also some adults. So I think it very much is a question of G.P.s looking at their practices and whether they are charging a fair rate for the work that they do. Whether the Health Insurance Fund could afford to provide free G.P. visits for everybody, I would very much doubt. The fund is already no longer at breakeven and we need to make some big decisions about contributions going forward, and making all visits to the G.P. free for everybody would place immense burdens on that fund.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Supplementary, Sir? It is relevant, I think the Minister ...

The Deputy Bailiff:

Sorry, Deputy, we have a large number of questions to get through and there is time for one supplementary unless the Senator wishes to give way.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I think we need to get on, Sir. Given the £51 ...

The Deputy Bailiff:

I think we could have invited the Deputy to ask the final question.

3.3.5 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Oh, right. No, I have got one myself, Sir. [Laughter] Because the Senator has mentioned a sum of £51 I think that is somewhat specious because that includes the cost of the drugs. The cost of a script in the U.K. which does not include the cost of the drugs is £8 per script. But given that the major burden of prescriptions - the current system - will fall on the working population, which is decreasing, and an average man will be paying nearly £1,000 additional a year with the increase in social security payments, why is the Minister not looking more carefully at an alternative approach to prescription charges?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

Well, that is exactly what we are doing. That is part of the health review, working with the primary care body and also the sustainable funding mechanism for primary healthcare. All of those things are being worked on. We have recently had an excellent Scrutiny report which highlights the urgency of getting these things resolved, and this will be dealt with by the next Minister in conjunction with the Council of Ministers.

[10:15]

3.4 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement of the Minister for External Relations regarding the implementation of a trade boycott of Israel:

Does the Minister consider that Israel should be condemned for its continuing defiance of U.N. (United Nations) resolutions and disproportionate use of force against its neighbours, and, if so, in light of the recent escalation in violence, would he agree to take action to implement a trade boycott of Israel?

Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):

The policy of the Government of Jersey in this matter is of course aligned with the policy of the United Kingdom Government and we support the statements by the British Foreign Secretary, endorsing the continuation of the ceasefire. The current crisis underlines once again the need for a wider political solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict which is the only way to secure the lasting peace that the people of Israel and Palestine deserve. The Island does not have any trade agreements with the Government of Israel.

3.4.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I thank the Minister for his helpful response and presumably he is aware that there are dozens of U.N. resolutions still outstanding against that State due to its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory and its disproportional use of force. But does the Minister not believe that by continuing to trade with a State that behaves in this way that we risk sending a signal that we endorse that State’s actions? What I am asking is, I know that we have been trying to create business with certain countries and Israel is one of them, so does the Minister not agree that we should either cease trade that we have or not continue with attempting to increase trade lest we be seen to be supporting this behaviour?

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

When the ambassadors from the Arab Consul came to Jersey some months ago, there were discussions, among others, with the Ambassador from the Palestinian State who was entirely understanding and approving of the wish of Jersey to nurture trade relations with Israel, and indeed to nurture trade relations with Arab States as well. The purpose of encouraging trade relations, or one of the purposes of encouraging trade relations, is to nurture and encourage political relations and to encourage exactly the kind of outcome which I think the Deputy and most of us would desire in relation to Palestine.

3.4.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I wonder if the Minister could tell us the circumstances under which the Jersey Government would refuse to engage in trade with a country in order that we can get the criteria clear? Thank you.

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

I think the first thing to say is that the Government of Jersey ...

The Deputy Bailiff:

I will have to break your proposition, Minister, in fact it is not in accordance with Standing Orders.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Could I rephrase that, Sir?

The Deputy Bailiff:

You can certainly try.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I wonder if in the light of the sentiments expressed in relation to Jersey-Israel trade, could the Minister outline the circumstances which would lead to a withdrawal or to a ceasing of the relationship, the trade relationship?

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

I think the bottom line is that the Government of Jersey must comply with the law, and so far as trade with Israel is concerned, the legal basis for trade relations lies in an E.U. (European Union) Israel Association Agreement which came into force in June 2000, and our relations with the European Union are, as the Deputy will know, founded upon protocol 3. The customs authorities in Jersey are required to apply E.U. rules relating to trade in goods and on that basis the Island would not be empowered legally to enforce any trade embargo on trading with Israel.

3.4.3 Deputy S.Y. Mézec:

This Assembly does not have to follow the same foreign policy as the United Kingdom. It did not do so at the beginning of the Iraq war when a motion was passed by this House deploring that action, so we do not have to follow what the U.K. says. So will the Minister agree that working with Israel, which is a country that is in breach of more United Nations resolutions than all of the countries in the world, sends out a message that we accept Israel being a pariah State, and would he not agree that a Government with integrity should not work with a country to help it become more wealthy so that it can spend more money on bullets and bombs to murder children on the Gaza Strip?

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

The Deputy uses very extreme language and the position of the Jersey Government is that it is constitutionally obliged to follow the same line as the British Government in the conduct of foreign affairs. Certainly we can if we wish express a point of view from time to time but as a matter of our constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom, it is not open to us to follow a different line from that of the United Kingdom because we are a Crown Dependency, we are not a sovereign state.

3.4.4 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I am concerned from the answer arising out of the last question because it does seem to me that what we are being told is we have to do whatever the United Kingdom tells us to do. When I referred to a trade embargo ... if I could help the Minister, when I referred to a trade embargo I was not suggesting that we should enforce an embargo as we do on behalf of other countries, I was merely suggesting that we ourselves should make a decision not to trade with that particular State. Is it in our ability to do that or not?

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

Of course, the Deputy is right, it is open to the Government of Jersey to decline to encourage trade with any State if it wishes to adopt that action. But the position that the Government has adopted, as I have explained in answer to a previous question, is that trading with countries - not all of whose policies one might approve of - is a means of encouraging good relations, and by encouraging good relations one can express one’s views as to those aspects of the policy of the foreign country of which one disapproves. The notion that one should cut oneself off from trade with a particular country is a very extreme measure.

3.5 Deputy N.B. Le Cornu of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding parking arrangements for tenants and private parking space users at Clos du Fort and Bas du Mont:

3.6.4 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Chairman not agree that the benefit that has been derived from moving the States to be a more I.T. friendly body, albeit at an uneven speed at times, has been absolutely unquantifiable and is probably much in excess of £600? In other words, we have all gained from moving to a much more supported, much more training on I.T., and that the issue of the £600 pales in comparison with the advances that have been made.

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

In our written question we point out that not all Members have claimed the amount that would be available to them but I completely agree with the Deputy’s observation that the efficiencies that moving to an I.T.-friendly working Assembly, as we progress there, does create more efficiencies and a greater cost saving than not moving that way. Thank you.

3.6.5 Connétable of St. John:

As the Chairman seems reluctant to answer any of my questions, did the Chairman himself ... well, every Member has an expense allowance. Of his expense allowance of approximately £4,000, was that not sufficient that he had to dip into the additional £600, and did he claim within that £600 over and above his expenses?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

As I have made it quite clear I will not be discussing Members’ or my individual financial situation. [Approbation]

3.7 Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade of the Chief Minister regarding the downturn in States revenue income compared to earlier forecasts:

Will the Chief Minister inform the Assembly when, and in what circumstance, he first became aware of the downturn in States revenue income compared to earlier forecasts; whether he considers that his recent public statement that the Island running a year on year deficit in revenue expenditure is nothing to worry about was appropriate; and whether he plans to do anything about it, and if so, what?

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

Planned deficits while the economy was weak is what was advised by the Independent Fiscal Policy Panel to support the economy and to keep Islanders in work. That fiscal stimulus has provided investment in infrastructure for health, for education, for social housing and for our emerging digital industry, and they continue to advise the same. So we have proposed contingency measures to deal with reduced income in 2014 and 2015, which have now been incorporated into the Draft Budget 2015. I personally was advised of the revised income forecasts immediately before the Council of Ministers’ consideration at its meeting on 11th June, and now the M.T.F.P. in the next stage will incorporate lower income forecasts.

3.7.1 Deputy J.H. Young:

The Chief Minister has advised us that he knew first on 11th June and that is also recorded in his written answer number 23. Could he provide us with an explanation why, if the Minister for Treasury and Resources has told us in his answers that this information was in fact available at the time of the 2014 Budget, 3rd December 2013… and I have checked the records, the information was put in on the paper in the States on the same day as the Budget debate, and that the record also shows that these figures were reported in 2013 to the Income Tax Forecasting Group having been produced in March 2013? Can he not see that ... can he explain why it has taken over a year for this information to come to light and have contingency plans for it?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

Sadly, it appears to me the Deputy is getting confused between 2 different yearly forecasts but it is difficult in an oral question to get into detail of what it is that he is referring to where he thinks there is a discrepancy. The Income Tax Forecasting Group make their best estimates, as the Minister for Treasury and Resources has said, then they get in returns from individual taxpayers and then there may need to be some adjustments in light of those returns. That is exactly what we have done, and I stand by my previous comments; when things change we need to change what we do and how we provide our services. That is the fundamental issue of being a politician; when circumstances change we must change accordingly.

The Deputy Bailiff:

This is a matter which clearly is of great interest to everyone. Can I remind Members that we have a full Budget debate coming up next week and the purpose of question time is to gain information rather than to have a pre-run of the arguments? Deputy Vallois.

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

Can I ask the Chief Minister whether he has had sight of the long-term revenue plan and whether he thinks it is satisfactory that States Members have not seen sight of this even though it was repeatedly mentioned in previous Budgets and this Budget, only 2 weeks before a Budget which everybody seems extremely concerned about?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

My understanding is that the Members will have sight of a long-term revenue issues paper on Monday in advance of the Budget. This deals with next year. We need to deal with next year. We all know that next year, whoever is returned to this Assembly, will then need to deal with Medium-Term Financial Plan 2, which will cover the years 2016, 2017 and 2018. Members cannot always look into the future. Sorry, perhaps 2019 as well because of the change in electoral term. We have to deal with 2015. This is a Budget that we can support, it deals with the reduced income tax forecast. It is not an easy Budget but it is the right Budget so that we can move forward and then we will concentrate next year on the next Medium-Term Financial Plan.

3.7.3 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

If the Chief Minister only knew about the reduced income forecast in May/June, did he not notice the income forecast that the Minister for Treasury and Resources has referred to that was made in 2013 and apparently supplied to this Assembly before last year’s Budget?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

Members do wish, I suppose, to confuse issues. If we go back to the original M.T.F.P., we knew then that we were predicting or trying to predict the future - and I stand by everything the Minister for Treasury and Resources has said - that when circumstances change, when the experts that we employ to look at these things tell us that perhaps it is not going to ... reality is not going to be as predicted, then we need to amend our course of action accordingly. So we have seen years of income lines over-estimation and now we see one where income line is tight compared to estimation. We adjust accordingly and we carry on, and it seems to me that some Members would like to create a crisis where there is no crisis and would like to create confusion where I do not believe there is confusion.

3.7.4 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Supplementary, Sir. But then if the forecasts were down last year, why did we not adjust last year’s Budget?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

As I say, it is very difficult for me to go back to refer to individual documents and what was known when. I support everything that the Minister for Treasury and Resources has said and anything that I have said today is in complete alignment with what he said earlier.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

May I make a point of clarification because this is at the heart of a number of points that a number of Members have made?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Well, it is question time.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Yes, but it is a point of clarification on some ...

The Deputy Bailiff:

If it is question time and it is not questions to you, then ...

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Well, it may be a point of order then in terms of getting facts out in the Assembly. It is just fact, Sir. There is simply a misunderstanding.

The Deputy Bailiff:

It is question time. Deputy Southern and then we will have the final supplementary. The debate is going to take place next week, I remind Members.

3.7.5 Deputy G.P. Southern:

In the 2014 Budget, when did the Chief Minister become aware of the potential for £48 million shortfall, and is he still content with that shortfall in the sense that he then further approved reducing the marginal rate from 27 per cent to 26 per cent, costing another £7 million to the revenue input?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

It is important that in this Assembly we listen to independent economic advice, and I ask Members to consider which of the measures that we have taken, which of the fiscal stimulus items that we have delivered into the economy, which of funding measures that we have put into social housing, into getting people into work, into education, into training, which of those measures would any Member in this Assembly say we should not have done when the independent economic advice said that we needed to stimulate our economy and we needed to help get it back on track and we needed to plan for deficits? Any Member that says that they would have done anything different, in my view, would have been irresponsible in not putting the best interests of Jersey and getting economic growth right. We did make adjustments and I stand by the reduction in the marginal rate, putting money back into the economy, back into people’s pockets, and I am surprised that the Deputy himself appears now not to. These have been difficult times. We have brought forward the right measures for those difficult times and I stand by them. The Income Tax Forecasting Group say now that we ... what is now expected needs to be adjusted slightly. That is what we are doing. That is why this Budget is the right Budget for today, it is the right Budget for 2015 and it is the right Budget for Jersey’s long-term interests.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Point of order?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Final supplementary. A point of order?

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I think it is a point of order. The point is that the Chief Minister said they listened to the economic advice. The economic advice in the F.P.P. was not supportive of the reduction in the marginal rate tax.

The Deputy Bailiff:

What Standing Order are you referring to for the ruling which I must make on that point of order? Final supplementary.

3.7.6 Deputy J.H. Young:

I will try and focus my final supplementary on the question. The Chief Minister, in his answer, I think, suggests to my questions and a number of other Members, that we were mixing things up somehow. To be clear, my question concerns the reduction of States income forecast from £713 million to £679 million which was contained in a document dated September 2013 which did not get presented to States Members until 3rd December 2013, the same day that we approved the 2014 Budget. So my question is, that is my issue and I still am looking for an explanation why it was that that information did not get discussed at the top table, the very Council of Ministers, until June 2014? And the question, if we ... one final word. Would the Chief Minister not accept that if we were a private company we would at the very least have had to issue a profit forecast warning against that very big change which is new for Jersey?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

I do not accept that at all. No, we would not have had to do such a thing. Ministers have seen all those documents. It is when the Income Tax Forecasting Group start to look at the returns and the returns indicate that we may need to revise down again, and that is what we have done in this instance. It is looking at the forecast, it is then going out to looking at individual returns. Treasury then undertook a number of weeks’ work to go out to potential large taxpayers and then, after they had all that evidence in front of them, Ministers took the decision that they needed to adjust accordingly. That is exactly as it should be.

[10:45]

3.8. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the 2 per cent reduction to pay budgets in the 2015 Budget:

How does the Chief Minister justify the 2 per cent reduction to pay budgets in the 2015 Budget?

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

Budget 2015 proposes a number of measures, as we appear to have just been discussing, to deal with reduced income forecasts. One of those proposed measures is to require departments to find a 2 per cent saving in 2015, not, as the Deputy suggests, a 2 per cent reduction in the pay budget. Each department will identify how they can make their efficiencies and savings in the next few months.

3.8.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

So switching from the pay element to the general revenue element. Is that a recent change, is that a new change because the proposal in the documents we received said “from the pay budget”?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

I am not sure that that is correct. I do not have those documents in front of me. It is my understanding that it has always been 1 per cent from the pay in uprating line.

3.8.2 Deputy M. Tadier:

I believe that the Council of Ministers at least in theory operate under some kind of collective responsibility. How does the Chief Minister therefore feel about the soon-to-be outgoing Minister for Social Security’s comments that taxes and contributions will have to go up? If in fact that is the case, how would the public sector feel about having their pay frozen or potentially reduced, given the fact that their taxes and contributions are likely to go up imminently?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

The proposal in Budget 2015 is to not quite allocate the same amounts on the budget line for uprating so the Deputy is simply scaremongering when he tries to say that salaries might be frozen or reduced. It is absolutely not the case. Senator Le Gresley quite rightly raised an issue about how are we going to provide for what we know is the increased cost of healthcare into the future. By the end of this M.T.F.P. we will already be putting £30 million extra into health care. Again, I ask all those Members who have been criticising the Council of Ministers this morning, is that wrong? Is that the wrong policy? Did they stand up and vote against it when we brought it forward? No, they did not because they recognised the need in our community to provide the very best health care that we can. There is going to be a challenge over the next few years and that challenge is what Senator Le Gresley spoke about. We hear some Members suggesting that: “Well we should simply give free doctors’ appointments.” No, we should look at the issue in the round. We know that health is going to cost us more. We have provided for some of that already; we are going to need to provide more. That is what the pieces of work that Health and Social Security are doing: to work in a joined-up fashion, to consider how we are going to provide funding for primary care, to consider how we are going to provide funding for secondary care and to consider how those elements of care are going to work together. There are some difficult issues facing members in the community at this election.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Would I be allowed a supplementary?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

We should not shy away from them. We should bring forward plans to deal with them.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Chief Minister, I wonder if you could please try and contain your responses to the question that is directly put to you. Deputy Le Fondré.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Thank you for the Minister confirming the figures which I already had understood to be correct which corresponds to 1,157 homes which are currently falling below standard in the Island. Will the Minister confirm that despite this quarter of his homes not meeting decent standards that rents for these homes have nonetheless gone up? Does he think that that is the correct way to proceed and should not the rent increases have waited until the decent standards had been met?

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

We have to get this into context. Some homes did not meet the decent homes standard because they were in very poor structural condition. Those are the ones that we have tackled first and I could keep you busy for 15 minutes with the long list of achievements that Andium Homes have achieved since I have been the Minister for Housing but I will not do that. What I will say is that some homes fail to meet the decent homes standard merely because we have not yet replaced the bathroom or the kitchen and yet the bathroom and the kitchen are currently in reasonable working order. We have a proper programme; I am not embarrassed by it. I think that Andium Homes have done an excellent job. Since I have been Minister we have been driving-up standards. To answer the Deputy’s question about rents, I had to tackle a long-term problem where this Assembly had not had the courage to put the rents where it needed to be.

Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville:

Sorry, I knocked my microphone by mistake, Sir. [Members: Oh!]

3.9.2 Deputy T.A. Vallois:

Could the Minister advise whether a policy on decent homes standard has been put together for Andium Homes and whether that has been informed to all tenants?

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

Tenants are regularly advised by newsletter on what we are doing. We have also contact with the Tenants Forum so tenants are aware of what is going on. Most tenants are aware of the programme that we have in place. I am very comfortable about the communications that we have in place from Andium and the contact that we have with our tenants.

Deputy T.A. Vallois:

Sorry, I was asking about the policy of decent homes and whether every tenant knows exactly what the decent homes policy is?

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

What percentage of operating theatre time is devoted to allow consultants to perform private procedures during their working week?

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

All consultants undertake a full-time job working a minimum of 40 hours right across the working week. That working week covers 24/7 and the 40 hours which is public work includes clinics, ward rounds, theatre time, out of hours and administration. Over and above these 40 hours consultants are entitled to undertake private practice. Surgeons are allowed to undertake private practice in the Jersey General Hospital theatres and this can occur across the 6 days of a week. To plan the most efficient use of theatre capacity, surgeons are requested to keep their private practice to no more than 30 per cent of the scheduled theatre lists. Most recent audits however show that the percentage of theatre activity spent on private practice is 21 per cent. This remains over and above the contracted 40 hours of public work they undertake across their full working week.

3.10.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Could the Minister confirm - and I thank her for the clarity of her answer - whether any of this 21 per cent is focused on operations where people are desperate to get them and are kept on long waiting lists but almost by a sleight of hand were they to move to private operations they can get the operation almost immediately? Would she confirm that a lot of the 21 per cent is used in that fashion?

The Deputy of Trinity:

I cannot confirm that the 21 per cent is used in that fashion because that is private practice and it is up to the consultant at the time, but issues of waiting lists are because there is an increase in demand for surgery. We know that because of the ageing population. That will not change whether we did private practice or not private practice. The waiting lists, even though they have been successful over the last months, have reduced dramatically. If there was not private practice work those patients would not be able to go obviously on the private list and the public list would even be longer.

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

Members have just been told that theatres are currently used 6 days a week. We are all very well aware of lengthy waiting lists for some specialities. Has any consideration been given to using theatres 7 days a week?

The Deputy of Trinity:

Yes, issues like that are always constantly under review but if we did do 7 days a week you need to make sure you have the theatre staff, the anaesthetist, et cetera, to be able to achieve that but that is the whole issue of working at weekends within the hospital which is constantly kept under review.

3.10.3 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

Would the Minister tell us, after the overall 40 hours that the consultants undertake on public work, what is the actual average time per week spent in theatres by those consultants?

The Deputy of Trinity:

I do not have the exact details. It varies from surgeon to surgeon, I would have thought. An E.N.T. (Ear Nose and Throat) consultant does one night in 3 on call, so this is including the on-call. But the exact figures of what each doctor ... we do have that information but I do not have it to hand.

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

Could I just ask the Minister if she would circulate that information to the States Members?

The Deputy of Trinity:

Yes.

The Deputy Bailiff:

A final supplementary?

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

No, Sir.

Deputy J.A. Hilton:

Well not only that there is the S. and P. (Standard & Poor’s) report and the S. and P. information that is done, which I am just getting a copy of that so I can answer the question a bit later, the fact is that we have seen a shortfall in revenue in 2013, fully disclosed, and we explained it, where it came from. We are now seeing a downgrade in income for 2014 and 2015. This is exactly as many people would have expected the contagion of the euro crisis finally coming through into our numbers. The remarkable thing is that in 2011 and 2012 we beat the forecast by £27 million and an extra £17 million. These numbers will go up and down. Short-term knee-jerk reactions are not the good way that Members of Assemblies and Budget Ministers deal with things.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Minister, you must keep to the question.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

It is long term and we have a great track record. Do not condemn it; celebrate it.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Minister, you must keep to the question.

3.11.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

The question was, were the 2 figures on shortfall over expected revenue shared with the assessors on 2014 or 2015? Is the answer yes or no?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

All information was given and the track record of beating estimates was also something. The confusing thing is the world tanked after 2013 and the revenue, because of the resilience of our finance industry, continued to come in. We have now seen a deficit because we want to spend money and cut taxes. Why are people criticising? I just do not understand it.

The Deputy Bailiff:

This is not a debate about the Budget or about the facts in relation to Andium Homes. It is question time. Deputy Le Hérissier.

3.11.4 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

When the Minister did brief the parties in England and Edinburgh - and I hope Edinburgh did not get the word given what might happen next week, when he did do that - was surprise expressed at the fact that this was the first time after generations that the Island Government had deliberately sought to go into debt? Was surprise expressed at that?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

No, and, again, I just do not know. Sometimes I think that Members wake up in the morning and they have forgotten everything that we have done in the past. What is this about we have not done deficits? Can I remind the Deputy of this chart? I will send it around. We ran budget surpluses in 2008 and 2009, we ran a deficit in 2010, we ran a deficit in 2011 from the drawing-down of the Stabilisation Fund because of the hugely prudent decisions that this Assembly made to deal with the issue of the change in corporate tax regime. I then arrived at the Treasury at the start of my term of office, warned about a public deficit ongoing of £100 million by 2013. This Assembly backed those proposals. Some Members did not do it. Some of the Members criticising me now are saying: “Oh no, should not have done that.” We dealt with the deficit, we are in a good position, and what we are doing is we are building on putting money into the economy to be in the best position to deal with spending demands that many Members will have after, hopefully, some of them will have got re-elected. I just do not understand the issue.

3.11.5 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Just one point while I am standing up is that we have a different forecasting model from 2012 onwards so I am not really interested in what happened in 2011 and before plus different economic circumstances, so would the Minister stop referring backwards? The question the Minister was answering in relation to the issues of the bond, could he also just clarify both for that and for the credit rating agency, were they given the I.T.F.G. forecasts which include dates of April 2013, it is dated September 2013, and it includes the shortfall of £70 million in income forecasts?

[11:15]

The reason I repeat the question is because in response to my written question they are not listed there. Just a yes or no.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am getting a barrage of dates and we are moving around. I have a question about Budget 2014 when the Deputy means 2015; Deputy Le Fondré asking back from 2013. All information… let us be clear, the bond roadshow happened at the end of May. The income tax forecast for next year was effectively finalised at June. This Assembly and all people involved in the bond issue were aware and are aware of the exogenous factors faced in our financial industry and how that is going to affect it. We had lots of discussions about the future of Jersey and I was able to say with pride that this Assembly has tackled previous problems, not put issues away and that is why we are in a strong position. Unlike most other places, we have 100 per cent of G.D.P. (Gross Domestic Product) on our balance sheets in assets as opposed to all the other bond issuers which go around Edinburgh and those great financial advisers there because they have debts of 100 per cent the opposite way. We are not even zero. Most places are 100 per cent debt. We have 100 per cent of assets. I just do not understand the issue.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Minister, this is question time. You are supposed to be answering questions, not making speeches.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

It is questions but it is questions about the detail where I am being told that forecasts have not been made. I know you are saying that we have a Budget debate next week but I need the facts out so that we can have a proper debate about the Budget, not have a debate which is based upon misinformation, revisionism and accusations that the Treasury has not been absolutely transparent in everything it has because it has. I need to make those points.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you, Minister, you have done that. A final supplementary?

3.11.6 Deputy S. Power:

Yes, Sir, with great trepidation. [Laughter] I am going to bring the Minister back to the bond and the time it was taken out in the early part of the summer which he referred to as May or thereabouts. Was the Minister aware then of the significant changes that we are now aware of in the forecast and was he able to advise the issuers and the credit rating agencies and the banks of these changes in the forecasts?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

The forecast was not finished until 30th June. We spent a lot of time thinking and talking about the reasons why Jersey’s income would increase and not increase. I was able to explain what we are doing in the financial framework which is the new financial services strategy now delivering results: HSBC bringing business back to Jersey; 2 private equity firms bringing business to Jersey. Bond investors are taking a 40-year view. They are not interested in minor blips in terms of latest forecasts, they are looking at the resilience of the last 30 years of Jersey’s economy, the way this Assembly has prudently dealt with estimates of the past and track records over 40 years. We are in a strong position and what are we doing? We have people saying that we are in a weak position. Deputy Power should be saying: “Fantastic, 3.75 per cent investment in social housing for 40 years at some of the lowest rates that anybody has ever got; fantastic” with full transparency and ongoing 6-month reviews ...

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, that question took 12 minutes.

3.12 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the pursuance of cyber bullying cases:

Will the Minister advise Members whether the police have received any legal advice not to pursue cyber-bullying cases and, if not, would he investigate whether police officers are advising members of the public seeking to make complaints that such cases cannot be pursued?

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

It is true that there appears to be this imbalance but the appearance is deceptive because it is open to Jersey to restrict the entry of citizens of the European Union if Jersey wishes to do so. The only caveat upon that is that restrictions would have to be introduced across the board to all citizens of the European Union, including British citizens. As we have no desire at the moment to risk upsetting the common travel area which allows citizens of Jersey to travel freely throughout the common travel area, the prospect of introducing such restrictions has not been contemplated.

Hopefully this will be straightforward. Will the Minister inform the Assembly whether the draft 2015 Budget is based on the latest available revenue forecast or whether an updated forecast has been produced and if so whether the requirement in the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005 not to go into deficit in the Consolidated Fund at the end of the year will require the draft Budget and the M.T.F.P, approved by the States, to be revised?

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

I have answered a number of these questions. The answer is, yes. I understand what the Finance Law says. The Finance Law says that you cannot allocate money, which means that the Consolidated Fund becomes over committed. Of course, oddly, as Members will know, we still have £100 million current account surplus on the Consolidated Fund because of this very strict rule, so I understand what the rules are. Yes, of course, the Budget takes account of all of these measures. The early budget meant that we have to work very quickly. I am providing an updated schedule in advance of the budget measures which are not for the Assembly’s approval but to inform Members of the action we are taking to make sure that the Consolidated Fund balances and I have put another amendment also updating Members of that. So full information, yes, I understand it. There is not an issue as far as I am concerned.

3.15.1 Deputy J.H. Young:

Just to clarify. Obviously, the Minister for Treasury and Resources has helpfully told us that we are going to have an updated schedule. Can he tell us, will that schedule revise the figures that we are asked to approve in the Budget? Will it, for example, deal with the things he has mentioned today about proposals to reduce departmental spend, et cetera? Is he producing a schedule which will amend what we are asked to approve in 2 weeks’ time or is it by way of just supplementary information that perhaps was the case last year?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I have got 2 public meetings and if Members want to come along to the public meetings ... I sent an email last week. If Members want any information to understand exactly what the rules are ... I know the Deputy is a relatively new Member of this Assembly. If he needs to understand exactly what the rules are about, what we are doing; more than happy to come and explain them to make sure that there is no doubt at all that what we are doing is correct. Yes, there will be an updated schedule that will be provided. Hopefully, I am going to provide that on Monday. The important thing is that that schedule is there for Member’s information not for approval because what the budget is doing is approving changes in taxes and capital programmes. I welcome these amendments. I might agree with some of them, I might amend some others, we are working on that.

[11:45]

If any other Member wanted to change the policy then they should have put some amendments down. We have got lots of questions about ifs and buts and maybes. I congratulate the Deputy on putting some amendments down because at least he has said: “I do not agree with that, change it.” Other Members are just criticising. They do not seem to have alternative plans. I am still listening if there are alternative plans of dealing with these issues.

3.15.2 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

In the context of the question, the effect of the Budget on the Consolidated Fund, which is our current account, is the tightest in living memory and bearing that in mind does the Minister still stand by the amounts for the extra income from the utility companies, which has been included in there? Was that why we have got some extra amendments being lodged in order to keep the Budget legal?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Two questions. First of all the tightest Consolidated Fund. I know the Deputy is an accountant but there is forecasting, there is the Statistics Office and economists. There are economists and there are accountants and we need to take all that advice and make the right decisions for the public. The Deputy is saying the tightest Consolidated Fund balance, quite rightly so. That is what the F.P.P. said. Use all available resources to put money in the economy to secure economic growth. He puts the questions as though it is a criticism. It is not a criticism. It is in line with the F.P.P. information. We do not have revisionism and we cannot be selective in the advice. I listen to the F.P.P. I have issued the comment this morning, backed 100 per cent and said, absolutely right Budget, and last year they told me - they warned me - they said, use all available resources. Do not be constrained from the Consolidated Fund. Use all available balances, and that is what we are doing. That is why I have brought forward D.H.L.F. (Dwelling Houses Loan Fund), all the others and I have been asking the utilities for more money and I will provide an update on those discussions in the next few days.

The Deputy Bailiff:

I am sorry to interrupt you in full flow but the 2 hours allowed has now come to an end and we come now to questions to Ministers without notice.

Deputy J.H. Young:

Point of order. Does not mean ... did I not get a final supplementary on that under those rules?

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

[12:00]

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

It is a bit of both. We have consulted. We had several meetings with Deputy Vallois and members of Education to formulate the plans and that is something that is ongoing which I am pressing to get sorted as soon as possible.

4.11. Deputy T.A. Vallois:

Sorry, I have to try and get an answer for this. When I ask about the consultation; I ask about the consultation with the residents who live in the area with the proposed action plan that is being presented because there are serious concerns about some of the suggestions that have been put forward. So can the Minister, please, give an answer?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

We have it prepared. It is going out to consultation now hence the delay but I am very keen to progress this forward to make safer routes to school for children and parents alike.

4.12 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Given that the Minister may return, would he like to identify [Laughter] given the support of his other colleague, currently number 2, could he identify what has been the highlight of his term in office and what has been the low light? [Laughter]

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

It is a very interesting question. I think rebuilding the Island after the big storms; that was quite a big challenge. The bus contract was very challenging. A lot of small projects but I think being blamed for lots of things that are beyond my control [Laughter], the collapse of Mount Bingham, which is part of St. Helier not mine. I was blamed for sea water coming over the sea wall. How dare I allow that to happen; that was quite a good one. But it is getting projects moving that I think I ... things I really achieved, the Energy for Waste plant up and running normally and I think it has been [Laughter] ... normally, it’s operating very well. [Laughter] And I think the general projects around the Island. It is very rewarding when all these projects are finally finished. [Approbation].

5. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister

Senator I.J. Gorst:

They are 2 completely different issues.

Deputy M. Tadier:

But he can still answer the question.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Well, I think he has answered it, Deputy.

5.7 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Just following up on Deputy Hilton. It has been brought to my attention by some people who have been giving evidence to the lawyers behind the scenes that they will feel intimidated if certain officers are attending the inquiry when they give their evidence because their evidence ...

The Deputy Bailiff:

No, I am sorry, Deputy. I disallow the line of that questioning as Standing Orders make it plain that a question shall not refer to the proceedings of the Committee of Inquiry unless the committee has made its final report to the States and you are going down that path.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

6. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu:

I would like to thank the Bailiff for giving me this opportunity to make this statement. On Thursday, 4th September 2014 I published a generalised tweet on my Twitter account. I did not specifically mention any individual by name. It was intended as a political comment connected to a Member of this Assembly. Although no specific person was named I accept the comment was inappropriate in the circumstances. I unreservedly apologise for publishing the comment and any offence it has given to them, their family and supporters, together with any discredit brought upon this Assembly in so doing. I have also expressed my apologies in private emails with the Member in question.

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER

7. The Deputy Bailiff:

Very well, there are no matters under K but before we come on to any further business I meant to make a statement under A and perhaps Members will forgive me for making it at this stage. The Bailiff is to present President Jean-François Le Grand with the Bailiff Silver Seal in recognition of his contribution over many years of service to building relations between Jersey and Normandy. President Le Grand has had a long connection with the Island community since 1976 and has promoted the development of economic links between Jersey and La Manche. More recently he was decorated in France by receiving the Chevalier de la Légion d’Honneur for his work and services to the region. President Le Grand will travel to the Island with a small delegation to receive the Bailiff’s award on Tuesday, 23rd September this year and the Bailiff is hosting a special reception at which the award will be presented to President Le Grand. Members are asked to make a note in their diaries. The special award presentation reception will be held during the lunchtime adjournment on 23rd September and invitations will be issued shortly by the Bailiff’s Chambers. [Approbation]

PUBLIC BUSINESS

The Deputy Bailiff:

We now come to Public Business. The Committee of Inquiry, sale of Broad Street Post ...

Senator I.J. Gorst:

Sorry, just before we do that could I give notice to Members that I do not intend today to move item P.97/2014 and in fact would like it to be moved to 25th November please.

8. Committee of Inquiry: sale of Broad Street Post Office building (P.61/2014)

The Deputy Bailiff:

P.97/2014 to 25th November, did you say? Thank you, Chief Minister. So we come to the Committee of Inquiry, sale of Broad Street Post Office building, P.61/2014 lodged by Senator Breckon and I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion, (a) to agree that a Committee of Inquiry should be established in accordance with Standing Order 146 to inquire into a definite matter of public importance, namely the circumstances surrounding the plans by Jersey Post to sell the Broad Street Post Office building in 2008 and the actions of the Minister for Treasury and Resources in relation to the proposed sale. (b) to request the Chief Minister to take the necessary steps to select a suitable chairman and members to undertake the inquiry and to bring forward to the States for approval the necessary proposition relating to their appointment.

8.1 Senator A. Breckon:

Before lodging this proposition I would like to tell Members that I did have a word with the chairman and some of the members of the Public Accounts Committee and also the Corporate Services Panel to see if this is a matter that they may apply themselves to but the message I got is that they were both fairly busy and in the timescales before the end of this political term, it was not possible. There was also the possibility that it could have been referred to the Comptroller and Auditor General but I did not do that, but I am aware that the former Comptroller did look at the issues surrounding Lime Grove House, which I am sure Members will remember. There also are emerging possibilities under Freedom of Information about accessing information and is something that the Chief Minister, about 3 or 4 weeks ago, sent out an email to everybody on the system saying that we were going to be more transparent and we should co-operate with the expression of this. For my sins, sometimes I watch the politics channel and I should say I am amazed at who is brought in for questioning; chief constables, the Governor of the Bank of England, leaders of trade and industry. Nothing seems taboo. They seem to go exactly where they want to. The reason for my saying that is, where are we in Jersey with this transparency, with these checks and balances because that is something I remember, as some other Members may remember from Ministerial government, we were told that we would have checks and balances and things would be shared as it were. That was a promise that was made. So, where indeed are we if a Back-Bencher is having some difficulty, not in asking questions, I can ask questions, it is the answers indeed that I am looking for and I believe that the public deserve? I think there is a case of public interest in the operation of Broad Street, what happens to it is of interest. The next question is: who is the shareholder? I would say it is the public of Jersey to whom we are accountable. Although the Minister for Treasury and Resources does have responsibilities he is not the only person that has that. We all, indeed, I would say, have responsibilities. I also believe that he needs to be accountable to his actions and he needs to be accountable to this House and that is why I believe if this House does not call a Minister to account then who else will do it and I do not see anybody else being able to do that. It is not about dodging questions. It is about presenting the facts, which is what I am seeking, and I believe there is a difference. I think this should be fairly simple in that it appears that at various stages, over a number of years, that the board of Jersey Post had a wish to sell the Broad Street premises and the Minister for Treasury and Resources is quite right, and that is his role, to make them accountable for that; why are they doing it, what is the reason, what is the business case, where will the proceeds go, et cetera. There is another example with the Jersey Electricity Company where the States own about 62 per cent of the company and indeed they did sell their Broad Street premises and then they issued a special dividend from the sale, of those proceeds, which was then distributed. This is not rocket science. It has been done before. It was open. It was transparent and they are different in respect that they are quoted on the stock exchange but it was transparent. In my proposition I asked Members to read or re-read the content of my report and I did that for a reason. I was looking for answers. In my report ... this is from an email sent by the Minister for Treasury and Resources on 30th January 2014 and part of the content of that email says this: “On behalf of the public of Jersey the States is the sole shareholder of Jersey Post, S.o.J.D.C. (States of Jersey Development Company) and other valuable entities. As Minister for Treasury and Resources supported and advised by Treasury officials it is vital that the shareholder role is discharged properly and always in the public interest. It is my duty to exercise proper oversight of States companies and property sales. It is a responsibility which I and Deputy Noel take very seriously. While States companies act on an arm’s length basis any potential sale of publicly owned entities, land and development of States land to the States of Jersey Development Company or Property Holdings are legitimate matters that require the approval of the Minister for Treasury and Resources. Developers and land owners compete for the future space requirements of tenants. Numerous sites are assessed in these processes. In the past these have included the Broad Street H.Q. (headquarters) and currently sites are owned by S.o.J.D.C. Such deals could be worth millions of pounds of value to the public and similar amounts are likely to be at stake for the parties involved in competing schemes. It is absolutely appropriate for me to be questioned and answer Member’s questions in the Assembly and generally hold me to account on such important matters. I appreciate the media and civil society also have important roles in doing the same. At the same time it would be inappropriate for Treasury to comment publicly on commercial discussions relating to schemes and matters which affect often highly respected third parties. States entities should be permitted to discharge their functions without inappropriate political inference in a way which prevents them from acting in the interests of the shareholder, ultimately the public of the Island. Attempts to inappropriately delay decisions cost the public money. While the economic situation is now improving there is a need for us to continue to work as never before in a mire which maximises our economic potential in an ever fast moving and competitive world for the benefit of our community.” Well, that, for me, does not answer the questions that I am asking. What does it tell us? Was a sale agreed? Yes or no? Who would keep the proceeds? Where were we with that? It does not say that at all. So what I want to know, and I believe the public have a right to know, what exactly was going on? The board of Jersey Post appear to be moving towards the sale of Broad Street, heads of terms have been drawn up, negotiations seem to be fairly well advanced but nowhere can I find a decision of this Minister for Treasury and Resources or the previous one, in fact the opposite. It said in 2008 that one would not be taken. Now, if one was that one said one thing or the other that would, I think, have satisfied the points that I am seeking to find out. Also the reason I have produced an addendum to my report, and I did say in there that the Minister for Treasury and Resources might well have produced and put on our desks today the email he sent to the former Chief Executive Officer and others but that has not been forthcoming.

[12:30]

Members can make their own minds up about that. I have not seen, as I say, any conclusive written evidence about what has been agreed and even what the situation is now. So where are we now? What I have just quoted from, saying we need to make decisions, we need to move on, it is a fast moving world, et cetera. It appears from the comments that have been produced they are saying that on 19th June 2008, this is a summary of what went on, and I quote from that. It says this: “The board discussed the political and P.R. (public relations) risks around the sale and in particular the consequences of a change in the Minister for Treasury and Resources after the election. The board agreed to discuss the process for obtaining political consent with the Minister for Treasury and Resources following the A.G.M. (annual general meeting). While informed discussions have taken place between the board and the Minister there is currently nothing in writing to confirm this support.” The Minister for Treasury and Resources at the time was not this Minister, it was the previous one and that was June 2008 and I think it is worth noting that it was in June 2008 that the States approved the Waterfront Masterplan and we had a named developer as well. It goes on to say in the comments they: “Made a note of the discussions that were held following the A.G.M. and it was noted that the Minister for Treasury and Resources confirmed his support in principle” and also at that meeting: “It was agreed that there would be no Ministerial decision or public announcement on the future of the Broad Street site until January at the earliest.” That is January 2009. There seems to be a number of issues here between the board, the Minister and possible purchaser, of which I am not clear, but I think a Committee of Inquiry should find out. That was in June 2008; the gathering took place after the A.G.M. In February 2009 - and this is the existing Minister for Treasury and Resources - on 4th February, in an email to the then Chief Executive Officer, who said the following in reply: “If you were to block the deal, you would be seen as unsupportive or even blocking the actions of a major employer. It is hardly a message of encouragement. You would need to have a very good reason, provided of course that the deal is commercially sound, and I expect you will require the board to ensure themselves of that. So what could your reason be? Only that you think the bank should be on the Esplanade and that you are more intent on making the Esplanade happen than you are on securing a major business. You will be backing your judgment against that of the bank. That is the sort of planning that Russia pioneered and that eventually failed them.” That was in response to an email from Senator Ozouf, the content of which seeks to promote the Esplanade scheme, the one that we suggested should be on Members’ desks today and is not.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Sir, a point of clarification. I have already sent it round to States Members; by email, most Members have got email.

Senator A. Breckon:

I am in here, Sir; I am not doing emails. This is an extract from the chairman of Jersey Post to the Minister for Treasury and Resources sent as recently as 23rd January 2014, when he says in that email: “I did say to journalists that I sensed your preference at the time was for the bank to move into new premises.” So what exactly does that mean? What are the implications where we have somebody who is a willing buyer and a willing seller and there are, let us say, differences in between? Also in the comments from a board meeting of Jersey Post on 16th December 2008, by which time it was this Minister for Treasury and Resources, and it says this: “Subsequently, a formal investor briefing meeting had also been requested with the Minister for Treasury and Resources, to be attended by the chairman early in the new year, and this meeting should be used to, among other things, consult the Minister on the board’s plans for Broad Street and the retail strategy. The board needed to decide what it wanted to do with regard to the site and future strategy prior to any meeting with the Minister. The Chairman agreed to telephone the Minister for Treasury and Resources to emphasise Jersey Post’s urgent request for an investor briefing as soon as possible.” That was on 16th of December 2008. On 13th January 2009, another note produced from the board says: “The board agreed that it wished to pursue the sale of Broad Street site. The chairman stated that this would be communicated to and discussed with the Minister for Treasury and Resources in the meeting he was to attend on 2nd February.” That is 2nd February 2009. In that note, bearing in mind it is some 6 weeks later, no mention is made about the telephone contact between the chairman and the Minister for Treasury and Resources following the board meeting of 16th December, which is some 6 or 7 weeks later. I have not seen any reference to, or been given any idea of what happened with the Minister for Treasury and Resources on 2nd February 2009, however, it was shortly after that the Minister for Treasury and Resources emailed the chief executive officer and others and, on 3rd February 2009, he said this in an email: “The urgency is I am being pressed by J.P. (Jersey Post) to sanction the sale of Broad Street to the bank. Once the Post Office site is sold to the bank, the option of a States consolidation on Broad Street is lost and the bank moves to Waterfront.” So there is a gap there again where, going on, rather than being pressed, it appears that nothing was resolved. On 29th May, the notes from the board meeting says this: “The board agrees that the issues around the sale of Broad Street would need to be discussed with the Minister at the A.G.M. on 25th June.” That is 25th June 2009; some 12 months after they had had discussions with the previous Minister for Treasury and Resources. So what were the issues? Sell, not to sell? Who to? They had professional advisers on board, but nothing appears to be conclusive. The notes contained, and the Minister for Treasury and Resource’s comments also say - and again this comes from a J.P. board meeting on 12th August 2009 - and I ask Members to bear in mind, the clock is ticking and if I owned a house and I was going to sell it to somebody and I was messing around like this, they would have gone to live somewhere else, I am sure they would, or found somewhere else. It says this: “The board had received a paper prepared by the M.D. (Managing Director) Postal Business in the board pack providing an update on the Broad Street sale and retail strategy. The chairman stated that, contrary to what had been written in the paper from the M.D. of Postal Business, the Minister for Treasury and Resources had not confirmed that J.P. could keep any proceeds from the sale of Broad Street. The chairman stated that he had concerns that a sale would forfeit balance sheet asset strength and not necessarily assist in the group’s need to raise new non-regulated income streams.” He goes on to say: “Taking these changed circumstances into account”; well, what changed circumstances? Was it for sale? I mentioned before J.E.C. (Jersey Electricity Company) is an example of where sale proceeds are returned to shareholders, so what was the problem? Again, this really does raise some issues for me, and I believe for the wider public as well and to date they remain unanswered. But I believe that a Committee of Inquiry would indeed address these issues and discover the facts, which I believe we all have a right to know. Why was it that the Managing Director of Postal Business did not know what had or had not been agreed? It seems a very a strange business for a company that is in the business of communications. That is their business: communications. Just finally, another extract from the Minister for Treasury and Resource’s comments on my proposition, again from the notes of a Jersey Post board meeting on 4th March 2011, and it says: “The Chief Executive informed the board that the potential purchaser would be moving to the Waterfront.” That raises a number of questions: would they be pitching a marquee to move into? Because that is what it would have been, because at that time I cannot see anywhere on the Waterfront where they might be planning to move to, which developer were they negotiating with - I am not aware of any - and who had planning permission for suitable office accommodation. I would just like to remind Members that for Jersey Finance Centre a detailed planning permission was not given until July 2013, which is roughly 2 years after that, or a little bit more. Also at the time they could not really have been negotiating with W.E.B. (Waterfront Enterprise Board) because W.E.B. was in transition to becoming the States of Jersey Development Company and, as Members may remember, there was something controversial about candidates, and 2 of them subsequently withdrew and an amendment was brought forward for 2 other persons to fill that post. I am not going to go on much longer, I am nearly finished, so if that is okay, I will just finish off. I hope I have convinced Members that there is a need for this inquiry. I would have hoped the Minister for Treasury and Resources would welcome it, as he has welcomed other reports and has made comments on them; that he would be in a position to do the same. That is really where this ends, because I am not sure now if Broad Street is for sale, if it is still being marketed and, if so, who that might be to. There was some discussion about proceeds and other things but I think it is the principle, and I should say that, if I was a member of the board of Jersey Post, I would feel a little frustrated by this, because we talked about “not having political interference” and “arm’s length” and “they know what they are doing, they are well-qualified” but then if I had been in that situation, I would feel frustrated by that. In conclusion, I would just say I do not think any Committee of Inquiry would be either lengthy or expensive; it is about gathering evidence and I believe that the evidence is there and it does give that transparency and I hope it will be welcomed by all, including the Minister for Treasury and Resources. With that, Sir, I make the proposition.

[12:45]

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Well, it is 12.45 p.m.; is the adjournment proposed? The adjournment is proposed and the States stands adjourned and we will reconvene at 2.15 p.m. this afternoon.

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

[14:15]

Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement:

Just before the debate proceeds, I would just like to ... I do not know if it is necessary, because it is not of pecuniary interest, but to declare an interest in the debate, as my husband was Chief Officer of Jersey Post until February 2009.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you very much. Very well, the debate now opens on P.61. Does any other Member wish to speak? Deputy Noel.

8.1.1 Deputy E.J. Noel:

No doubt Members will appreciate that the Minister for Treasury and Resources will speak later on in this debate but I would just like to start by saying that we found this proposition a little confusing. Senator Breckon set out at length why he feels the Broad Street offices were important to Jersey Post, its employees and Islanders in general. He alleges that the Minister and another individual blocked the sale of that site. We are not sure whether the Minister is being praised or criticised for this allegation. While the proposition may not contain the words “vote” “no” and “confidence” that is how it appears. These allegations are simply untrue and I will go on to explain why. To give some background before we move on to the meat of the proposition, we should reiterate that the board of the States-owned utilities appoint a board, that board includes non-executive directors, and it is for that board to manage the affairs of the company. The Minister for Treasury and Resources as a shareholder on behalf of the States approves, or otherwise, these appointments through the exercise of the vote of the shareholder at the annual general meetings. The Minister, upon advice, approves a business plan. Once such appointments and approvals of business plans have been made, the board should be left to manage the business activities of the respective companies without the day-to-day interference from the Minister or States Members, unless that involvement is required under an agreement. The relationships are managed through a memorandum of understanding, an M.O.U. The M.O.U.s with Jersey Post require that Jersey Post seeks Ministerial consent for a number of important decisions. The original M.O.U. was agreed in September 2006 by the Minister’s predecessor, Senator Le Sueur. Among the requirements of the M.O.U. was that Jersey Post seeks the consent of the Minister before it sells, transfers, leases, licenses, or in any way disposes of or is a material part of its business or assets, including and in particular properties bearing the numbers 15 to 17 Broad Street and 7 to 9 Commercial Street. There are 3 sites bearing the numbers 8, 10 and 26 that form part of its Rue des Pres Estate, which also require specific permissions. That requirement is very clear and it is exactly what Jersey Post did: it consulted the Minister. We have attached detailed extracts of the minutes of Jersey Post to the Minister’s comments. If Members have not already read these, I urge them to do so. They should leave any uncertain Member in no doubt as to how to vote in this matter. They explain exactly what a Committee of Inquiry would find if one was convened. This document has not been prepared by the Minister or Treasury or Treasury officers, it was put together by the Finance Director and Company Secretary of Jersey Post, who is an important and respected officer, responsible to Jersey Post not to the Minister. I will read out the key dates from the Minister’s comments: “June 2008, in-principle support for the potential sale of Broad Street Post Office to the potential purchaser was sought and received from the Minister for Treasury and Resources.” At no stage since has this Ministerial consent been withdrawn. August 2009: “The Minister for Treasury and Resources [Senator Ozouf in this instance] discusses with the chairman of Jersey Post whether the proceeds of any sale could be retained by the company.” This is entirely appropriate, it is the right thing to have happened and, in fact, not to discuss the use of the potential proceeds with the shareholder would have arguably been wrong. Why would they not have had such a discussion? It was what the States required both parties to do under the M.O.U. Moving forward, November 2009: “The potential purchaser confirmed their intention to defer any decision to purchase the Broad Street site for the next 2 to 3 years.” That is the potential purchaser. March 2011: “The Jersey Broad Street Board agreed to close down any further assessment of the retail opportunities for the Broad Street site.” Let us now move to what we suspect is the heart of Senator Breckon’s inference here. We did discuss with the chairman of Jersey Post how the proceeds of any potential sale might be used. Is this improper? No, it is not; it is what we were required to do as the shareholder representatives on behalf of the States. “The Chairman explained the need of the board of Jersey Post to have due regard to the position of the company’s balance sheet at the time given when the L.V.C.R. (Low Value Consignment Relief) situation arose.” There was a climate of uncertainty because of that and caution was the right approach. The decision not to proceed with the sale was then taken by the potential purchaser; by no one else, it was the potential purchaser who pulled out: not Jersey Post or the Minister or anyone else, it was the potential purchaser. In essence, it was a potential business deal which simply did not proceed. Had it progressed then, on behalf of the States, we would have protected the shareholders’ interests, as required. The proposition makes a number of veiled personal accusations and I understand that the Minister has taken legal advice upon those. I also understand that others may have done so too. Board members of Jersey Post have confirmed that Senator Breckon’s inferred allegations are completely groundless and therefore untrue and unfair. While those inferred allegations would appear to be covered by parliamentary privilege under Article 34 of the States of Jersey Law 2005, I would ask the Senator and others to be cautious in how he expresses them, and I understand that privilege is not without limits. To some extent, the Minister is fair game but, in my view, an esteemed Jurat and an individual who gives his time freely for the benefit of the Island is not. On behalf of the Minister and myself, I apologise to that individual, and on behalf of this Assembly, for the public airing of this matter which was brought about by Senator Breckon’s proposition. Further, I would like to express our thanks to him for all he has done for our Island and continues to do so. [Approbation] A Committee of Inquiry would add nothing new to this matter; all the relevant facts have been included within the Minister’s comments. I believe that the matter has been put beyond doubt. There is simply nothing more to say or reveal on this subject, not by the Treasurer, not by the Minister for Treasury and Resources or by the board of Jersey Post or anyone else. I urge Members to reject this proposition.

8.1.2 Deputy J.H. Young:

I absolutely know nothing about this matter, I only know what is in the papers we have been given and what has appeared in the newspapers and so on. Certainly it is not a question for me as implied allegations, or anything of that nature; for me, it raises issues about the way in which we go about making and putting into effect major policy decisions in respect of publicly-owned property. It raises issues for me of sound governance, sound accountability and transparency and, of course, here we have got an example of a major decision with a huge, really very major public asset that has been known for decades as having great potential for future development, and it is used and loved conveniently by members of the public and the people that earn a living in it. The decision to either dispose of it, or otherwise, has obviously got major implications in all sorts of ways. Of course, I know, having had some experience in a past life, that major policy decisions during the formation stage go through an informal process of, if you like, behind-the-scenes toing and froing, which eventually then arrives at some kind of formal decision which then goes forward. I think that processes behind the scenes, as it were, is pretty important because here we have our Minister for Treasury and Resources empowered in all sorts of ways as sole shareholder of publicly-owned bodies. Here we have, I think on the paperwork involved, at least 2 of those bodies: Jersey Post and the States of Jersey Development Company, and also the third role of being in charge of property assets. I feel that having those kinds of multi-roles in one person is liable to conflict. Personally, I think one of the solutions I would like is to look at separating out in any future administration that role of responsibility for States property. Because, for me, I am starting to worry about: does that rest comfortably alongside all the other enormous responsibilities that our Minister for Treasury and Resources has, both for public finances and also as sole shareholders of these huge undertakings. Of course, we are set now to do many more; we have progress taking place on the stocks about our Ports of Jersey, we have done Andium Homes and so on, and you know, we are talking about huge asset values here. To have those decisions in a process which is very strongly - and I put it no more than that, because I think this is the nub of what an inquiry would serve - influenced by the views of one person, I think, is high risk. So, for the future I would like to see whether there are any lessons one could learn from the processes to arrive at a safer place. In other words, that is the way I approach this, the principles of governance: can we learn, in essence, from this event in the past that, frankly, water under the bridge. I think the issue for me does not matter, it has gone by, overtaken by events. What we are looking at now, looking back with a mirror: what can we learn and how can we apply that to the future? Of course, we are in a situation where we cannot ask the leading players, because the 2 emails we have been given - the ones circulated from the Minister for Treasury and Resources - I will not name them, but I think Members know who they are. The property director at the time, the professional person there to advise the Minister and the Chief Executive, to whom he gave that advice. We cannot ask them about it. So I would like to say: “What was the process here? How did we arrive at the situation?” I have got absolutely no criticism for the Minister for Treasury and Resources having a role in this because that is in his role, as the Assistant Minister said. We have created this structure, that responsibility sits with him. My concern is that it is in-built with conflicts, absence of transparency and accountability and I would like to see more than one person involved, and therefore some separation of powers. I would like to hear from those involved, what were the issues, what were the tensions, were there tensions, because I know that there are always going to be tensions between Ministers individually ... and this is not an issue personal to the Minister for Treasury and Resources; it is any Minister. The interface between the principal senior professional adviser in any department, often the Chief Officer but not always, and the Minister is a crucial one-to-one relationship. There has to be tension in there. I would hope nobody wants passive advisers and dominant politicians where a politician can, if you like, have such a strong view that the professional opinion is overridden.

[14:30]

I certainly do not want that, I have got no evidence to suggest that is the case anywhere, but it is a risk that may happen. Equally, we can have the other way: when we have got dominant professional advisers and weak Members, the reverse situation, and we do not want that. I think we depend on these one-to-one relationships and I think they need to be managed, they need to be in a governance structure. So, for that reason alone, I lean towards Senator Breckon’s proposal, not as some kind of retrospective witch hunt against the Minister for Treasury and Resources, it is about an event that has gone by, lessons learnt. I hope, having said that, that if the House do approve this, we do not spend too much money on it, because I really do not see it as a major task. If the key players were still in the post we could probably do it through a Scrutiny Committee, but we cannot. So with that, I look forward to listening to other Members, and perhaps when the Minister for Treasury and Resources speaks he could comment on those things that I have said. But that is, I think, my reasons for why I think there is mileage in this proposition.

8.1.3 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I do think it is appropriate that I say something. Perhaps the absence of speakers may well indicate we have got a big agenda; I think we do not want to be spending a lot of time on some of these issues. I am grateful for my Assistant Minister. I thought that there might have been a longer debate that we would need to be responding to. From a personal point of view, I have to say, I found this proposition and the process by it extremely personally difficult. I will respond to Deputy Young in a second. It is absolutely fine that politicians are challenged on matters of different policy approaches; that is what politics is about, and I am perfectly happy to get into the absolute proper robust discussion about policy options. Because we can agree to disagree, respectfully, about policy options, regardless of where one is on the political spectrum. This proposition is different, it is effectively questioning almost the integrity, the honesty of actions that took place. I have found that difficult. I do not mind being challenged on policy options, but when my integrity is being challenged, when what I did and what I said ... and I do not want to breach in any way Standing Orders, Sir, but the impression that this is a Committee of Inquiry because the truth has not been told ... I read the conclusion of that that my integrity and honesty is being challenged. I cannot think of any other reason why, when I have been completely transparent. I asked for a report, as the Assistant Minister said, to be done by Jersey Post, nothing to do with me. I have given States Members all of the emails that were published. This was apparently initially done on the basis of some conversations that Senator Breckon had. I have been completely open with Members. I have given Members all the email traffic that existed between myself and the chairman of Jersey Post. I found that personally difficult because, on this occasion, yes, my policy option choices can be challenged; that is part of the robust political debate, but when it descends into questioning one’s integrity and honesty, then I find that extremely difficult. Senator Breckon in his opening remarks said that a Freedom of Information request could follow to get the truth out. In some previous questions I have had new information that has come forward, the addendum that came last week. I have sent the email. If Members have seen that email, and I hope Senator Breckon has read it over the lunchtime adjournment, he will see almost the thing that people are saying, there is some sort of hidden work that Ministers do. There is a Minister faced with a decision asking for advice, receiving it and accepting it. What is wrong with that? I think the public and this Assembly wants to see Ministers question and ask about what is going on. As the Assistant Minister said, if Jersey Post would have disposed of the building at Broad Street ... and this is not about future plans of Broad Street, this is about what happened. I will just briefly say what I think will happen with the future Broad Street issue. I was asked: “Can we sell it?” Memorandum of Understanding, the Assistant Minister has said very clearly, that had to be the Minister for Treasury and Resources’ decision. It was specifically referred to. They had to ask advice. My predecessor was asked, I was asked and it was absolutely right. Members will remember Jersey Post went through a very difficult period; we had worries that the business was going to go bust, we had all sorts of other activities going on which the Treasury dealt with in relation to that, with an excellent chief executive, who then delivered £600,000 worth of savings. Was I right to question this issue? Yes, I was. Was I right to ask the linked issue of the effect on the Waterfront? Not saying that it should be dealt with, but asking the question. Absolutely right. My integrity has been questioned; I stand in this Assembly and say the truth and when I am asked to deliver, if I am asked about full transparency, Members have it, and I know the consequences of not telling the truth as a parliamentarian standing in this Assembly with the privileges that we have. So there must be no doubt, I hope, in Members’ minds, of the Treasury, Jersey Post and myself being completely transparent in this matter and that transparency has shown the real actions of a Minister: asking for advice, receiving it, taking it and then implementing it. What is the problem? What can be known? The Committee of Inquiry, if the States approve it - and I hope they do not - will cast a doubt on my integrity. Not only my integrity, because apparently there might be something I have not been honest about; well, if I am not honest, remove me from office, but I have been honest and so has, I have to say, the chairman of Jersey Post. As the Assistant Minister said, what happens, yes, there was a speculative request to sell it, advice was given. I said: “Jersey Post, if you want to sell it, sell it. We will certainly have a conversation about the revenue that you get from it if you do it”, that is absolutely the right thing to do. It is not Jersey Post’s money, it is taxpayers’ money that would have come from that sale, and everything else happened and the rest is absolutely clear. Just to address Deputy Young; I am grateful for his observations. He said that we should not have dominant politicians with passive advisers. The email from the chief executive of the States giving me advice was not passive advice, it was advice and perhaps he would not have wanted that email put into the public domain because it was characteristically robust and I had a difference of opinion at the time with the chief executive, but the chief executive gave me a good piece of advice. That is not passive advice, that is good advice and I took it and I accepted it. Tension is good, the Deputy is right. What he has done is, if I may say, gone into a territory which is beyond this Committee of Inquiry proposal about conflicts of interest. I would just remind him that there are always conflicts of interest within Ministries; of course, Property Holdings ... and I will not wind the Deputy up, I was just going to say something factually, but he will know about this and he will understand this: there was a conflict of interest in Property Holdings being at planning when he was chief officer of Planning. That might have been a terrible conflict, being the actual decision-maker of States property. That was a worse conflict, I would say to the Deputy, and I would hope he would agree with it. Of course, there are conflicts and big jobs in terms of the Treasury, and that is why, even though the Treasury used to have 2 Assistant Ministers, I have got one brilliant Assistant Minister. But the Property Holdings issue was always carved out, so the Deputy is right, Property Holdings was carved out with the delegated responsibility of the Assistant Minister having it. So that has happened. Treasury has got big workloads and could always do with more people that can advise Assistant Ministers going forwards; perhaps that might be the right thing to do. The balance sheet is something that we have taken very seriously, and those utilities. Question time is often dominated by Treasury oversight of those utilities. But to cast this issue as far as one person is concerned, if I may respectfully say to the Deputy, is also not quite right. I am not the sole decision-maker; Ministers have to act upon advice and I and the Assistant Minister get good advice from Property Holdings, and we have made a great deal of progress on this. Jersey Post is now in a much better state than those difficult times there. They may well want to change their strategy with Broad Street, but those are matters for the future. Of course, the bank, in terms of it was talking about potentially buying Jersey Post, has now made their decision and that building has now been built and absolutely congratulations to the entity, which is now committed to Jersey, and which was the most important thing about that, keeping that bank and committed to Jersey. There is nothing, I believe, apart from a further period of doubt, and a question mark hanging over myself and the chairman of Jersey Post, that a Committee of Inquiry is given. If any Member has any question, and I have had no questions from Members since this proposition has been launched. One Member may have come to see me, I think, about it; forgive me, I cannot quite remember. We have been absolutely open, completely transparent. I would just add one further thing about the individual who wrote the Jersey Post report: that individual used to be the chief internal auditor for States of Jersey; a highly-respected individual and doing a great job as a finance director. I worked with that individual as a member of the Finance and Economics Committee and I can tell Members that that nothing will pass that individual by in terms of facts and fearless reporting. Finance directors need to be fearlessly independent and I know that individual, and it would not matter who it was, she is professional beyond doubt. Members, I hope, can have reassurance that it is not me only saying the facts have been put in, but it is the finance director of Jersey Post that has done it. There has been a lot of heartache on this proposition, I say to Senator Breckon. I wish he would withdraw it and I wish he would say that the facts have been put out and he is satisfied, but he does not seem to be that. I find that personally quite hurtful and quite difficult and I hope Members reject the proposition.

Deputy J.H. Young:

Sir, a clarification, if I may. The Minister referred to the conflict of interest that was Planning with Property, which was 10 years ago. Could he confirm that it was 10 years ago when that responsibility was held by a committee of 7 members and not by a single Minister?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Yes, happy to do so. Yes, but of course there was a single chief officer who was responsible for both of those issues. So conflicts are there, we just deal with them. It is not criticising the Deputy, he does not need to make these clarifications. I am saying there are conflicts and one deals with them. I am not being critical, I am just stating the facts; he should not be so sensitive.

Deputy J.H. Young:

Sorry, but it does sound that there was an implied criticism, the last remark; I would like him to confirm that there were professional directors in respect of both of those departments which were separate.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I have nothing further to add. I was President of that committee for 2½ years.

8.1.4 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I am pleased to follow on from the Minister for Treasury and Resources. I am not sure that he has to defend himself on this issue, as he seems to feel is necessary. From the evidence before me, I do not see that he has done anything which any other reasonable person would not have done. What I am inclined to do is to take a similar vein to that of Deputy Young, and that is: I would hope that if this proposition was adopted that the terms of reference would allow the process to be examined to see whether it was appropriate in the context of Ministerial government. Because I do have concerns about the conflicts that a single person must basically have with himself as to how he is going to operate in this environment. I think clarification on that issue would be helpful to good management and I am inclined to support the proposition on those grounds, that hopefully the terms of reference would allow such conclusions to be made on that aspect.

8.1.5 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I must admit, when the proposition was lodged, I did rather hope it would never come to having a debate in this Assembly because I thought it was automatically going to be a difficult debate because, as has been alluded to by both the Assistant Minister and the Minister, there are obviously other individuals involved other than politicians and they are incredibly well-respected individuals.

[14:45]

I will say, and I was slightly disappointed it never happened, I suggested to the Chief Minister that the whole matter could have been resolved, I am not saying quietly, but one could have had a very small working group of some politicians, which the Chief Minister could have appointed with Senator Breckon involved, to go and have a look at the correspondence and then that would have solved the matter. At least then one would have got to the facts of the matter without having this kind of airing, but that did not happen. All I can say, and I think in certain terms the Minister for Treasury and Resources will be surprised to hear that I agree with him in certain areas; it is right for the Minister for Treasury and Resources to consider what happens to the proceeds of any disposal. Within those considerations, of course, we look at the history of the J.E.C., which sold a similar building, and the States got a special dividend out of it. I think that was one of the issues in there. Whereas I would rather suspect, and I cannot recall at that point, that the financial position of Jersey Post would have been somewhat different. So obviously the issue within that is: would that money have been of a significant source of potential investment into the future for Jersey Post? Also, I agree with the comments of both Deputy Young and Deputy Baudains, that if something does come out of this, it is of course, about, well, can we get a positive out of it in terms of process. Trying to look at this objectively, and I do try and look at it very objectively, is that I find there are bits of information that, if I was trying to put it together with what I have got, I cannot get them to match up. So we know at one point in time that the Minister for Treasury and Resources considered, which was his right, blocking the Jersey Post office deal, no question about that, that is what is in the 2009 email. But, other than that, we do not really have much other information as to what has happened. The reason behind why it is quite important is because if you do not challenge these types of things then how do you get to the point of keeping Ministers to account? For example, going back, if the Minister for Treasury and Resources did in some shape or form block, interfere or slow down the deal such that the deal has failed, then obviously Jersey Post lost out on £7 million of investment potentially, and that makes it quite important. But the Minister also said in response to I think it was Deputy Southern, that he did not meet with the bank on the subject of moving to the Waterfront, and he has in the past talked about keeping any dealings with W.E.B. or S.o.J.D.C. at arm’s length. Now, what the conflicting information is, is that when this originally came out, we were told that the Jersey Post never even got to the point of negotiating on price. That is clear; that was in one of the correspondences. But we then received what seems to be a version 8 of ‘Heads of Terms’, which clearly includes an amount of £7 million. So I am trying to be objective, but all I can say is I have got a bit of information here which says one thing, and I have got a bit of information here which says something different. And I have received an email from an individual, who I obviously will not identify here - but obviously I would forward it to a Committee of Inquiry or a review panel if it was needed - which basically does refer to the fact that negotiations did take place with the bank in question and implies, as far as they are concerned, that they got to a price, and I have had verbal confirmation as to the accuracy of the heads of terms that we received. I genuinely do not know the source of those heads of terms. In the minutes that were first provided we were told, I think, that there had been information received that the Treasury would not require significant payment of the sums from the disposal to be passed up to Treasury, whereas later on we were told that there was not an agreement. So at what point in the process was that reached? That comes down to how these things are finally decided, I think, which is a bit of a process. Then, finally, what I want to just mention is that obviously in the email that was originally circulated ... again sorry I can just refer to it, Senator Le Sueur says: “On that basis Senator Ozouf can advise Jersey Post we are not currently interested in the site and they should not delay any aspect of the deal on our behalf.” It has been confirmed today that the email clearly shows the Minister asking for advice, getting it, accepting it and implementing it, and that is okay. The difficulty I have there is that between the date of that email and the date of the minutes of Jersey Post in June and August, Senator Ozouf was invited to meet with the bank in question. The email says, and is from the Senator and it is addressed to the managing director of W.E.B: “Upon invitation, on Monday I met with the bank. They briefed me on their future plans, in particular the future of office plans requirements”, nothing, no problem there: “For my part, I advised them of the various States of Jersey objectives, including regeneration of St. Helier and options for the Broad Street area.” The problem I have there is that it is about how enthusiastically one gets behind a deal, because if you talk about the options and that the States might be considering doing office consolidation strategies at Jersey Post when previously we told Jersey Post to get on and do the deal, there is a conflict of information through. That is all I can say. That is all I have got. So, for me, on the face of what I have got, I have got conflicting information as to what happened. As Deputy Young says, to an extent, it is all past history, it does not matter. The only reason it matters is about Ministers being held to account and to determine if there is any better way or improvements that can be made to that type of process. I think, from my point of view a review - I would not have even gone down a Committee of Inquiry - would have been very useful to clear those issues up. It would have been useful very particularly for the Minister for Treasury and Resources, I think, because it would have justified what he had done, but it would clarify things. I think on that basis, I support the proposition but I am trying to do it in an objective manner and just trying to get to facts. That is what I want to say. Sorry; I should not say “facts” because that possibly casts aspersions. To try and identify the exact process and is there scope for improvements in how that process runs.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Sir, may I raise a point of order? Deputy Le Fondré has said that he believes that there were gaps in the information which supports a Committee of Inquiry. I have submitted a comment and made remarks that an independent report has been done by Jersey Post and I understand my obligations to be completely factually honest before this Assembly. I have said all the information has been given so I just would like some guidance as to whether or not the implication of a Member rising to say that there were gaps, is effectively saying that somehow I am not being complete and not being completely honest with this Assembly in information, because that seems to be the implication.

The Deputy Bailiff:

I did not hear the Deputy raise that as an implication, Senator.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

He used the word “gaps”, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff:

He certainly did talk about gaps but that is not necessarily an imputation on your integrity. A gap can arise either deliberately or accidentally or just in the course of conduct, and it does not necessarily reflect as a slur on integrity.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

But I have given complete information, Sir, and I have had that checked by Jersey Post, so if the implication is that there were gaps, which has been checked by my Treasury staff and Jersey Post, then effectively, Deputy Le Fondré is suggesting that that is incomplete and therefore there is a problem.

The Deputy Bailiff:

To make a ruling in your favour on that would be to prejudge what the effect of what the results of the Committee of Inquiry would be if the States were to consider it was appropriate to appoint one, and it does not appear to me that that would be the right course to follow.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Okay, then therefore, that is fair enough, Sir; the point is understood. But can I ask in clarification to Deputy Le Fondré, for the avoidance of doubt, is he suggesting that there are gaps in the information that the Minister for Treasury and Resources has given the Assembly for this debate? Because I just want to understand the implication of what Deputy Le Fondré has said. He has used the word “gaps”, Sir; what does he mean? Is he saying that something is incomplete? Because I take that extremely seriously.

The Deputy Bailiff:

You have been asked for clarification, Deputy. You do not have to give it, but if you choose to then it is a matter for you.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I am trying to think how I can change the word “gaps”, Sir. It is certainly not my implication or imputation, Sir. All I will say is from past professional experience when one has 2 arguments, sometimes there is a point in the middle where people come together. I am not impugning people’s reputations or anything along those lines at all. What I tried to indicate, Sir, in terms of the information I have been provided with, there are some ... I need another word, but contradictions, maybe, I do not know, or things where one view and another view do not seem to correlate. That, I think, I would appreciate clarification of what the position is. Until that point, I make no judgment on the matters. I have said I do not know the answer and I thought it would assist having this review (a) to try to identify how the process could be improved and (b) getting confirmation and clarification as to the state of affairs. That is it, Sir. Is that reasonable?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak? Then I call on Senator ... oh, sorry, Chief Minister.

8.1.6 Senator I.J. Gorst:

I appreciate the Minister for Treasury and Resources finds himself in a difficult situation, because this is largely to do with his actions, and we have just heard the previous speaker talking about that, and yet those who are speaking now in favour of accepting the Committee of Inquiry spoke after the Minister spoke and therefore he has not had the ability to address their concerns. So I think it is an inappropriate process and it was unfortunate that those Members who wished to support Senator Breckon felt that they wished to hold back after the Minister had spoken when the Assistant Minister purposefully tried to address the issues on behalf of the Minister in advance. Having said all that, the previous speaker suggested that he would have preferred a quiet review of individuals going to look at the files, made up, I think, of States Members and the mover of the proposition. I took the view that once Treasury had instigated their review and Jersey Post had instigated their review, I am not sure that there was anything further that could be added by politicians looking through that correspondence. As we know, the individual that undertook the review on behalf of Jersey Post was previously an internal auditor, so knew exactly what they were looking for. It is unfortunate when we find ourselves in situations like we do today, but I am satisfied with the work that Treasury have undertaken and the work that Jersey Post has undertaken. I think it is unfortunate that ... I hope by accident, and I believe by accident, that individuals’ reputations and actions have been impugned. I really hope that it is by accident and that was not meant in the way that it might have been indicated. Ministers have got difficult jobs, particularly the Minister for Treasury and Resources; they have to hold entities that they have shareholder responsibilities for to account. Barely a week goes by that some Member in this Assembly does not ask some question of miniscule detail about the functioning of those entities. Today, we have had car parking from an entity which is not even a States-owned or incorporated entity but a neighbouring entity of a States-owned incorporated entity, about what was the Minister going to do about this adjacent entity. We have also had questions about a specific directory and how it has been produced and whether the Minister can do something about that directory. Yet, we equally have now some individuals suggesting that Ministers should not hold those functions robustly and, when it comes to taxpayers’ money, hold those entities to account. I believe that is what the Minister did. When he asked the question, he received robust advice and he allowed the situation to continue. Of course, at the same time, the Minister had a piece of work being undertaken around office strategy and reorganisation of States accommodation. That seems to be a piece of work which is continually in progress and never coming to fruition. But hopefully we will deal with that, or whoever is here will deal with that, in the next 3 years. I think that the report that has been provided by the Treasury Department answers the questions that the mover is asking to be answered and therefore I see no reason then to move to a Committee of Inquiry. That report, to my reading, means that those people who might have felt that their reputation was being impugned through this process says that they have nothing to answer, both sides, Treasury and Jersey Post acted appropriately and therefore I hope that Members will reject this proposition.

[15:00]

8.1.7 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

Just very briefly. I am a little bit confused because I, unlike many States Members, do not believe that the Minister for Treasury and Resources’ integrity is being challenged here. I think there is an issue and it is a broader one of how do you balance the demands of a States-owned entity with the needs of the States overall? And it boils down to, in this particular instance, the focus is around one property: Broad Street. Obviously there was a clear desire for the Jersey Post to dispose of the assets to improve their balance sheet but there was equally a demand, that the Minister for Treasury and Resources, the Chief Minister and others have already mentioned, of other demands across the States in taking a broader view. I do not believe that any of those answers have been provided in the evidence given. All we have seen in the evidence provided is justification of the Minister’s actions who no one is suggesting are wrong but I do firmly believe, with regard to issues in the past around, I hate to mention it but Green Street and the police station, and this particular property. I think it would be great for us to really get a feel of whether or not we have the right checks and balances in place to ensure that we are making best use of States property and, equally, finding the right balance between meeting the needs, in this case of the States entity, and indeed the future needs of the States as a whole. So I do not believe that a Committee of Inquiry would be a disadvantage. In fact, I think it would enhance the Minister for Treasury and Resources’ position because I firmly believe that the evidence that has been provided to date does not point to a problem with the Minister for Treasury and Resources. It may point ... and I cannot answer that because the evidence is not there, that the overall process needs to be strengthened but that is still a question that has not been answered. I do accept that Senator Breckon has looked at various ways of addressing some of these issues and the timing with regards to elections and scrutiny Panel workloads has meant that that has not been possible. Quite clearly, a Committee of Inquiry is allowed. It is included in Standing Orders. It is an appropriate use and, as I say, it is not ... and I cannot find anywhere in here, whether it is designed to be some form of witch hunt, it is simply to look at something of public importance to ensure that what has been undertaken has been appropriate and if there are lessons to be learnt, that they are indeed identified and help in the further future government of this Island. So I, for one, will be supporting this proposition.

8.1.8 Deputy M. Tadier:

Planning is not my forte, it has to be said, because I find it generally quite boring but obviously we all need buildings in which to sit and maybe one day this building itself will also have disabled access so those Members who wish to come and watch and listen to the Assembly can benefit from that. What I am concerned about here is that is also process and I would like to put it in the wider context because it seems to me that if there are questions to be asked over one decision and over whether or not the site should have been used for a particular purpose and if certain judgments were made which perhaps were not correct or were proven to be incorrect in hindsight, what is the corollary of that? To put it simply, for example, what other purposes could the Esplanade Quarter have been used for and what could it still be used for? If we have made a complete mistake by trying very robustly and perhaps over-trying to get tenants in for offices that never needed to be filled in the first place because other properties were available, then that means we also risk making consequentially bad decisions. For example, we end up putting the police station in the wrong place. In our hearts of hearts, certainly the public know that the police station is in the wrong place. It should not be where it is being proposed. It is what is termed in the vernacular a “cock up” but no doubt that is not parliamentary language.

The Deputy Bailiff:

No, that is not parliamentary language and you will withdraw it.

Deputy M. Tadier:

I will withdraw it, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff:

It would have been better not to have used it in the first place.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Thank you, Sir. The same with the hospital. Everybody out there knows that the hospital should not be built on 2 different sites. It does not make any sense whatsoever and indeed we have a Scrutiny Report being released this week that says exactly the same. Therefore, the question in all of this is where is the accountability? When we make bad decisions, where is the independent advice that looks into that and do we continue to bury our heads in the sand when we know that there is a strong possibility that the Emperor has no clothes on? Do we just sit back and say: “I am going to put entire trust in either an individual or a process which may be flawed.” So for me, this is about a process but I will ask Senator Breckon perhaps to make the case more robustly when he sums up because I think he needs to do that to convince other Members. But the point, it seems to me, superficially, is that there is a suggestion that pressure, either correctly or incorrectly, was put on the Post Office and R.B.C. (Royal Bank of Canada) so that the R.B.C. would not inhabit the current Post Office building because they were the preferred tenants for the Waterfront. That is what it boils down to and if the Senator has strong evidence for that or if he thinks that that is the case, he needs to make that case in the summing-up. That is what it boils down to. That is what the story is going around with some members of the public. The bottom line is, if we are to restore confidence and to draw a line under this, then a Committee of Inquiry seems to be the most obvious way to be able to do that, both to clear Senator Ozouf’s name, who has been making the case for himself today quite rightly, but more fundamentally to look at those issues of process when a government is engaging in free enterprise, what is it that the whole level playing field scenario needs to be looking into? How do we, as a Government, engage in what is essentially State capitalism, while at the same time making sure that we have the right checks and balances. That should be welcomed by the Minister for Treasury and Resources. That should be welcomed by the Council of Ministers and that is why, I believe, we need this Committee of Inquiry.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak? Then I call on Senator Breckon to reply.

8.1.9 Senator A. Breckon:

In response to Deputy Tadier, I would just like Members to be clear that in no way, shape or form have I been involved in any negotiations or discussions over the Post Office, possible tenants, the Waterfront or any of that. I have never been involved whatsoever and I have no background knowledge of who might be going where or whatever. I just was not involved with that at all. Deputy Noel said that the board should be left to manage and I totally agree with that but of course, there need to be checks and balances and accountability and that is really what this proposition is about. As the Deputy of St. Ouen has just mentioned, where else was I to go to get that work done? I believe it needs to be done. It is transparency and if it is as we have seen so far, it is not an issue to anybody. Neither was it about an individual, nor was it about their honesty or integrity. It is about process and what has been done and I think, to me that is a red herring. It is not relevant. We have a board at the Post Office. They are paid people and have to be accountable and that is really where it stops for me. People who know me, there is no other agenda. There is not another agenda. We have people in place with lots of experience. It is about them making professional decisions whether in the public sector or the private sector and it is that coming together. As I say, I was not involved in that at all. But what it is about, it is about clarity of policy and Deputy Noel used an expression about a Ministerial consent. Well, that is a new one that is not ... you know, the Minister might say it is okay but it is not something that is an official record. Ministerial Decisions are published and people can look at them and in some cases look at the report attached to it. That has never happened so a Ministerial consent, which goes back to June 2008, may well have happened and it is recorded there but then, what was it? It is qualified, it says certain things but that ... and he said that has never been withdrawn. It has not been withdrawn because it was not, in my opinion, the framework that should have been there to say: “Well, yes we are going to do this”, or: “No, we are not.” Because I still have not seen that. I have not seen that and I would say that in some of the papers, it does say a meeting was held in August 2009 with the Minister. Well, if we have an A.G.M. and we have a business planning process, where was that in this process? It is not evident to me and the Minister said he has to make a decision. Well, he might have to make a decision but I have not seen it. I do not know and no Member in this House has said today what that decision was. Was it to sell the Post Office to a potential tenant, whoever that may be, at a price to be agreed and substantiated by the advisers to the Post Office board and then that was up to the Minister to agree that. The second part of that is who gets the money? There seems to be, to me, some tug of war about the Post Office maintaining the money for a strong balance sheet and perhaps, to use the term, to diversify into non-regulated activities. Now, that could be anything. It could have been selling mobile phones or whatever they might have decided to do and that seems to be their plan but, you know, that is from the bits and pieces that are being put together. Deputy Le Fondré mentioned that there could have been a review. Well, yes, there could have been a review but it was not my gift to do that and that was something in a conversation with him that he suggested and as the Chief Minister said, they had that conversation and he did not think it was appropriate. He felt that there was enough information. The other thing that Deputy Le Fondré mentioned that Senator Ozouf never mentioned was the Minister for Treasury and Resources having a meeting with a potential purchaser. That was not mentioned and it is not in any documentation. Now, that could have been anything else but Deputy Le Fondré has quoted bits from that particular email which is not before Members today. So, in conclusion, I would just like to say that lots of people’s time has been taken up here. Now, if you were an individual or a company and you were negotiating with the States and this is what has happened, then people would say: “Well, you know, stay well away. They are a nightmare to deal with. You know, they make their mind up or they do not or they change their mind or whatever they do.” For me, that indecision seems to have been there but the other thing ... there is a bottom line to this because it is... the Post Office belongs to the people and there is accountability through the Minister for Treasury and Resources and this House but there is public sector money involved. Now, if there was a sale price then that is something that either could have come in ... the Post Office perhaps could have been re-sited in town. There were discussions on that, I understand. The money could have either come back to the States or it could have been used by the Post Office. Now we have neither. We have neither now because the potential purchaser has decided to move somewhere else but retain the office that they have in town. So say that they wanted to move lock, stock and barrel somewhere else has not happened either. So there is enough doubt ... I believe that it is worth having a Committee of Inquiry. Now, some Members have mentioned the cost but I believe it will be less than many of the Scrutiny reviews. It will not be long and, as I said, it will not cost much. I believe it is appropriate because it is a check and a balance and the Minister for Treasury and Resources should, I believe, welcome it and not reject it. On those grounds, I maintain the proposition and I ask for the appel.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Sir, may I ... I am reluctant to do this, Sir, but may I make a point of information because Senator Breckon has said that the advice is not clear.

The Deputy Bailiff:

That sounds like a second speech.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Sir, there is point that ...

The Deputy Bailiff:

I appreciate your concerns about the process but ...

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

It is a point of clarification. Senator Breckon has said that the decision was not clear in his closing remarks. He has had an email that says ... I asked for advice, the chief executive made very clearly what that advice was.

[15:15]

Senator Breckon has it and yet he is saying that he is not clear. It is very clear, Sir. The point of information in the Senator’s summing up is incorrect. He has the advice. The advice is there, it was accepted.

The Deputy Bailiff:

I am sorry, Senator. That is a second speech. All that information is attached in the proposition.

Senator A. Breckon:

Sir, I never said that. I said there was not a Ministerial Decision. I never questioned the advice that was given by ...

The Deputy Bailiff:

The debate is now closed and I invite Members to return to their seats. The vote is on the proposition to establish a Committee of Inquiry as proposed by Senator Breckon and I ask the Greffier to open the voting. Have all Members had the opportunity of voting?

POUR: 14	CONTRE: 30	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator A. Breckon	Senator P.F. Routier
Senator S.C. Ferguson	Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)	Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)	Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)	Senator F.du H. Le Gresley
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)	Senator I.J. Gorst
Deputy of St. Ouen	Senator P.M. Bailhache
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)	Connétable of St. Helier
Deputy M. Tadier (B)	Connétable of Trinity
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)	Connétable of St. Clement
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)	Connétable of St. Peter
Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)	Connétable of St. Lawrence
Deputy J.H. Young (B)	Connétable of St. Mary
Deputy S.Y. Mézec (H)	Connétable of St. Ouen
	Connétable of St. Martin
	Connétable of St. Saviour
	Connétable of Grouville
	Deputy of Grouville
	Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
	Deputy of Trinity
	Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
	Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
	Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
	Deputy J.P.G. Baker (H)
	Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
	Deputy of St. Mary
	Deputy of St. Martin
	Deputy R.G. Bryans (H)
	Deputy of St. Peter
	Deputy R.J. Rondel (H)

The Deputy Bailiff:

I am going to ask the Greffier to take the chair for a moment.