Under F, Appointment of Ministers, Committees and Panels, I understand there is a nomination for appointment to the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel. Deputy Southern.

1.1 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:

May I just briefly say that I am pleased to be able to invite the Constable of St. Martin back on to the Health, Social Services and Housing Panel, and I am even more pleased that he has accepted but I understand there is an offer, at this time, that any other Member who wishes to serve on the Scrutiny Panel may choose to be nominated, so I await the rush just in case there should be.

The Bailiff:

You are nominating the Constable of St. Martin, is that seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Very well, I have pleasure in declaring the Connétable of St. Martin elected to the Health, Social Services and Housing Scrutiny Panel. [Approbation]

1.1.1 Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:

I would like to thank Deputy Southern for his kind invitation. I was not aware that I had resigned [Laughter] prior to my recent surgical operation, but I am very pleased to be back and I hope to be of help. Thank you.

The Bailiff:

A resignation without knowledge, that is a new one. [Laughter] We come on to Questions, and first of all Written Questions.

QUESTIONS

2. Written Questions

2.1 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLIANCE OF THE DRAFT DRUG TRAFFICKING LAW:

Question

Will the Minister inform Members why, in his view, the Draft Drug Trafficking Offences (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.106/2010) is convention compliant and what Articles are relevant?

Answer

In my view this draft Law is compatible with the Convention rights based on the advice that has been provided to me by the Law Officers’ Department.

The States debated the Deputy’s proposition P.84/2010 (Human Rights Law: statements of compatibility) in July 2010, and voted against adopting the proposition. The resource implications of providing the information that the Deputy requested were quantified as being the equivalent of an additional Legal Adviser post within the Law Officers’ Department. That Department does not have this additional resource and it is, in my view, unfortunate that the Deputy now appears to be seeking to achieve his aim by asking this type of question whenever a draft Law is lodged.

2.2 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLIANCE OF THE DRAFT INCOME TAX LAW:

Question

Given that in response to my written question dated 13th September 2010 (No. 5602) the Minister for Treasury and Resources stated that the Draft Income Tax (Amendment No. 35) (Jersey) Law 201- was considered convention compliant because it applied the existing Income Tax Law (which already applied to partnerships) to the new Partnerships Laws, would the Minister advise why the existing Income Tax Law is convention compliant and what Articles are relevant?”

Answer

On 19th July, 2002 the Comptroller of Taxes sent a letter to the Chair of the Human Rights Working Group at the Policy and Resources Department stating that he had carried out an audit of the Income Tax (Jersey) Law 1961, as amended, together with an audit of procedures and practices. He enclosed a signed and dated declaration that the Income Tax Department had completed such an audit for compliance with the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000. It is the Comptroller’s opinion that all the Articles and provisions of the Income Tax (Jersey) Law 1961. as amended, are Human Rights compliant.

2.3 DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING STATES PURCHASE CARD EXPENDITURE:

Question

How much money was spent on purchase cards by Chief Officers in the last 2 years by department and how much was spent by their secretaries on purchase cards for the same period?

Answer

Period 1st September 2008 to 31st August 2010
Department	Amount (£)
Department	Chief Officer	PA / Secretary
Chief Minister’s	6351.99	N/A
(Resources)	556.00	N/A
Treasury & Resources	518.24	6,354.78
Home Affairs	1,423.58	N/A
Economic Development	6,561.66	118.49
Education Sport & Culture	1,832.81	2,239.98
Health & Social Services	N/A	N/A
Housing	N/A	No PA / Secretary
Transport & Technical Services	555.31	256.07
Social Security	-	-
Planning & Environment	185.63	11,604.74
Jersey Harbours	24,738.11	2,003.54
Jersey Airport	21,323.68	4,967.63

N.B. During the stated period, States Departments moved to an automated reporting system for purchase card spending through JD Edwards. The figures reported do not include money spent prior to this move as this would involve resource-intensive and time-consuming analysis of monthly paper returns from card holders. The benefits of providing this information are not considered to outweigh the costs involved and would mean diverting staff from other critical activity or, potentially, buying in the resource needed. All Departments moved to the new system at various dates throughout the period.

Included are all Chief Officers of Ministerial Departments, the Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Chief Officer, Resources) and the Chief Officers of the Trading Departments.

Where N/A is stated – the person in that role does not hold a States purchase card.

As stated in Financial Direction 5.9 the Social Security Department do not use States purchase cards.

It should be noted that secretaries and PAs use their purchase cards for booking travel and accommodation for their whole departments and not just the Chief Officer in accordance with the States policy in respect of purchase cards.

The legal costs identified by Deputy Pitman are not being met from the Health and Social Services budget. The Deputy Judicial Greffier is responsible for the payment out of public funds for lawyers in public law children’s cases. The details of this case are set out in the response to written question 5596 to H.M. Attorney General by Senator Perchard tabled on the Monday 13th September 2010.

2.8 DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT STATES SITTINGS:

Question

Given that attendance throughout States Sittings is required under the States of Jersey Law unless ill, on official States business or otherwise excused by the Assembly and that all States Members are effectively being paid by the Island’s taxpayers to attend these meetings (for usually six and a half hours per day for two or three days per fortnight throughout the year with an hour and a half lunch break) in order that Members can listen to and analyse any arguments made in support of or against propositions so that they may then vote from an informed position in the best interests of the taxpaying public, will the Chairman clarify what sanctions, if any, can be brought against Members who abuse the allotted lunch hour to return hours late and/or regularly leave the States building premises for prolonged periods during debates for unofficial reasons; and if none, what action, if any, does the Committee propose to take to address these concerns?”

Answer

The Committee has noted concerns that there are some elected members who appear to spend a significant amount of time outside the States Chamber during States sittings. Standing Orders do not provide for sanctions for those who regularly absent themselves from the Chamber. It is worthy of note that the States Assembly is unusual in its expectation that members will attend meetings unless they have compelling reasons not to do so. Many jurisdictions do not impose any formal obligation to attend meetings of parliament.

In addition, the quorum of the States Assembly is much higher than elsewhere, making it considerably more difficult to absent oneself from the consideration of public business.

The Committee believes that it is the responsibility of members to uphold the requirements of the Code of Conduct and to adhere to their oath of office. Senators and Deputies swear an oath in which each they promise before God, or alternatively affirm as follows –

Form of oath to be taken by Senators and Deputies

You swear and promise before God that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of (Senator) (Deputy); that you will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to Law; that you will uphold and maintain the laws, privileges, liberties and franchises of Jersey, opposing whomsoever may wish to infringe the same; that you will attend the meetings of the States whenever you are called upon to do so; and generally that you will fulfil all the duties imposed upon you by virtue of the said office. All of which you promise to do on your conscience.

The Connétables also make a similar commitment as part of their oath - “assistant aux Etats lorsque vous en serez requis” (“attending the States where you are required to do so”).

Monitoring presence or absence from the States Chamber would not be an exact science, and would require staffing to implement. Some brief absences are perfectly understandable, and it would be necessary to distinguish between a brief absence and an unacceptable more prolonged one. This might need to be coupled with finding out whether the member is undertaking important business in connection with his function as a States member and if the reason for absence is satisfactory.

The Committee believes it should not be necessary to monitor members’ attendance in this way, given that the Oath of Office charges the member to attend meetings of the States ‘on his or her conscience’. It would be difficult for the Committee to address a question of conscience if a complaint were received that a member had breached paragraph 2 of the Code of conduct for elected members, which states:

“Elected members must give due priority to attendance at meetings of the States in accordance with the terms of their oath of office and should be present in the Chamber when the States are meeting unless they have very compelling reasons not to do so.”

Should the Privileges and Procedures Committee receive a complaint with evidence that a member has breached paragraph 2 of the Code, it would endeavour to consider it in accordance Standing Orders and determine any sanction accordingly.

The Committee is conscious of finding ways to address the matter of absence from the States Chamber. There was concern that members were leaving the Chamber for long periods of time in order use the computer room on the ground floor of the States Building for example to refer to Hansard or to Reports on matters relevant to the ongoing debate. The Committee hopes to have addressed this to some extent with the installation of computers directly outside the Chamber which should be used for quick reference during debates.

2.9 DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING POSSIBLE TAXATION INITIATIVES:

Question

Further to suggestions within the public consultation document regarding possible taxation initiatives to increase taxation rates on those earning more than £100.000 to 30%, will the Minister outline how much additional taxation revenue could be brought in by –

(a) taxing individuals earning £100,000 or above at 25%.

(b) taxing households (couples) earning £100,000 or above at 25%.

What evidence, if any, exists to suggest that such an initiative would cause individuals to leave the Island?

What evidence, if any, existed to justify the suggestion that individuals might leave if taxed at 30% as included in the consultation document on possible taxation alternatives?"

Answer

The amount of extra tax from 25% over £100k income would be around £15 million based on Jersey’s database of individuals and married couples. It was not possible to calculate what the extra revenue would be for everyone on an individual basis in the time available.

Increasing our standard rate of income tax to 25% or 30% would be a significant change to our tax regime which would put us above that of our main competitors such as Guernsey, Isle of Man and Singapore, and end our reputation of long term stability.

The consultation report [1] which analyses the responses by individuals and businesses stated:

“However, many thought the option would be detrimental to business, and to the island as a whole… some were concerned that businesses and high earning residents would relocate or that Jersey would be less attractive to new businesses."

Jersey Finance, based on their own survey which saw input from over 1,200 individuals and firms, responded to the consultation. They discussed the possible impacts on job quality and numbers, entrepreneurship and the loss of international competitiveness and reputation for stability. They ended by saying “In summary it is our opinion that a 30% tax rate would be disastrous for the Island economy.”

2.10 DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE BUSINESS PLAN:

Question

Following Senator B.E Shenton’s decision to withdraw the vast majority of the numerous amendments he had lodged to the Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010) shortly before the actual debate, after States Members had spent time preparing for the debates, would the Chief Minister advise what approximate cost was incurred by the taxpayer for the time spent considering and researching responses to these amendments by the various Ministers and their departmental staff?

Answer

The amendment process is part of the democratic process, and is set out by the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 200-. It gives States Members an opportunity to suggest changes to the draft Business Plan after it has been lodged.

Unfortunately it is not possible to provide meaningful and accurate estimates of the cost of this process without incurring further costs to the taxpayer. However it easy to see that this process resulted in a significant piece of work, particularly in light of the number of amendments received, for both officers and Ministers. This work, involving hundreds of hours of officers time, was carried out over a short period of time from the deadline of the Amendments being submitted to the Greffe up until the debate.

2.11 DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE CARE OF VULNERABLE CHILDREN:

Question

Will the Minister advise the age of the child suffering with ‘serious’ liver damage from alcohol abuse who has not been to school for 18 months and is the alleged victim of years of sexual abuse has had to be ‘locked up’ because no suitable accommodation is available?'

Will she advise where this child would have been admitted to under normal circumstances and explain - in detail- why this was not possible on this occasion?

Answer

States Members are reminded of the following requirement which appears in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct -.

“… members should not disclose publicly, or to any third party, personal information about named individuals which they receive in the course of their duties unless it is clearly in the wider public interest to do so. Elected members must at all times have regard to all relevant data protection, human rights and privacy legislation when dealing with confidential information and be aware of the consequences of breaching confidentiality.”

It is my opinion that any further disclosure of information in relation to this case or the individual concerned serves no public interest and indeed would only increase the risk of causing significant damage to the individual in addition to adding to the potential for their personal identification.

Whilst matters of policy should quite rightly be exercised in the public domain, it is unhelpful for individual cases of such sensitivity and complexity to be the subject of a public running commentary.

If I were to provide the information requested I would, in my opinion, be acting contrary to the Code of Conduct and would risk breaching the duty of care owed to this individual to promote their welfare and as such I am not prepared to release the information requested.

I am however, pleased to provide Members with confirmation of the range of accommodation available to vulnerable young people in need. In terms of children’s homes La Preference provides for older young people 14-plus, whilst Heathfield focuses on a small number in the younger age group and the White House is a small therapeutic unit. Added to this is the availability of supported accommodation at St. Mark’s Hostel and through our partner agency the Jersey Association for Youth and Friendship. In addition we have access to rented accommodation in the public and private sector for young people supported by the Care Leaving Team or other community based staff. These services are complemented by a range of foster placements, used primarily though not exclusively for younger children.

In terms of plans for the future, the Brig-y-Don premises will shortly be re-designed and re-furbished to create a new fit for purpose setting, facilitating the closure of one of the existing homes which is no longer appropriate for the provision of residential care to modern day standards. In addition, the old Les Chenes building is shortly to be developed into 6 purpose built bed sit units for young people moving towards independence.

As members will see, there is a substantial range of accommodation available now, with further improvements coming on line in the near future. However, that accommodation needs to be carefully matched to the child who requires it, taking into account not only their own needs but those of existing residents. The risk of unjustifiable disruption to the hard won stability of an existing resident group must be weighed in the balance, as must the risk to the new resident of exposure to adverse influence if joining a group of residents whose behaviours remain challenging and unstable. The specific vulnerabilities, wishes and feelings of all the individuals involved and the capacity of the care team to meet any specialist needs identified, must be carefully assessed and where necessary mitigated before a placement can be made. It is for this reason that, notwithstanding the good and growing range of placement alternatives which exist, it is not always possible to immediately access an appropriate setting, and there are equally times when an identified setting suddenly becomes unavailable because of the greater need of another child. I can assure members that when such difficulties arise, my officers work swiftly and creatively to promptly identify and put in place appropriate alternatives.

2.12 DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE FOUR SEASONS GROUP:

Question

Is the Minister satisfied that the Highlands Residential Home or its parent company, the Four Seasons Group, are in a secure financial situation to fulfil their obligations to the Health and Social Services Department and what enquiries, if any, has the Minister made to determine this is the case?

Answer

In order to provide some context to the Deputy of St. Brelade’s question, it is important to note that the Four Seasons Health Care Group is the third largest commercial provider of care homes in the United Kingdom (UK).

The Group operates approximately 16,730 beds within 420 care homes. 80% of their clients are funded by UK Local Health Authorities and the National Health Service. This provides a solid business base. In addition, the Group owns 68% of the homes it operates which gives it a strong asset base. The Group also enjoys a reputation better than the industry average for the quality of its homes, where 84.5% of the homes are classified as good or excellent.

As far as Jersey is concerned the Group operates three homes namely Silver Springs, La Haule and Highlands, all of which enjoy a good reputation for the quality of care provided and they continue to fulfil their obligations to the Health and Social Services Department.

The department is fully aware of the financial situation of Four Seasons Health Care Group as a result of its financial due diligence processes. This is a staged process whereby a financial picture of a third party organisation is built-up through review of local accounts to group accounts and if felt necessary the purchase of an independent Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B) comprehensive finance risk report.

In the case of the Four Seasons healthcare group the D&B report indicated a high risk of business failure which led to exchanges with the group’s Commercial Director and ultimately to a meeting with him and senior officers of my department in May 2010.

I would want to assure the Deputy and the House that my Department has and will continue to monitor the financial situation facing the Group balanced against the risk of delayed discharge in the hospital and the lack of suitable alternative provision for this client group on the Island.

2.13 DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE IMPRISONMENT OF A DIAGNOSED SCHIZOPHRENIC:

Question

In the context of the recent situation where a diagnosed schizophrenic was 'reluctantly' sent to prison by the court because no other suitable facility was available, will the Minister advise where the individual, in this particular case, should have been sent, why he was not and whether the Minister considers that this is satisfactory?

Will he also advise what steps, if any, he is taking to resolve this situation and/or similar situations happening again?”

Answer

Sentencing policy is a matter for the courts.

There are difficulties in Jersey in this area, which are caused by the familiar problem of a small jurisdiction not being able to provide the full range of services which would be provided in a larger jurisdiction. This particularly applies in the area of secure accommodation for psychiatrically ill offenders. In the UK there are a number of levels of security for such people from Rampton and Broadmoor down to low levels of security.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that prisoners who are suffering from mental illness and are taking medication may be well for long periods of time. If they become ill then arrangements are made for them to be temporarily transferred to a psychiatric hospital under prison guard. The big area of difficulty arises in relation to psychiatric prisoners who are ill for most of the time. In recent years the position has improved with a number of these having been transferred to secure psychiatric hospitals in the UK. In recent years there has also been an improvement in services within the prison.

The prison has a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist who visits the prison on a weekly basis to carry out assessments and provide professional care and support. The prison also benefits from the services of a Community Psychiatric Nurse who attends one day per week to manage a prisoner case load and three of the Prison’s nurse officers are Registered Psychiatric Nurses. Most prisoners with a history of mental illness are kept stable by the administration of appropriate medication.

I have, in the past, held meetings with the Minister for Health and Social Services to discuss this issue and it is the subject of ongoing discussions. Although the current situation is not ideal, I accept that it is the best which can be provided within the available resources.

2.14 DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING ZERO/TEN TAXATION:

Question

Will the Minister state whether anything was officially given in writing from the European Union and/or the UK Government that lead to his belief that 'Zero/Ten', in its current form, would be EU compliant and, if so, will he provide the relevant text?

With regard to Zero/Ten, will he advise whether he has received any feedback from the Jersey public in relation to the policy’s apparent inequity (where local companies pay tax locally and non-local ones, trading in Jersey, do not)?

Will the Minister advise if and how he is planning to amend Zero/Ten as it currently stands? If there are no amendments, will he say if and by what mechanisms he is planning to recapture lost revenue from non-resident companies trading in the Island?”

Answer

Jersey’s Zero/Ten regime has not yet been formally assessed by the Code Group and as a result no formal communication has been received. However during the design and implementation of the regime public assurance was given that a Zero/Ten regime would not be harmful.

As set out in the consultation document, public reports from ECOFIN and the Code Group issued in 2003 and 2006 respectively made it clear that Jersey’s proposed replacement regime was not considered to be harmful by the Code Group.

Specifically, in the report of the ECOFIN meeting dated 3rd June 2003 it states:

‘…the Code Group has considered the proposed revised or replacement measures….and…has found that none of these are harmful within the meaning of the Code.’

This report refers to a Code Group report which shows clearly that Jersey’s Zero/Ten regime was included as one of the proposed replacement measures.

The relevant wording in the Code Group’s report to ECOFIN dated 28th November 2006 is set out in the consultation document. Although this report specifically referred to the IOM’s regime, the concept is the same and so it was clear that even in 2006 there was support for the Zero/Ten regime. There has been no subsequent statements by ECOFIN or the Code Group to suggest that this view has changed.

There were a number of comments in the responses to the public consultation that refer to the apparent inequity of the Zero/Ten regime. A summary of responses to the consultation will be published in due course.

As set out in the public consultation document, the review is investigating whether it is possible to recoup any of the loss from business that resulted from the introduction of Zero/Ten. This inequity is recognised and if possible it will be addressed but only if there is a solution which will not result in the net decrease in tax contributed by business. It is important that there is a full understanding of the impact of any alternative regime before any decision is made to make any changes. Also given the fact that the Code Group is about to assess the regime, it would be imprudent to make any changes at this time. In fact the EU Commission advised Government officials directly that making changes to the regime during the assessment process can cause confusion and may affect the outcome.

2.15 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE PRIVATISATION OR OUTSOURCING OF PUBLIC SERVICES:

Question

In the light of the potential for the privatisation or outsourcing of public service delivery in stage 2 of the CSR, can the Minister confirm that TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment) legislation has already been drafted?

Does he consider that such legislation needs to be in place as soon as possible and will he advise members when he intends to bring TUPE legislation to the Assembly?

Answer

Legislation to protect employees in business transfer situations has been drafted, subject to further discussion and resolution of one outstanding but fundamental point relating to the definition of a ‘relevant transfer’. This includes complex jurisdictional issues.

Advice has been received and discussion is ongoing. This is particularly important in view of the UK Coalition Government’s plan to review the scope of the definition of a ‘relevant transfer’ in their equivalent legislation.

The Minister is further considering these issues and will bring forward the legislation before the end of the year.

Whilst introducing the legislation is important, the Minister believes that providing the States continues to adhere to the principles of TUPE ahead of the legislation’s interpretation, improving States services and their efficient delivery should not be held up.

2.16 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC SERVICE CUTS ON VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS:

Question

In the light of the reservations expressed by Dr. Harkness in her report to the Corporate Services investigation of the CSR, will the Minister advise members what specific actions he will take to identify the extent to which public service cuts affect households’ welfare and in particular the poorest and most vulnerable amongst them?

Will he further undertake to produce an analysis of the impact of the proposals contained in stage 2 of the CSR on the poorest households along with the measures he proposes to protect these households?

Answer

The Council of Ministers is committed to minimising the impact of the CSR on vital public services and income support with the objective to minimise the impact on the less well-off in our society. In addition, by boosting economic growth, the intention is that any public sector job losses will have minimal impact as Dr. Harkness states. Ministers will continue to strike a balance between delivering savings and preventing tax rises but also protecting vital public services and the impact on all households, particularly the less well off in Jersey will be taken into account in the Council of Minister’s decision making.

2.17 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING POSTAL LICENCES:

Question

Will the Minister act to suspend any further action on the granting of additional postal licences until the employment and universal service provision issues at Jersey Post have been resolved, and if not why not?

Answer

The Postal Services Law (2004) has as its preamble the statement: ‘A LAW to abolish the exclusive privilege of the States in postal services’. The Law takes a pro-competition stance and gives the Minister certain duties, to perform his functions in such manner as he considers is best calculated to protect and further the interests of users of postal services, and to perform them, by promoting competition among persons engaged in commercial activities connected with postal services in Jersey. Other duties refer to promotion of efficiency, economy and effectiveness; to consider the economic interests of Jersey; and to impose a minimum of restriction on persons engaged in commercial activities connected with postal services. The Minister must also have regard to any special needs of persons who are disabled or have limited financial resources or have particular needs.

To effect this the Minister has a power to direct the JCRA on matters of social and environmental policy in postal services, but he does not have a power to prevent the JCRA from issuing a licence under the Law. As Members will note from the description of duties just mentioned, the Law states that the Minister should impose a minimum of restrictions by promoting competition. As such I simply cannot interfere with the lawful duties of the JCRA under the Law. What I can do, and have done, is revisit the Universal Service Obligation (USO). Analysis of the responses to the public consultation is near completion. If the results support a redefining of the USO then I will ask the JCRA to ensure that this is taken into account when it makes a decision on licensing third parties, indeed, I intend to present the results of the consultation to the States together with the comments of the JCRA so that the States can have an informed debate on the future of postal services in this Island. That is a debate that needs to take place, but it needs to take place in an informed way once the consultation report has been completed. I expect the department to have this ready by the second week of October.

2.18 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN RESPECT OF RENT RISES:

Question

In the light of large rises in rent levels in the private sector and the rent rise announced by the Jersey Homes Trust, what actions, if any, will the Minister consider putting in place to protect low-income households in the short term, while we await his longer term plans?

Will the Minister further assure members that any proposals he brings to stage 2 of the CSR will protect low-income households?

Answer

I am grateful for this question as it provides an opportunity for me to clarify responsibilities in this area.

Supporting low income households in being able to afford to adequately house themselves is a matter which, since the introduction of Income Support, has been the responsibility of the Minister for Social Security and his Income Support system.

It has been agreed that one of the States 2011 CSR savings will be to freeze the housing component of Income Support at 2010 levels. As a reaction to that and to protect social housing tenants in the short term I elected not to raise the capped level of the fair rents chargeable for social rented accommodation, as had been planned in October this year.

It is a fact that social housing rents are already significantly behind market levels and it is unrealistic to think that social housing rents can be frozen indefinitely. We should all be concerned that the variance to market rent levels provides a hidden subsidy for a proportion of tenants.

It is clear that rental values and house prices are closely correlated and driven by the general supply and demand for housing in the Island. It follows that the best way to remedy rising rents and house prices is to balance supply and demand, while providing social housing, benefits, and affordable housing schemes, such as Jersey Homebuy, to those least able to afford adequate housing on their own.

When it comes to providing financial assistance, the most effective way of helping low income families is through the Income Support system and not for the continuation of hidden subsidies which mask the problem and hide the true cost of social benefits.

A review of Income Support is planned and I will be working closely with the Minister for Social Security in respect of the housing component. We will ensure, through that process, that the impact of any future CSR savings on low income households is properly assessed.

In the long term, I am of the view that the only sustainable way of ensuring that those on limited incomes can adequately house themselves is through the provision of suitable affordable homes. I am committed to seeing the social housing sector grow and am relying on the Minister for Planning and Environment to ensure that the Draft Island Plan 2010 delivers sufficient numbers of affordable homes over the next 10 years.

2.19 DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING RESPITE CARE:

Question

Will the Minister advise how the lack of suitable care and respite units for vulnerable and/or chronically disabled children (e.g. Oakwell) is being addressed?

Will she advise how many beds there are at Oakwell; confirm that these are meant for short term 'respite' care and advise how many of these beds are currently being used for non-respite purposes (i.e., Monday-Friday or longer periods)?

Answer

Under normal circumstances there is no lack of suitable care and respite units for vulnerable and/or chronically disabled children. In comparison with many UK authorities Jersey, as a small jurisdiction, provides a good level of residential beds offering such residential respite care. We currently have Oakwell and Eden House, run by H&SS Special Needs Service, and Maison Allo, run by Les Amis on behalf of Jersey Mencap.

All of our services used for children’s residential respite have historically been used on a flexible basis and this remains so. Oakwell currently has four beds at its disposal and this unit has a primary role of providing short term respite care. It is regularly used for planned breaks, holiday breaks, shared care arrangements, and has on several occasions been used as a long term home for individual children.

It remains essential that H&SS is able to respond to statutory responsibilities to safeguard the welfare of children. This means we have to be flexible to respond to any prioritised need, on behalf of children and their families.

3. Oral Questions

3.1 Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John of the Chief Minister regarding the security of the States computer system:

How secure is the States computer system and access to the various databases, and have there been any breaches over the last 3 years through the loss or theft of equipment holding confidential information?

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

I am advised that there have been no reports of breaches of the States computer system in the last 3 years due to the loss or theft of equipment holding confidential information. The States computer system has many controls in place to prevent security breaches and is regularly audited. This security is generally found to be adequate, however there are continual improvements being implemented, often following audit recommendations. For example, following audit recommendations a pilot for encrypting data on laptop computers is scheduled for later this year.

3.1.1 The Deputy of St. John:

I am really surprised at the Minister’s response, and I must ask whether or not he checked with all of his Ministers, at the Council of Ministers, if that is correct. Will he confirm that I handed a U.S.B. (Universal Serial Bus) stick or dongle - call it what you will, - memory stick, registered to Social Security to the Minister for Social Security only at our last sitting, therefore will the Minister confirm that he has spoken to all the Ministers?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No, I directed my question to the head of computer services who is the person responsible for security of the system, and I specifically, knowing that the Deputy of St. John does not ask questions without a reason for it, pressed him on this point and he said that there had been no reports of breaches to him. I did not ask individual Ministers because it is the head of computer services who is responsible for security.

3.1.2 The Deputy of St. John:

Given that there has been a breach in the security within the computer system, will the Minister undertake a full review of the security system within our States and report back to this House within the next 6 weeks as to what he has found and speak to all his Ministers, in particular when it comes to sensitive equipment, like Social Security information, that is being left around?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I will certainly pursue the matter, but I would point out that the question talks about security within the computer system. I cannot speak for security of matters which are allied to but not directly linked in the computer system if dongles or U.S.B. pens or other things are left lying around, and this may well be the case. It is not something that has been reported to the department concerned. But I will take up the point of the Deputy.

3.2 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding the inclusion of local history in the educational curriculum:

Does the Minister believe that there is sufficient attention paid to learning about local history in the educational curriculum, and will he agree to promote research into and awareness of the significance of such events as those which took place on this day on 28th September 1769?

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

Local history always has and always will play a significant part in the school curriculum. For the past year significant time and resources have been invested in producing a new Jersey History Unit for the primary curriculum, which will be launched in early December. This unit of work includes the key topics in the development of Jersey’s independent status and relationship with the Crown. Currently the revolt that took place on 28th September 1769 is not identified as an individual topic on the timeline of significant events over the past 806 years. However, I will ask the researchers and authors to consider its inclusion.

[09:45]

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

I would just like to ask the Minister, once his people have done the research would he consider proposing, as the Minister for Culture, that it becomes a national holiday? We can celebrate our progressive history.

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

I know my duties are many but unfortunately I am not able to determine public holidays.

3.3 Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the use of Article 134A of the Income Tax (Jersey) Law 1961 over the past 10 years to prevent tax avoidance:

Will the Minister inform Members how many times the Comptroller of Income Tax has used Article 134A of the Income Tax (Jersey) Law 1961 annually over the past 10 years to prevent aggressive tax avoidance by individuals or companies, how much tax has been recovered from each and what is the estimated additional tax revenue which might be generated from greater attention to aggressive tax avoidance?

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

As everyone should know, I am very aware of the cost pressures within the hospital, and this will be done within a set budget. The Medical Director is an important role, and I said about the Deputy Medical Director. But also what is important too is the Associate leads and they will continue their clinical practice, but they will have a speciality in those 3 areas.

3.5.5 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

We have not really got to the bottom of the fact that we are, for instance, bringing in a Director of Informatics, but does this mean that there will be a reduction in the informatics section in the I.T. (information technology) Department in the hospital?

[10:00]

The Deputy of Trinity:

No, let me make it very clear. We are not bringing anybody in. One of the consultants has a special affinity - if that is the right word to use - on informatics, and good for him because informatics will be important and are important, especially as we go ahead into the future. So to have a clinical specialist with his lead on informatics… as well as education training and governance, and patient safety, which must be my number one priority.

3.6 Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding Members’ attendance at States meetings:

I would simply say that if that were the case it may well not be appropriate, but I am not alluding any kind of vendetta to the question the questioner has asked.

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

Just an observation really, it is normal in buildings where there are a lot of people working to have some sort of register of those who are in and out, purely for safety and fire records. Would it not be a consideration that P.P.C. would care to consider? Perhaps the Chairman would consider looking into that.

The Connétable of St. Mary:

The actual mechanics of whether people are in the building or in the Chamber are quite simple. We are in the Chamber, we are seen to be here. We are in the building because we swiped-in or swiped-out. That is not really the crux of the matter. The crux of the matter is determining why people are not here at any one time. That is where my concerns about intrusion and also the level of detail that would be required rest. The actual physical presence in the building is something quite easy to ascertain.

3.6.5 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I think every year the P.P.C. produces an annual report of the work done in the Chamber, the number of hours used for debating, the number of propositions lodged, et cetera, has the P.P.C. given consideration maybe of showing the number of States sittings that each individual Member attends, also the number of votes each Member is present for, because no doubt that may be quite illuminating to members of the public.

The Connétable of St. Mary:

This information is available on the website generally, especially where electronic votes are taken, but as has been pointed out in the past, when this kind of analysis had been undertaken on an ad hoc basis, there are many reasons why the results were skewed. For example, there might be a whole host of minor votes taken within a half hour period and a Member who was out for just half an hour could miss, say, 8 votes, whereas on another day there might be one piece of business taking the whole day, and Members could be in and out and that not even be recorded by votes. While these ideas are very nice to put forward - and, as I say, P.P.C. is not dismissing them - P.P.C. has given considerable thought… It is actually a very complex matter and not as easily identifiable as the Deputy would think.

3.6.6 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Does the Chairman not consider that it really is of importance to the public that when we have Members bringing perhaps a proposition to freeze Members’ salary that a member of the public can then look up at see that person is hardly ever in the Chamber and goes to his day job?

The Bailiff:

Deputy, sorry, what was the final bit?

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Does the Chairman not think it is important if a person is bringing a proposition linked perhaps to States Members’ remuneration that that person should be able to be checked out to see if the person bringing that is even in the Chamber and earning his money? It is quite clear, I think. Certainly a concern to the public who I talk to.

The Connétable of St. Mary:

That question, of course, does relate specifically to another Member, and I would simply refer to answers given previously. There is no impediment in the States of Jersey Law or in our Standing Orders, apart from certain restricted categories of public employee, of a Member having a second place of employment. It is a matter for the electorate to judge how they view that. We are responsible ultimately at the ballot box. I would also reiterate what I have said previously, the people of the Island of Jersey are not fools.

3.7 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the protection of staff under the ‘whistle-blowing’ policy:

How does the States protect employees raising serious concerns under the whistle-blowing policy from reprisals?

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

The States of Jersey’s Serious Concerns Policy, otherwise known as the “whistle-blowing policy”, was introduced in April 2009 and offers protection to people who work within the States of Jersey who raise legitimate concern about either the activities of the States or persons employed within the States. We recognise that the prospect of raising a concern may cause distress and anxiety and that people may be afraid of reprisal or victimisation if they raise a legitimate matter. Therefore within the policy, we have given assurances about protecting them if they raise a legitimate concern. There are a number of safeguards in the policy. There is a designated person under the policy who is charged with ensuring the concerns made under the policy are addressed appropriately. This designated person, the Comptroller and Auditor General, is independent of the States and concerns can be raised directly with him. Chief Officers in departments are also required to advise him of all concerns which have been raised within their department, which acts as an audit trail and a checklist. Individuals are encouraged to seek advice and support from a number of sources, including the Human Resources Department, their trade union, or their professional association. Finally, if the concern involves theft or fraud the Chief Internal Auditor can provide confidential and impartial advice about how the individual should progress the matter.

3.7.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I am sure it may just be an interpretation in relation to the answer the Chief Minister gave me, but I certainly will review this on Hansard and, before I do so, I would like to ask the Chief Minister to confirm that these employees if they ... he said: “If they raise legitimate concerns.” I would like him to qualify that sentence by assuring me that those legitimate concerns do not necessarily have to meet a certain criteria but they just have to meet the criteria that the individual reporting them believed them to be legitimate concerns at the time.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I can confirm to the Deputy it is not a question of a checklist of does or does not. The person concerned will no doubt raise the concern with the Comptroller and Auditor General in good faith, and, unless the Comptroller and Auditor General believes that the concern raised is facetious or irrelevant, he will pursue it. This is just to indicate that it should be for legitimate reasons and not just for scaremongering or making unfounded accusations.

3.7.2 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I appreciate and thank the Chief Minister for his answers. May I just inquire please, in open session, who is the Chief Internal Auditor as I have a constituent contacting me on a potential fraud issue?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

One normally does not mention the name of individual employees within the States Chamber. If the Deputy wants to know the individual’s name I think it is more appropriate for me to tell him outside of the meeting. But it is available on the States website anyway.

3.8 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Minister for Housing regarding the impact of the recession on demands for social housing:

Could the Minister advise the Assembly how many people, since the onset of the recession in Jersey, have been housed, or are currently waiting to be housed by his department, as a result of having been made redundant and/or losing their houses due to repossession by banks or other home lenders?

Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade (The Minister for Housing):

This is not an easy question to answer. When exactly Jersey entered the recession… the answer is probably one that the Minister for Treasury and Resources and myself might agree or disagree on, but certainly it slowed down in the beginning of 2009. As I mentioned, in the last Assembly sitting, the Population Office and the Minister for Housing has noticed a 60 per cent drop in the number of (j) purchase applications, consequentially we have also seen a 43 per cent rise in the number of applications for housing on the grounds of homelessness or financial hardship in the last 12 months. The trend seems to be continuing with 151 similar applications having been made so far this year, which are new. I can confirm to the Deputy - I will confirm these figures in writing - we have a current waiting list of 305 for one-bedroom units; 335 for 2-bedroom; 155 for 3-bedroom and another 102 for other types of accommodation. The current average waiting time for a one-bedroom need is 14 months; for a 2-bedroom need is 12 months; and for a 3-bedroom need is over 13 months. With regard to the methodology of repossessing property, the Housing Department does not deal with this as a matter of course, because we are a social rented provider, but normally my understanding is that the banks will allow people to move out or to move on without forcing a sale but will allow a certain period of time for it to be done. But we do not have any accurate data on that.

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

43 per cent is a stark very high rise. I wonder what work… and it was an amendment when income support was brought in. How much work has the Minister for Housing done with Social Security to look at the circumstances of the person, it may be a marriage break-up, it may be a redundancy.

[10:15]

The review of respite is continually being reviewed because the most important thing is to address the children’s needs, wherever that is appropriate. Sometimes that is out of my control. It is where the needs are the most important and sometimes that does involve long term care at Oakwell, as I said, on a temporary basis with a view of having other needs put in place. I will finish there.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

On a point of order, some of us are finding it very difficult to understand some of the answers that have been given orally from across the Chamber. I wonder whether I could ask Privileges and Procedures whether the questions that have been put orally could be sent out and written-up in a written form to Members?

The Bailiff:

We can deal with this another time I think, Senator.

[10:30]

Senator T.J. Le Main:

Well it is very difficult for us to understand and to comprehend some of the speeches coming from some of the Members on that side of the Chamber.

3.9.5 Senator B.E. Shenton:

We are going to have a comprehensive debate on P.113 where Deputy Southern is asking us to put on hold both the Fiscal Strategy Review and the Comprehensive Spending Review. We have set out a clear policy to deal with Jersey’s deficit within 3 years and to make those decisions by the end of this year, concluding in the budget. That is going to be ... when we have made those decisions that will send a clear message that Jersey has balanced public finances and we continue the stability that we have enjoyed over previous decades. Deputy Southern does not want that. If he succeeds in persuading this Assembly to put off difficult decisions we will store-up problems; for low income families, for the economy and for the rest of the Island and I do not want to go there.

3.10.3 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

The overall savings target has been increased to £65 million over the next 3 years. I would have preferred a bit higher but there we go. What changes will that make to the tax to be raised and have the tax forecasts been changed?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

That is a very good question. The Council of Ministers, as a result of the C.S.R. discussions last week - as Members will have been informed by the Chief Minister - are now targeting £65 million worth of savings in 2013 and again the conclusions of that will be announced on 22nd October. What I need to be very clear about in the short term is that that does not change the tax-raising target for this year’s budget which is in the region of £20 million to £25 million. There is a range of income and the latest information that I have is that the income this year and next year may well be at the lower end of the income range. That is not something that is unexpected, I have said that before. That means that it will be appropriate for me to still maintain the target of £50 million in terms of tax-raising measures. If we can reduce it we will of course do, but it does not change anything for the arrangements for next year.

3.10.4 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Supplementary. Will the Minister also confirm that 18 per cent of the possible taxpayers, based on the 2008 figures, produce 60 per cent of the tax, being the 12,000 or so people who pay tax at the 20 per cent rate; 57 per cent who pay at the marginal rate produce 40 per cent of the tax raised; and the remaining 25 per cent pay no tax at all? Will the Minister also confirm that the 20 per cent tax rate - the full rate - commences, for a single person, at about £40,000 a year? So that we have 12,000 people or so, whose tax starts at around £40,000, are the people who pay ...

The Bailiff:

Is that the end of your question, Senator? It is a very long one.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Yes, I am just getting to it, Sir. Does the Minister confirm that the profile of taxpayers is that?

The Bailiff:

I have to say that it is drifting away somewhat from the original question.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am sure the Senator is right if she is probably referring to a written report before her. The point she is making is that everybody in Jersey pays low tax across all income levels, and long may that continue. But we do have to balance our books and there are going to have to be some changes and some difficult changes that are going to be required on tax.

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

Returning to the question which was about numbers requiring income support as a result of the savings, can the Minister tell the House about the impact of voluntary redundancies and enforced redundancies on income support, rent support and housing costs? We have just heard the impact on housing and can he assure us that these costs have been taken into account in the Comprehensive Spending Review? In other words, if you are targeting savings at £50 million are you also taking into account the additional costs caused by all the redundancies?

Thank you and he probably will not be very happy on this occasion with my answer either. Given the question and the identifying factors in it I refer the Deputy to question 5638 and basically I wish the Deputy had asked a policy question and I would be able to answer it. I cannot put any more answers to this question because of the identifying facts and if the Deputy thinks he can refer to a question that I can answer I will be more than happy to do so. Thank you.

3.11.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

With due respect this question and any answer does in no way identify the child. The question itself is in order and I would expect that the Assistant Minister should be able to answer in a way which does not identify the child. The question I want to ask and I refer to the court judgment of 7th September which basically notes the dissatisfaction and frustration of the court and then it asks later on: “We hope that the Minister will make inquiries and ensure that the court is not again placed in such a position of having to make such an order.” Simply my question is similar; can the Assistant Minister, on behalf of the Minister, give an assurance that we, as States of Jersey but also the court, will not be put in such a situation again because suitable accommodation is not available?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Well, we do have a difference of opinion of what identifies a child and what does not identify a child. There is also a difference of opinion of whether the court was put in an embarrassing situation, as the Deputy said. Maybe the children’s services were not given ... advice was not taken. I mean we do have a facility which is now Greenfields. The Children’s Service have to weigh-up whether they think a secure order for a child ... and this is the best place for them because they may be self-harming or there may be other difficulties ... a fantastic facility and then we have the courts, who always have to weigh-up, what is the rights of the individual and this is where we are. This begs a bigger question and I still cannot answer the Deputy’s specific question pertaining to this case. Thank you.

3.11.2 Deputy M. Tadier:

If I may, again, this is complete nonsense. I do not know why the Assistant Minister continues in this shroud-waving. We are not talking about specific details. We are talking about the direction of the court and the Minister’s response, which in no way identifies any individual. Will the Assistant Minister respond and does she agree with the statement of the court that such accommodation should not be used because there is no other available accommodation for children in the care of the Minister? Does she agree with the statement that the court was put in an invidious position to the same extent the Health Department was also put in an invidious position? Will she give assurances that the department is going to work on this so that we are not put in this position again?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

I am sorry, the Deputy does keep referring to this particular case and he wants me to answer; was the court put in an embarrassing situation or was Health? There could be very, very difficult decisions to be made in any case and I can only generalise. I am sorry, I am not prepared to say anything more. The questions the Deputy is asking now may not be able to identify an individual but there are 3 identifying factors in this question and if you are a family or friend of this person you will know who they are. I do not think the Deputy’s question is any help in any way. Thank you.

The Bailiff:

Very well, we will move on to the next question which the Deputy of St. Martin will ask of the Minister for Treasury and Resources.

The Deputy of Trinity:

Sorry, the request was only made for the respite question that I should answer it.

The Bailiff:

Yes, I have been given the same message that the Deputy only asked that you specifically deal with the Oakwell question. Very well, we come to question 12 which the Deputy of St. Martin will ask of the Minister for Treasury and Resources.

3.12 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the current use of Haut de la Garenne:

I have seen a question from Deputy Power. I do not usually allow one Minister to question another Minister. Deputy ...

Deputy S. Power:

He answered my question, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Very well, then Deputy of St. Martin, do you wish a final question?

3.12.6 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Yes. Just to assist Senator Le Main, maybe the Assistant Minister will confirm that in an answer he gave last year he said that the costs of the particular partial restoration of works were £31,000 and that possibly the extra work required will be replacing those floorboards and possibly the bottom staircase which will need replacing, so therefore the figure of £300,000 is well over estimate and is unlikely to cost that sort of money?

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

That is not strictly the case. The breakdown I have of numbers adds up to something like £225,000. If you add a degree of contingency and professional fees in there the estimated total is potentially £300,000. The Deputy is correct that things such as the staircase are a significant portion of that money but there are obviously a number of elements to that and not all that work has been done as yet.

The Bailiff:

Very well, we will move to the next question then which Deputy Southern will ask of the Minister for Treasury and Resources. Deputy Southern.

3.13 Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding investigations under Article 134A of the Income Tax (Jersey) Law 1961:

Will the Minister state the number of income tax investigations into transfer pricing, re-invoicing, licensing, thin capitalisation, corporate restructuring, inversions or the transfer of local ownership of non-finance companies to foreign ownership, thereby taking advantage of the Zero/Ten rules under Article 134A of the Income Tax (Jersey) Law 1961?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Can I ask Deputy Noel to be rapporteur for this question?

The Bailiff:

Very well, Assistant Minister.

Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):

This question will take a little longer than the customary 90 seconds to answer and I ask for Members’ patience. I presume from the nature of this question that the Deputy is primarily referring to the potential for Jersey to be used for the evasion of international tax. Investigations instigated and undertaken by the Comptroller of Tax can only be in respect of suspected evasion of Jersey tax by Jersey taxpayers. Jersey cannot instigate an investigation of the avoidance of non-Jersey tax by a taxpayer. This is the same as in any other country. However, though it is actively involved in the exchange of information programmes, Jersey can, and indeed does, assist other countries to investigate their own taxpayers who might seek to use Jersey to avoid tax in other countries. In respect of the transfer of locally-owned companies to foreign ownership there is potential scope to avoid the deemed distribution rules. If a Jersey taxpayer structures his affairs so that it looks like his investment in a Jersey company is foreign-owned, he might indeed be trying to evade Jersey tax. In this case the rules apply to indirect holdings as well as direct holdings and so such structures will be challenged by the Comptroller when they come to his attention. To date there has not yet been any investigations in respect of such transactions as Zero/Ten is in its infancy and the Comptroller is only now starting to receive the information in respect of transactions that would fall under the new rules.

The Bailiff:

Deputy Southern, do you wish a supplementary?

3.13.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Yes. In fact the Assistant Minister has misinterpreted the question. The question was intended to refer to Jersey tax on Jersey companies and not international tax. Nonetheless, all of these mechanisms are mechanisms used by international companies and recognised internationally to avoid paying tax - not evade paying tax but avoid paying tax - and I just wondered, in the light of the previous answer which seemed to refer only to capital gains as the means to avoid tax, whether any such investigations were taking place in Jersey about avoiding Jersey tax?

Deputy E.J. Noel:

If the Deputy means that he is referring to Jersey local companies being transferred to foreign ownership he is mistaken as the majority of Jersey companies pay tax at zero per cent and so, therefore, there is no tax to avoid. The structures he refers to will not avoid the deemed distribution rules. The 10 per cent companies are often owned by companies resident in higher jurisdictions, so there would be no benefit in trying to avoid the Jersey taxation. The 20 per cent companies could not avoid Jersey tax, as usually in such structures they are charged 20 per cent tax by their deemed activity such as utilities. This all points to the view that he is talking about Jersey individuals trying to evade tax by trying to transfer their ownership of their Jersey assets offshore. That is a blatant breach of 134A and as such the Comptroller would pursue that with vigour.

3.13.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

The question was how many pursuits have there been? Is the answer zero or is the answer a definite figure?

Deputy E.J. Noel:

Will the Minister confirm that she does not sit on the States Employment Board and, as a consequence, has little or nothing to do with the H.R. practices of the States and that this question and these types of questions would perhaps be better directed at the Chairman of the States Employment Board?

The Deputy of Trinity:

Yes, the Senator is quite right. I do not sit on the States Employment Board. As I said, I do get regular updates from my H.R. director.

3.14.8 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

The Minister mentions a duty of care and of safety. Can she say that it is fair that a surgeon, who was exonerated in the Verita report, is limited to office work while the team responsible for prolonging his suspension are still working without any restrictions?

The Deputy of Trinity:

I do not want to go down in any specific detail because of the confidentiality. As I have said, the needs of each doctor is taken as an individual and - if it is training or whatever - investigations, training or whatever is necessary for that doctor will be put in place alongside addressing the doctor’s needs.

The Bailiff:

Very well, we come next then to the question which the Deputy of St. John will ask of the Minister for Treasury and Resources. The Deputy of St. John.

3.15 The Deputy of St. John of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the impact of the introduction of another telephone company to the Island on the profits of Jersey Telecom:

Is the Minister concerned that the introduction of yet another telephone company to the Island will dilute the profits of Jersey Telecom? Will he advise whether the States has any direct or indirect holding in any of the rival telephone companies and, if so, which ones? Have any of the directors of the newly licensed company ever held directorships within any companies owned or controlled by the States?

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

To take the points in turn I should just start by saying there is a clear segregation of duties between the Minister for Economic Development and myself. The Minister for Treasury and Resources acts as the shareholder of the incorporated Jersey Telecom. In that capacity I appoint a board and hold the company to account to ensure best value is achieved by taxpayers’ investment. I require the board of directors to manage the company efficiently and effectively. On the other hand, the Minister for Economic Development is responsible for competition with the J.C.R.A. (Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority). They issue telecom licences and it is important to remember that the regulator and the Minister’s responsibility, set very clearly out in Article 7 of the Telecoms Law, makes a requirement for deregulatory decisions to take account of the financial state of the entity. J.T. (Jersey Telecom) has and continues to face fierce competition and the board has responded incredibly well to this competition positively and continues to improve the company’s performance, efficiency and effectiveness. I have been very impressed to see how well J.T. has been performing throughout my time at Treasury, and particularly recently. I can say, finally, that as regards to the direct or indirect holdings in rival telephone companies, the J.E.C. (Jersey Electric Company) had a longstanding interest in Utell Holdings Limited which is of course a matter for public record. The inquiries that I have made in respect of directors of the new licence company have not revealed to me that any of the directors of that company have ever held similar positions in any companies owned or controlled by the States. I say that with some hesitation as I know that the B.A.T.D.C. Club, which the Deputy is aware, is sometimes more well informed than I am.

The Deputy of St. John:

Given the answer I will put something in writing for the next meeting. Thank you.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Sir, may I just respond? I think I may be aware of one individual - and I am not going to go into individuals - but he was not a director of J.T. and the question asked specifically about directors.

The Bailiff:

Would the Minister confirm that his department only advertises genuine vacant positions and that all positions advertised are open to all States employees?

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

T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) is committed to following the processes and procedures advocated in the States recruitment policies and these will be available to the Deputy. There may be circumstances whereby recruitment to a specific role may be restricted to one department in line with the exceptions categories held within the Appointments Commission recruitment code. It must be said that the C.S.R. processes are certainly sharpening our minds with regard to recruitment at this time. But I would say just that if the Deputy has any particular issues regarding my department and recruitment I am happy to discuss it.

3.16.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Yes, I would like to discuss one at the present time. Can the Minister assure the House that the recently advertised vacancy “Head Mechanical Engineering Manager” is a new post open to all civil servants to apply for and has not been written, as many States vacancies are written, to fit a particular individual?

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

Not that I am aware of. Any particular role that requires specialist knowledge obviously will narrow the field but I am not aware of a particular individual being lined up for any particular job.

3.16.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

If I could ask the Minister to undertake to have a look at that and report back not only to me but also to the House?

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

I think it is important for the Deputy to come and discuss with me what the particular issues are because I am certainly not aware of them.

4. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Social Security

The Bailiff:

Very well. That concludes all questions on notice. We then come to questions to Ministers without notice and the first period is to ask questions of the Minister for Social Security. The Deputy of St. John.

4.1 The Deputy of St. John:

At the last sitting I handed a memory stick to the Minister for Social Security which I had found in the Members’ Room. Is the Minister happy that no serious consequences have arisen from finding that stick and the information within it? Also, can he tell us what security is in place within his department in relation to ...

The Bailiff:

One moment, Deputy. I am afraid we are not quorate. Usher, could you summon Members back please? We are now quorate. Can I just say this, questions without notice were introduced in order to hold Ministers to account so it really does seem to me important that Members should be here in order to fulfil that role. [Approbation] Deputy, please continue.

The Deputy of St. John:

Yes. I will repeat the question for those Members who were not present. At the last meeting I handed the Minister a memory stick which I had found in the Members’ Room. On it there was some sensitive information, I presume. Could the Minister tell us what he did with the stick, whether he has taken disciplinary action, whether the police have been called in and is his security within his department as strong as it should be in relation to computer theft?

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

Yes, indeed, the Deputy did hand me a memory stick at the last sitting and it did have a Social Security tag on it, as assets across the States are tagged by department. I can confirm to the Deputy and put his fears to rest; there was absolutely no personal data whatsoever on that stick. In actual fact it was a stick that belongs to the Information Systems Department. As Members will be aware members of the I.S.D. (Information Systems Department) helped build States Members’ computers and they have sticks with generic applications on. They use those sticks to build the computers for States Members. There was no absolutely no personal data on it. As I understand it an employee was down in the States Chamber on that day carrying out that particular work. The work had not been completed. Why does it come to have a Social Security tag on it? That is quite simply because some of the I.S.D. members operate from my department and therefore it is tagged, as one would expect it to be tagged, because it is an asset of the States. Thank you.

4.1.1 The Deputy of St. John:

I thank the Minister for his response. I am somewhat happier now that we have found out where it has come from. That said, the Minister has not answered the second part of my question; what is there in the way of security within his department in relation to computer theft of information?

Deputy I.J. Gorst:

I am not sure if the Deputy is still referring to the stick. The only thing I really can say is that it would be rather similar to a plumber leaving a toolbox on a job at the end of the day. We do have robust procedures around data security, as one would expect. Even I, as Minister, do not have access to the Social Security database.

[11:30]

I have to have a specific reason for requesting information about an individual, and we take that data security very seriously indeed, as I believe do other departments, and the Information Systems Department as well.

4.2 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

As the Chief Minister is essentially the head of the board for the Council of Ministers, can he explain to the House what the Council of Ministers growth policy is, because we have been led to believe you do not have a growth policy, and also if he can explain which sectors of the economic he expects to recover first.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The growth policy is one which has served the Island well over the years, and that is maintaining a highly-trained workforce in a competitive tax environment with good regulation and good policing of that. In terms of the second part of his question ... sorry, I have forgotten what it was now.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I was asking which sectors of the economy he expects to recover first.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The Statistics Department now does a business tendency survey, that gives detailed information on a variety of issues and I do urge the Deputy and others to take note of that. The indications are that the finance industry, followed by the construction industry, are the first ones to show real improvement in that respect. That information is updated quarterly and I look forward to the next quarter’s figures, which I hope will confirm that trend and I urge the Deputy to read them when they come out.

5.4.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

A supplementary, Sir, yes. Would the Chief Minister not agree that as this was a financially-induced recession that it will take longer for the finance sector to get back to the levels that it was prior to the recession? Secondly, although the industry itself from a profitability point of view may be doing better, the policies that they are pursuing by not lending to small and medium businesses are not conducive to growth of other areas of the economy?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I am not a fortune-teller, and I would not like to predict how long it might take to get back to former levels of activity in finance or anywhere else, and indeed, it may well be that we do not regain our former levels of activity, and that is why, quite rightly, we are taking steps to restrain States spending in order to continue to have a balanced economy which will further encourage the economic growth that the Deputy and all of us would want to see happen. I cannot indicate on particular sectors of the economy, because they are all at the moment in a very uncertain, fragile state, which we need to encourage and support, so I cannot do any more than that to help the Deputy.

The Bailiff:

Would the Minister give serious consideration when we debate the reform of the States in the next few days or weeks to supporting a name change which I am proposing, whereby currently scrutiny panels are not held in the highest esteem, but also so that we can raise the stakes, shall we say, or the standard of the work and the way it is produced to supporting a name change to call them select committees from scrutiny panels.

[12:00]

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

What is in a name? What I am interested in is it improving the way in which we carry out our business? If part of those improvements require a name change then I am sure the Members of the Assembly will debate that. I have said, and I repeat, that I am satisfied and supportive of the proposals put forward by Senator Breckon and I think it is important that we look at the general principles of those proposals, rather than the detail of particular name for a committee or a Senator or any other person. Those are secondary to the main thrust, in my view, of improving the way in which we go about our business.

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY

The Bailiff:

Well, I am afraid that brings questions to the Chief Minister to an end. There are no matters under J. Under K, Statements on a Matter of Official Responsibility, we have first a statement from the Connétable of Grouville in his capacity as Chairman of the Jersey Tidal Power Commission.

6. Statement by the Connétable of Grouville regarding the Jersey Tidal Power Commission

6.1 Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville:

The Connétable of Grouville:

Through the Channel Islands Energy Forum we are in constant touch with our Guernsey counterparts and Sark, Guernsey is pushing-up for the Sark side as well because the latest report they issued was that if there is good energy source then it is going to be between Sark and Herm. So obviously Guernsey and Sark will be involved together in harvesting that resource. I cannot remember, sorry, what was the other part?

Deputy M. Tadier:

It was essentially just to know whether we would be able to co-operate with the other Channel Islands, if they are amenable.

The Connétable of Grouville:

Yes. Sure, it is not just only that but we do have a situation where if we are to export electricity, if we get to the stage - a happy stage - of being able to export we have the whole of Europe wide-open where many, many countries over there are not going to meet their Kyoto requirements in the near future. They are desperate to buy renewable energy. We can supply it, we have the cabling in place and we have the contacts with the Guernsey authorities as well where our joint cable could supply into Europe. The way it happens is that we could supply into France for the benefit of Italy. So, in fact, the French would receive the energy, the Italians would clock it up as renewable and pay the French and then whatever. So this would hopefully give us a chance at upping the price of it and perhaps, you know, making some money out of it as well. But this is just another avenue we are exploring at the moment.

The Bailiff:

Well, I am afraid that the time has run out for questions to the Chairman. We come next to a statement to be made by the Chairman of the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel.

7 Statement by Deputy G.P. Southern regarding the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel

7.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Yes, there is some validity in looking at other measures, 70 per cent, 60 per cent, 50 per cent, because that gives a picture of the depth of poverty and so, therefore, has some validity if one wants to examine those particular factors as indeed a report commissioned by his predecessor, actually looking at the depth of poverty in Jersey, has already commented on.

Deputy I.J. Gorst:

Perhaps the Deputy will be pleased to know that I shall be commissioning a very similar report on the back of these figures.

The Bailiff:

That concludes questions to the Chairman. Now, I have given leave under Standing Order 17(5) for the Minister for Treasury and Resources to make a statement in relation to the administration of Woolworths, and perhaps this would be a convenient moment.

8. Statement by the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the administration of Woolworths

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

Members will recall that further to the administration of the Woolworths group of companies in January 2009, the administrators terminated the contracts of employment of all Woolworths’ Jersey employees. On the 4th of February 2009 Members voted in favour of providing financial compensation in accordance with the U.K. Redundancy Scheme, 38 former employees received compensation payments in return for each person entering into a formal deed of assignment to enable the States of Jersey to reclaim the compensation paid from the administrators. Subsequently, under a consent order approved by the Royal Court, the Viscount was empowered to receive the sales proceeds from the Jersey real estate sold. The Viscount subsequently received approximately £1.3 million from the sale of the real estate. Claims were lodged with the Viscount in respect of £93,661 for compensation paid to the former Woolworths employees, as well as unpaid I.T.I.S. (Income Tax Instalment System), G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) and income tax. The final total of these claims amounted to £135,185 with further Jersey creditors bringing the total value of unsecured creditor claims to £524,503. The administrator sought to argue that funds held by the Viscount should be remitted to the administrator’s account in the U.K., this would have meant that Jersey unsecured creditors received nothing. Lawyers for both the Viscount and the Treasury opposed such a transfer, arguing that the Jersey unsecured creditors should be paid in full. Ultimately the issues raised would have been for the Royal Court to determine. Arguing the case in the Royal Court would necessarily have resulted in substantial legal fees being incurred by all parties, much of which would have been irrecoverable. In the circumstances, without prejudice negotiations took place between the parties’ advisers to explore whether contested proceedings could be avoided. Negotiations concluded in what is considered to be a commercial, pragmatic settlement subject to creditors’ consent and Royal Court approval. Creditors were notified and the Royal Court approved that settlement on 27th September 2010. I approved the proposed settlement on the advice of legal advisers employed by the States to represent our interests in this matter. The proposed settlement was also reviewed by the Attorney General who was asked to indicate whether he thought that the settlement was one which I could properly enter into as being in the interests of the States. I am, therefore, now able to make this statement.

[12:30]

Under the settlement arrived at, the States legal fees are to be paid in full, agreement has also been arrived at in respect to the Viscount’s fees and charges. The result of this settlement is that all Jersey unsecured creditors are to receive a payment approximately 76 pence in the pound. This results in an additional £103,611 being received by the States of Jersey. The administrators also paid all G.S.T. and I.T.I.S. in connection with the Jersey store incurred during their appointment and up until it ceased trading. I would like to recognise the work of our advisers in achieving this positive outcome; I believe this represents a good result, not only for the States of Jersey but all Jersey creditors. [Approbation]

8.1.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

The Education and Home Affairs Panel have been following this issue and I would like to echo the sentiments brought by the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the legal advisers and the Viscount who I think have behaved in a very professional manner. But my question is how much does it leave us short?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

The settlement is 76 pence in the pound. I have not got the working with me but I will do it on my calculator outside and send the Deputy the results. But all of the costs. Certainly we have changed the Income Tax Law subsequent to this event, making G.S.T. and I.T.I.S. and all those other matters as absolutely 100 per cent guaranteed as secured creditors. There is a shortfall but, in the circumstances of the legal costs, I think this does represent very good value for the public and I am grateful for the Deputy’s comments.

The Deputy of St. John:

The Bailiff:

That brings that to an end. That moves us on to Public Business. Deputy Southern, I take it you would not wish to start now?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

I certainly have more than 5 minutes worth of introduction to say and know that the guaranteed way to lose a proposition is to keep people from their lunch.

The Bailiff:

Would Member’s wish to take one of the very short ones, possibly P.98, for example, if that is thought to be short?

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Sir, while they are considering that, could I just take 2 minutes which might help in informing Members to my intention to withdraw, for the time being, P.87 because of a request from the Minister to meet with me about matters that have recently come to our attention, which is the Jersey Financial Services Commission Companies Register. So I would ask that be moved back at least a couple of months to give us time to meet on that. It has not been possible because one of the officers was away and I have received correspondence overnight which we need to look at. Also, the Privileges and Procedures Committee have commented, as has the Council of Ministers, on my Financial and Manpower Statements proposition. Given the positive comments from P.P.C. on P.92, I have discussed this briefly with the Chairman this morning, I am happy to withdraw that on the grounds that P.P.C. have every intention now of looking at this themselves and bringing forward an appropriate set of amendments in due course. So those 2 will fall off the Order Paper and I will be just debating work permits today.

The Bailiff:

Can I just be clear that the second one you are withdrawing altogether, or you are deferring?

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

No, I am withdrawing P.92.

The Bailiff:

You are withdrawing P.92 but deferring P.87?

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Please, Sir.

9. Appointment of Commissioner to the Jersey Law Commission (P.98/2010)

The Bailiff:

Understood. Well that is helpful to Members. Would Members agree to take P.98, for example, Appointment of Jersey Law Commissioner, if the Chief Minister is willing to do that? Very well, I will ask the Greffier to read that proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to refer to their Act dated 30th July 1996, in which they approved the establishment of a Jersey Law Commission and to appoint Mr. Malcolm John Le Boutillier as Commissioner of the Jersey Law Commission for a period of 5 years, with immediate effect.

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

I have paid tribute in the past to the good work and voluntary work done by the members of the Jersey Law Commission. At the end of last year I sent round a note to Members inviting other topics for consideration by the Commission. As a result of that, and looking at their workload, quite a bit of it requires consideration of Jersey land law and that is a fairly specialised area in which some people have more experience than others. Mr. Le Boutillier is a person with such experience and he has the additional merit of being prepared to volunteer for this work. I am grateful to him for volunteering. His C.V. (Curriculum Vitae) is set out in the proposition and I think it shows that he is eminently suitable for this position. I have great pleasure in nominating him as an additional member of the Law Commission for a period of 5 years.

The Bailiff:

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

9.1.1 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

I would just like to ask the Chief Minister, is there any monetary gain at all in this position?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No, as I indicated I thought, this is done entirely on a voluntary basis and I am very grateful to the person concerned and other members of the Commission who have done this work, in many cases for many years. I thank the Deputy for her interest, and maintain the proposition.

The Bailiff:

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

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

The Bailiff:

The adjournment is proposed, so we will return at 2.15 p.m. and being with P.113 on the Order Paper.

[12:43]

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

[14:15]

10. Public Sector Cuts and Alternative Taxation Measures (P.113/2010)

The Bailiff:

We come then to P.113: Public Sector Cuts and Alternative Taxation Measures, lodged by Deputy Southern. I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of the opinion (a) to request the Council of Ministers to – (i) suspend the proposed programme of cuts to public services until 31st March 2011, especially where this will result in redundancies or reductions in front-line services, to allow time to engage in – (1) full consultation with the users of, and stakeholders in, these services; (2) full negotiation with employee representatives to find an agreed set of reforms and timescales, to include a new voluntary redundancy policy for 2011 and beyond, and Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment (TUPE) legislation; and (3) an investigation of the potential to extend the period of reform in both service provision and taxation changes from 3 to 5 years to ensure both proper evaluation and acceptance from the public, to include examination of the use some of the interest from the Strategic Reserve Fund (“Rainy Day Fund”) to cover the deficits involved during the 5-year period above, or failing this, to borrow on the financial markets (through a bond issue) to do so; (ii) suspend privatisation and/or outsourcing of public sector services until agreement with employee representatives has been reached as outlined in (a)(i)(2) above; (b) to agree that no proposals to increase the current 3% rate of Goods and Services Tax should be brought to the States for consideration before 2013; (c) to request the Minister for Treasury and Resources to bring forward for approval proposals in time for the Budget 2011 debate this year to set targets for raising business tax revenues, especially for non-local, non-finance companies which do not currently pay income tax.

10.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

The first point I want to make is that this proposition is, I believe, just as important and vital as the proposition that we discussed at the last meeting, which was the Annual Business Plan. It is equally as important because I believe that we are, I think, rushing headlong into what may be a serious mistake and I come back to a fundamental statement about recession and recovery, which is on page 5 of my report, which uses the words of David Blanchflower, former member of the Bank of England Fiscal Policy Committee, and renowned economist which says: “Lesson one in a deep recession is you do not cut public spending until you are into the boom phase.” Until you are into the boom phase. The danger is that you spiral-down and lengthen the recession and you do not find recovery if you do. I believe there is a serious danger of us doing that. I keep giving the Minister for Treasury and Resources, and other Ministers, the Chief Minister, opportunities to say they have some firm evidence, they have some evidence at all that the recession is coming to an end and that recovery is on its way and recovery is here. Time and time again, and it happened this morning, I gave the Chief Minister the opportunity to say, can he point to any signs of recovery in the housing market, in the confidence survey, in the retail sector, anywhere. The unemployment figures, up to 1,300 now, and looks like staying there. He could not produce anything that he could describe as the green shoots of recovery. So we are not into recovery. Very dangerous then to start making cuts. When I got up this morning I had a frown on my face at the prospect of yet again bringing an important proposition to the States and wondering how it would be treated. My wife reminded me that I choose to do this job, which made me smile in the first place, and then I got a second smile after I had walked around the coffee room saying: “Smile, Geoff, smile. You can smile.” Which was noticed at the end of the session that proposals I had made in earlier years had proven to be correct and that we were able to claim back a substantial, significant sum from the compensation that we paid to Woolworths employees way back then. It feels very nice, very good to be doing this job when that happens. To be proven to have been right is nice. I just hope that in this particular case, should we not accept this proposition, I do not have that satisfaction again of being proven right, because I would hate to see us, if we plough ahead with the rate of change and the degree of cuts that we are undertaking. If we were to tip ourselves into double-dip recession and make life worse for us I do not want to be proven right should this be rejected. So I will give it my best shot. The first thing to say is, I think, what this proposition is not, because people - no names - keep putting words into my mouth. It is not a statement which says: “Let us not make cuts. Do not believe in cuts, let us not do it, let us stick our head in the sand.” It is not a proposition that says: “Let us not remove a single job.” It does not say that either. What it says is: “Let us take a little more considered and well planned approach to what we are about to do, because there is a risk that we put ourselves deeper in recession, rather than recover.” So, it says: “Suspend the proposed program of cuts to public services, especially where there are redundancies and reductions to front line services to allow time to engage in full consultation with the users of and stakeholders in these services.” If any Member here can say that we have taken the public of Jersey along with even the first 2 per cent of those cuts, I think they are deluding themselves. I think already the 2 per cent cuts, the £12 million, which include closing the hydrotherapy pool; reducing physiotherapy services; removing school milk; removing some language assistance; removal of Customs Officer at the borders; reduction in policing levels; watering-down, reducing the Christmas bonus; and an attempt to remove the G.S.T. bonus have been met with, I believe, shock among the population of Jersey. Heaven knows what they are going to make of £65 million worth of cuts. While I am on those £65 million worth of cuts, I will just start to refer to what the Ministers’ comments are on this particular proposition. At the very top of their 14 page submission I have got 2 words, right at the very top: “Blind faith.” This is a very confident statement which asks us simply, as in the old fashioned days when we had Presidents and Committees, to trust the President. “We know what we are doing, we are in charge.” So, for example, they say: “The Council of Ministers urges Members to reject all parts of P.113. The Council has set an achievable target for savings by 2013 of £50 million in real terms.” No it has not, because at the last minute - and it is the last minute - they have raised the target to £65 million. We can throw in another £15 million worth of cuts just like that, within 3 weeks, is it? Within 3 and a half weeks of making the final decisions. So is this planned? Is this achievable? We have no idea. This is last minute, this is haste. “This is a significant saving which can be achieved without serious detriment to the level and performance of front line services.” But we have already seen the minute 2 per cent cuts have lead to reductions and damage in frontline services and everybody knows that out there so what is to come? “The highest priority for savings is through efficiency in existing practices and reorganisation of functions where this will reduce the cost and improve performance.” Efficiency: we have had 8 years of efficiency savings. We have just seen the piecemeal nature of what has been proposed, and the Council of Ministers are saying: “Trust us, we know what we are doing.” They then say: “It is inevitable that some services will be cut but this will be done in a way that maintains the high standards of our key public services.” Well, there is a very confident statement built on absolutely no evidence. Nothing at all. “The Council of Ministers knows that savings must be well-planned and targeted if the result is to be a sustainable budget.” Well-planned and targeted, and thrown-in an extra £15 million at the last minute when we have got 3 weeks to view it and decide on it. They go on to say: “Savings will inevitably lead to job losses in the public sector.” We touched on this morning in question time, what is the cost of those job losses? The assumption is that the economic recovery is around the corner and that we could quite happily have those public sector jobs, they will be taken up by a flourishing private sector, there will be nobody extra laid-off. Based on what evidence? Based on no evidence whatsoever, based on nothing. So they say: “Public services being delivered with less States and more private sector involvement, this could simply mean that employment is transferred to the private sector.” On the basis of no evidence. So the second part, (a)(i)(2) says: “To allow, to engage in full negotiation with employee representatives to find an agreed set of reforms and timescales to include a new voluntary redundancy policy for 2011.” That has not been undertaken yet. That has not been seen by anybody yet. What is the new voluntary redundancy policy? Nobody knows. No consultation, no negotiation has taken place on that issue and yet we are told we can plough ahead with £65 million cuts. So have we taken the representatives of public sector workers along with us? No, we have not. “Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment (T.U.P.E.) legislation.” Now, we heard this morning that is ready, that is ready to be lodged and there is one issue to be negotiated, or to be resolved, and that is ready to go. So that could be negotiated and could be out in the open very soon, but it is not there yet. Nor has it been negotiated, and what this first part of the proposal says: “Let us give that negotiation, that consultation process, time in order to resolve the issues.” Effectively, in terms of redundancy and in terms of agreements, we are talking about a 3-month space.

[14:30]

An additional 3 months breathing space to make sure that we take people along with us, from January to March, for most of these changes will not occur until January at the earliest and I am saying let us just hold that until the end of March. Let us take our time and get it right. Thirdly: “An investigation of the potential to extend the period of reform in both service provision and taxation changes from 3 to 5 years to ensure both proper evaluation and acceptance to the public, to include examination of the use of some of the interests from the Strategic Reserve Fund, (the ‘Rainy Day Fund’).” Here, again, is saying: “Look wider”, it is being presented to us as cuts, there is growth and there is taxation. There is also the Strategic Reserve which, for the moment, the Council of Ministers has turned its back on with its traditional view of: “We must never touch it until the bomb goes off.” Opinion out there says: “Why not?” Here we are, we are in sticky times, we have got over £500 million in the bank, why do we not touch it? If the household was going through a sticky patch and had £5,000 in the bank, I think that they might want to touch it to tide themselves over until things got better, if they could see it getting better. We are told: “Things will get better so why can we not tide ourselves over for a little longer?” Then I say, finally, failing this, if we still do not want to go near the interest on the “Rainy Day Fund”, to borrow on the financial markets through a bond issue to cover that time. Again, we have had no hint of that, it has just been said: “No, we do not want to do that, we will never do that because that is the tradition we have operated on.” Notice that the words are being used in this particular part of the proposition; all I am asking for is an investigation into this. Let us see the case: could we borrow? What sort of terms might we get; how would that be used; what does that do over a longer period? Does it enable us, for example, to reduce the raises in taxation that we are just about to enact? It might well do but let us see the evidence, let us take that little time - a 3-month period - that is all it is asking, to investigate that and come forward with the evidence. In particular, you then move on to (a)(ii): “To suspend privatisation or outsourcing of public sector services until agreement with employee representatives has been reached, as outlined in (a)(i)(2).” I think that is a reasonable step to make. Surely, before you start - and we do not know what will be suggested - large-scale outsourcing and privatisation, surely, you have to get the protection in there, an agreement with the representatives of the workers to have them say: “Under these circumstances, perhaps, it is acceptable, we are sufficiently protected that this can go ahead.” Because if we do not, there will inevitably be confrontation because that is the only reasonable way to approach it. T.U.P.E. (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)) surely has to be in place before we start doing this. Then we move on to (b), and I believe that this is an option: “To agree that no proposals to increase the current 3 per cent of Goods and Services Tax should be brought to the States for consideration before 2013.” I know what we will hear from the Minister for Treasury and Resources, he is saying: “That will deny the full-scale consultation that has already taken place.” Let us have a look at the results of that consultation. We were presented with 4 options: G.S.T. raised by 2 per cent; social security, raise the ceiling to £115,000; domestic rates up by a factor of 3; income tax of 30 per cent rate on income over £100,000. Each of those suggested will raise £30 million. Misleadingly, the regressive elements of those are described as: “Mildly regressive” when, in fact, they are harshly regressive, absolutely. So G.S.T., we have seen what we do with G.S.T., we invent all sorts of ways to pay back the poorest for the extra costs of G.S.T: we raised the income support level to compensate those on income support, we changed the allowances for those people in income tax, and we have a G.S.T. bonus for those in between those 2 bands. We have already seen how trustworthy this Council of Ministers is in the last round of the budget where it was proposed that 3 years on we can just scrap the G.S.T bonus, we can just get rid of it, even though it was promised to compensate the least well-off. If we go to an extra 2 per cent, can we guarantee that 2 years or 3 years down the line it is not going to come up for the chop again, especially in the light of the fact that we have got to find £65 million worth of cuts. The evidence on past performance is that I do not think we can just cross our fingers and trust people that they would not do that. They would not pull the carpet out from under our feet, would they? There is no evidence that they will not. G.S.T, I think, needs to be debated as an issue in its own right. We know what the controversy was, we know what the ongoing controversy about G.S.T. is and will be, and I believe we should debate that now, we should come to a conclusion on that now. Why do I say that? Because let us look at the split in the consultation process that has occurred and what we find is that most people, ordinary people, are very sceptical about raising G.S.T. and are saying: “That will hurt the least well-off and will damage people’s standard of living, please do not go there.” However, there is a counter argument from, by and large, the representatives of the finance sector who say: “No, of the options, G.S.T. is perhaps the best one.” So there is a clear dichotomy. Could that be something to do with the fact that financial services does not pay G.S.T, it pays a sum to be excused from G.S.T., it does not affect their business one jot, and they say: “Let us go the G.S.T. route.” I can almost see the ears of the Minister for Taxation pricking up and he is rubbing his hands saying: “Yes, G.S.T., simplest and most straightforward way” which, in fact, impacts on ordinary people but does not impact on our favourite industry. We then have social security raised, not to remove the ceiling, but to £150 million, which happens to be more or less the ceiling put on Guernsey’s social security. This rate is £30 million but raises it from people who are already paying £10 million worth of Zero/Ten and we are upping our social security. No wonder we get a split vote on this one because people can see that that is going to damage them twice over because the current ceiling is at £43,000 and so they will pay more in ‘20 means 20’ and in social security. That is really an ill-thought-out option which, no wonder, has not received the massive backing that it might have done. Domestic rates up by 3per cent, again the same old split, people saying: “Please, no, that is regressive, that is going to damage the poorest, the asset-rich but income poor, in the Island” apart from the financial services sector which again says: “Oh yes, that is a perfectly acceptable way, that will not affect our business whatsoever.” No, because they do not pay domestic rates, clearly. Then we have got an income tax proposition, again proposed in a very confused way, and it became apparent because we have got to change the law in order to make sure that raising a higher rate does not discriminate against married couples. People were saying: “How does this affect married couples?” Is this couples; is this households; is this individuals; how do we raised £30million? Again, no clear steer on that, it is not a clear option; no wonder the consultation process is split, because the options were ill-thought-through and ill considered. Again, we need to go back to that and take our time about what the real options are. Then, finally, to request the Minister for Treasury and Resources to bring forward for approval proposals, in time for the Budget 2011 debate this year, to set targets for raising business tax revenues, especially for non-local non-finance companies which do not currently pay income tax. That is a vital issue because if we are going to impose increases in personal taxation we have to, surely, make sure that it is acceptable by saying that: “And businesses will chip in. Our tax rises will be fair and therefore we can get behind them.” That is not happening. We have an investigation of what tax changes might take place but we have no end date on that consultation. In 3 weeks’ time we will find out what is in the second wave of cuts and we will find out what is being suggested for ways of raising additional taxation. We will not know that until then, then we will have a month, approximately, to take that in - as will the population, as will our residents - understand it and agree it, by the first week of December, the usual budget debate. That is a rushed process. That dictates how the next 3 years will go. This proposition says: “Slow down, let us take it in a considered way, give ourselves 3 months to come up with the right arguments that will win over the right people” otherwise, as I said, at the end of the Annual Business Plan debate, the pain starts here. Indeed it did start here a fortnight ago. But not only that, the strife starts here, the potential for strife starts here. It is a very dangerous route that we are on. I am suggesting that we have a little consideration and take it in a much more relaxed way. I refer to the comments on page 5 of the Council of Ministers’ paper, where they say: “The unprecedented scale and nature of the policy response from central banks and governments across the world has so far prevented a replay of the 1930s Great Depression.” Heavy words. “The larger economies have returned to growth this year but recovery remains fragile not least because, once the policy stimulus is withdrawn, it is unclear how strong the underlying economies will be.” Wait, hold that and now apply it to Jersey. Serious crisis, so far we have avoided the Great Recession of the 1930s by putting in fiscal stimulus not by cutting, but the recovery is fragile because people do not understand how much of the recovery is down to fiscal stimulus and not a natural bounce back. Other governments are supporting their economies still: the Americans are still talking about putting in some more fiscal stimulus to support their economy, they are still doing it because their economy is flat-lining. No signs of us doing anything but flat-lining. A double-dip global recession is still a risk, although it is not a central scenario for some economic forecasters.

[14:45]

It is still a risk. In the world, it is still a risk; in Jersey it is still a risk. Do not make the error or rushing headlong into double-dip recession is what this proposition is about. Finally, I point out that the way this proposition is structured, it is possible to vote separately on every single paragraph and I will be proposing that that is what we do. You can vote on (a)(i)(1) and then (a)(i)(2), (a)(i)(iii) and vote separately on (a)(ii) and then vote on propositions (b) and (b). Each is different and unique and it could well be that some of you, some Members, through the Chair, will be attracted by parts of this but not the whole, or object to other parts of it. It is possible to vote straightforwardly with your conscience for any part of this element, they all stand alone. With the voting, I will bring paragraph by paragraph and I expect to get some or all of this through. Please support this proposition.

The Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Senator Ozouf?

10.1.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

We spoke before lunch about Woolworths and something that I miss from Woolworths is the pick-and-mix counter, and those last seductive comments by Deputy Southern were, I think, quite worrying, even though they are quite seductive. The Council of Ministers has provided a very detailed comment which was published on 9th September in respect of this proposition. The Council does not apologise for that, this is an extremely important proposition and we have taken it extremely seriously. Having said that, of course, some of the elements of this proposition are almost a re-run of some of the matters that we discussed in last week’s Business Plan debate. I think that it is important that the Council of Ministers did take soundings and a steer from Members from the Business Plan debate. I thought the message from the majority of Members was that Members, in the majority, expected the Council of Ministers to do or to attempt to do more, not less, in 2011, providing economic conditions improve. Certainly, also, there was a commitment by the Council to consider lifting the target of £50 million savings and see whether or not it was possible to increase that and I thought the debate on the Business Plan, while it was long and frustrating in some cases - in some cases individual speeches - we had a good debate and it was useful. Subsequent to the Business Plan debate, the Council of Ministers, as Members will probably know, were locked away for almost 3 days, some of which was with Assistant Ministers, in order to conduct the second part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. The conclusions of that review are still being worked upon, there is a lot more work to be done, but the conclusions will be published on 26th October and be debated by the Assembly in the budget. Members have been invited now to a workshop on 11th October and there will be other engagement with States Members right the way up to the budget. It is important that Members are fully informed and engaged with the C.S.R. Undertaking a proper C.S.R. is difficult. When this process commenced I think that there was, it is fair to say, a large amount of scepticism, both within the States Assembly in some quarters and outside of this place, that savings could be made. On the one side, people were sceptical whether or not there was an appetite for us to make some difficult decisions, the right decisions. On the other side, there were people who have, if I may say ... and some particularly vociferous people in the run-up to the Business Plan debate, outside of this Assembly, do have, I am afraid some unrealistic views about how much it is possible to cut States spending. The clear message, if it is possible to deduce something from the public at this stage from the fiscal strategy consultation, is there should be cuts and efficiencies first and taxes second. I have got, certainly, in all of the engagement with people that I have met, a very clear view that the public expects us to be planning cuts in efficiencies in a targeted and a proper, comprehensive way. I think that the previous experience of this Assembly in terms of efficiencies, most recently in the Fundamental Spending Review that was carried out in 2004 and 2005, is that efficiencies do not need to simply be salami-sliced, they need to be sustainable and long term. There are a lot of lessons that the Council has taken on board from other C.S.R.s and, indeed, from the States’ previous experiences. This review is taking a lot longer in terms of its research and its analysis. It is also recognising, in a way that was not done before that, to make change requires restructuring investments and also, I am quite clear from everything I have seen, that if we are to deliver the type of scale of change and reductions in expenditure, the States of Jersey is going to have to really undergo quite a transformational change and we need to ensure that the management is capable of delivering that. Savings are uncomfortable, and it will lead to some changes in manpower levels across the public sector, but it is important. I know that this is something that Members are concerned about and Deputy Southern represents as a problem, it is really important to note that the savings programme is planned over a 3-year period and this will allow … the Deputy asked whether or not I was seeing any green shoots of economic recovery; well, the recovery is patchy: financial services is, in some parts, recovering quite strongly - not least of which because of the marketing effects that we are doing in overseas marketing and raising the profile of Jersey - but there is a long way to go, but we are starting, certainly, the path to international growth, but there are some risks. The Deputy of St. John is waving to me a headline in last week’s J.E.P. about unemployment and he is right to be worried about unemployment and we are also, I should say, targeting the particular areas of unemployment that are particularly problematic. I am sure the Deputy will have carried out his own research and looked at those unemployment numbers and he will see where the particular pinch points of unemployment are in the younger age group of individuals, people who have left school, who are leaving higher education, and there are real issues in that area. But that should not be concluded as being a wide-spread economic problem. Certainly, we can do an awful lot to help that particular cohort of people and we have been very successful in delivering that in terms of the Advance to Work, et cetera. I just want to make the very important point that the savings plans that are being made are on the assumption that the economy returns to growth in 2012 and 2013 and that starts in the latter part of this year and early part of next year. So the difficulty with this proposition is that it fails ... it almost denies, if I may say, the financial reality that the States finds itself in. It advocates delay, not only in the C.S.R. but in the Fiscal Strategy Review as well and accepting it would have a serious and a dramatic impact on States finances. The Consolidated Fund, the current account of the States, will be overdrawn by 2012 or 2013 if Deputy Southern’s proposition is successful. I would ask Members to cast their eye on the Council’s comments and that balance of the Consolidated Fund in the back of the report on table 1. The proposition by Deputy Southern does not present Members with all of the correct information concerning public finances, it fails to explain what would be required to bring the Consolidated Fund back into balance in 2012 and 2013. What I should also say, as set out in the comment, is that the Stabilisation Fund will also have had its balance extinguished by the end of this year because we are plugging the public financial position as a result of the downturn by use of the Stabilisation Fund. Deputy Southern and I have agreed often in terms of economic policy and today is not one of those occasions; we occasionally agree, but we do not agree on this issue. He has stood for Minister for Treasury and Resources and he gave the States an opportunity of almost putting somebody into the position of Minister for Treasury and Resources who had a different view. My advice to the Assembly is that we need to endorse and have a credible plan to bring public finances back into balance by 2013. Yesterday, we heard the I.M.F.’s (International Monetary Fund) assessment of the U.K. Coalition Government’s plan to eliminate their deficit. Although, having said that, if you look very carefully at the numbers, they are not putting back their public finances in anything like the way that they should do because of the severe hangover of debt which, I fear, is the legacy that Deputy Southern would bequeath subsequent Assemblies. We are a small Island, we are dependent, whether we like it or not, on a limited number of activities and, while I am confident about Jersey’s future, that does put a vulnerability on us and it leads the people who advise us to conclude that we should be taking no risks with our public finances; our I.M.F. in this regard, is the Fiscal Policy Panel. This Island has been built on stability and certainty, one of those areas is stability and certainty in our public finances and that is why we attempt to learn the lessons from the past, to remember what has brought ourselves to the successful position that we have today and continues it. As uncomfortable as it is to say, we have to tackle the problem that we have got, we cannot put it off, and Deputy Southern asks us to do that. We have a 3-point plan to deal with the deficit, a 3-year horizon means that we will be supporting the economy through the worst of the downturn, undertaking discretionary fiscal stimulus, as I have said. The delay is not what the F.P.P. (Fiscal Policy Panel) advises us to do, their advice is to tackle the problems. I would like to be a Minister for Treasury and Resources who brings a promise to this Assembly not to increase taxes, but I have to be responsible and we as an Assembly have to be responsible. We have been running a fiscal strategy review for a number of months and the conclusion of that review will be published in October. This proposition, I am afraid to say, jumps ahead of the conclusions of that fiscal strategy review, it eliminates one of the options set out in this review. Preventing any increase in G.S.T. before 2013 short-circuits the budget debate and the F.S.R. consultation and it devalues the input of over 1,000 people that we are still evaluating in terms of the F.S.R. I would ask Members what jurisdiction facing the fiscal challenges would tie their hands ahead of a budget debate by arbitrarily ruling out the possibility of one of the major potential forms of revenue raising? As unpopular as it will be, the debate to be had is at the budget and not now. Should we also ignore the advice of the Fiscal Policy Panel and harm, potentially, the long-term competitiveness of Jersey? The final part of this proposition deals with business tax and we have also been consulting on business tax too, and there is a separate document, as Members will be aware, which was published in parallel to the fiscal strategy review document on personal tax. Most importantly and crucially, we are also in the midst of a review of our business tax regime by the E.U. Code of Conduct and, as Members will be aware, our international team, including the Chief Minister’s international adviser and the Director of International Tax, were in Brussels last week explaining and clarifying issues concerning Zero/Ten, and that is a process which is underway.

[15:00]

I am optimistic that Zero/Ten will be continued to be regarded as code-compliant but there may well be issues that we may well have to address as a result of that review. It is wrong to make changes to Zero/Ten until that assessment process has been made. There is a commitment to look at Zero/Ten in one other respect, which I also want to confirm: I am frustrated with this issue of non-finance, non-local business and the extent to which that has impaired revenues in the Island, but I have to be realistic, I want to find a solution to that, but I can only do so, and we as an Assembly can only do so, when we understand what the assessment for Zero/Ten has been from the code group. We cannot make knee-jerk decisions on the back of a proposition such as this to change our business tax review, the process of review of business tax has to continue. It is right that this Assembly debates public finances, however, it needs to be done in an orderly way and with the Assembly fully informed of all of the work that the Council is carrying out on the C.S.R. and F.S.R. This proposition, as the Deputy of St. John says, cuts the Council of Ministers off at the knees in terms of the work that it is carrying out at the moment. I realise that there are difficult decisions ahead and some Members are quite pessimistic about Jersey’s future. It is easy to be dramatic about some of the changes that are needing to be made, it is also easy to be disheartened with what we have to do. We have strong public services, we have a strong economy and we have low taxes. Even after the changes in the C.S.R. and F.S.R., I am confident that that will continue. If we make decisions in a positive way and we balance our books, we will once again I hope, in the second week of December, be able to send out a strong message, we will be able to trumpet the fact that Jersey has credible public financial plans and we can prepare the Island for a further decade and a future of economic growth and prosperity and investment in new public services. This proposition effectively stops the work of the Council in its tracks and it denies the reality that there is a problem that needs to be done and I urge Members with the temptation of pick-and-mix approach in relation to the voting, to vote down every single part of this proposition and to allow the work of the Council to continue.

The Bailiff:

Deputy Pitman?

10.1.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I do have to make quite clear that I am strongly against going down the route of borrowing, i.e. through the use of bonds. Nevertheless, I am going to support the proposition and I will do so for the following reasons. The proposal to extend the timeframe from 3 to 5 years is, in my view, eminently sensible. If it has been said in the J.E.P. it must be true, come on, especially with the bonkers - I can only use that term - additional £15 million cuts that we have just heard. “Some pain” the Minister for Treasury describes; well, this will transform Jersey into a wasteland of division of haves and have-nots. Five years, far from delaying recovery will, in the long term, be far more sensible because it may prevent us committing to decisions from which there is no return and it is really the social impact that I want to focus on, rather than going over all the details at length which Deputy Southern has spent his time doing. It is abundantly clear to me that adequate consultation has never been entered into with lots of those who are going to be most affected by this, the people who will be thrown on to income support, lose their jobs, lose their futures. There has not been a consultation inasmuch as there has not been in a business plan from the Council of Ministers any proper taking into account of what the social impact will be of following that route and ignoring the proposition before us now. All the Council of Ministers seem to have on offer is a kill or cure quick-fix for the economic situation, there does not seem to be any real consideration of social matters. Deputy Southern’s proposition, even with my own reservations, gives us an opportunity to attempt to alleviate at least some of this. At the very heart of this issue in my view is the very dangerous… bar some, who still cling to - I have to say it - a redundant 1980s Thatcherism of playing private against the public sector. What can that bring us? Nothing for our community but division and, ultimately, despair. It is a dangerous game and I think that it is below any politician, or should be in this House, to go down that route, yet we are seeing it. I have worked in both private and public and I have to say that most people, the vast majority in both, do the very best at their jobs and to see public sector workers now pilloried as if they are all lazy, as if they are all overpaid, as if they are all inefficient, I find it quite upsetting and it is appalling. I do know what some of them think because a lot of them speak to me and I have to say, whether deliberate or not, this is what this Council of Ministers has brought about, division. Yet, only 2 years ago, so many of us stood on the Senatorial platform, everyone was talking about bringing things closer together, getting rid of the haves and the have-nots. I meant what I said in my manifesto, I know Deputy Southern did and I think that is the question for people now: is it just words or is it going to be actions? Of course, no doubt, many in the Assembly will be tempted to vote against the proposition with the excuse that we have had this debate 2 weeks ago; I think that would do a disservice to the proposition and the Deputy himself and, to be fair to the proposer, he did seek to debate this before, let us remember that. The fact is that fine words notwithstanding, going with the Council of Ministers’ vision rather than Deputy Southern’s, even with the bits I am not happy about, at least offer an opportunity to reflect and adjust as recovery hopefully gains pace, a recovery of which we keep hearing; there is no evidence to even say it is here. Voting against this absolutely guarantees that Jersey will become a divided, broken society and here I wonder whether the Council of Ministers, and those who follow them, understand who will pick up the tab when people are thrown on to the income support scrap heap. I wonder who they think is going to foot the bill when people lose homes, when people lose futures and people’s children lose their futures because this is going to have long-term impacts, let us not kid ourselves. They must surely know or else they would be stupid beyond belief so perhaps the answer is that they just do not care; now, that would be a terrible thing. It is going to be other ordinary people, other ordinary tax payers who pick up the tab for what the Council of Ministers want, even without the £15 million which miraculously appeared in our newspapers just the other week. People who are made redundant, with the Council of Ministers’ vision, will not all just disappear, they will not all just be people with roots away from the Island, they will mainly be local. Will they all find jobs? Hopefully, but the reality is that they will not; many will end up on income support, as I say, with those other working people footing the bill or, maybe, some will fund jobs, likely their very same jobs but under some private sector big wig who will do very nicely, thank you, while they are paid minimum wage to do exactly what they did before. Does that fit in with the commitments in our strategic plan to a fairer society? I do not think it does. Of course, as Deputy Southern points out, on what evidence is optimism based that any of them will find jobs in this mushrooming private sector? We hope that this will all come to pass but what evidence have we heard? None. Without wishing to have the Business Plan debate all over again, because I do not think any of us could stand that, Members may recall I had an urgent question accepted, just a couple of weeks ago, it was. We do find ourselves with another £15 million worth of savings, as the Ministers call them, but, let us be honest, they are cuts. Of course, the truth of it is that it is cuts that will, they have to, impact on front line services. As for how such additional cuts can be achieved as painlessly as the Minister would claim, we learn not a jot, they are just words, there is nothing to back them up, which brings me back to the total imbalance in this executive’s approach to the social and the economic. Only today, in answer to one of my questions, we learnt that a rise of 25 per cent tax for individuals earning over £100,000 would raise £15 million; well, would that not be handy, surely? As one of those middle earners, and there are a lot of them paying more tax than some multi-millionaires - fact, we have seen the figures in this House in answer to some of my questions - I am not very happy about that. How can we just disregard such possibilities? Deputy Southern also pointed out that business should chip-in accordingly in these times of belt-tightening, and I have got to support him fully and that is what constituents are saying to me: “Why is it that the words of big business always count and for the little man in the street it never does?” Is it because, so far, he has not risen up? How far can you push people? The bottom line for me in supporting this increase of timescale - as I say which is definitely commonsense in my view - and the opportunity the Deputy has given us to support individual aspects of the proposition, and I think that he has taken the right choice there ... it is not perfect but then he is asking for explorations in some areas. What I want to focus on is what will the result be if we do not? Deputy Southern mentioned the potential for possible confrontation; I would say that it will not be possible confrontation, it will be pretty nigh on certain confrontation. Let us be honest, I have been a union representative for a large part of my life - and I was a very committed and very fair, I think, one - and we had good negotiations when I was involved. Because if public sector workers - and they are a diverse bunch but, in my view, very hard-working and fair-minded people - do not stand up now and fight in whatever way they can then, to be quite honest, they really should just roll over now and wait to be buried. This is where we are, this is where the Council of Ministers are taking us. Indeed, as I was discussing with a couple of constituents last night, given that there are a number different versions of the poem by Pastor Niemöller (I hope I have got his name right) from Germany in the Second World War, I wonder if he was with us today if he might possibly rewrite it slightly to fit Jersey: “First, they came for the public sector workers, but I did not speak up because I was private sector worker and the J.E.P. had given some nice headlines about what lazy so-and-sos they were. Then they came for the progressive politicians; I did not speak up because I had always believed the spin of the free marketeers. Then they came for the benefits of the old and vulnerable and I did not speak up because I was not old or vulnerable yet. And then they came for me but, by then, there was no one left to speak up.” I will definitely be supporting this.

10.1.3 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I am glad that the proposer began this debate, and indeed the Minister for Treasury and Resources who was good enough to reply immediately - I think that is very important so that we can hear both sides straight away - both of them said this is an import debate and I am glad they said that because otherwise we might be in danger of marginalising it and saying: “Oh well, it is just another re-run.” This is the last chance to turn back from the brink, from the Minister for Planning and Environment’s cliff. We are, in my view… and I think that the previous speaker spelt out why, looking at the end of Jersey as we know it if we do not pull back. [Approbation] I am going to focus on 2 main things, although I will make a number of other points after, and the first is the question of “rushed”. The proposer, quite rightly in my view, on page 3 says: “The proposals so far have been rushed.” From the Council of Ministers, we get a very different range of words used. In the Annual Business plan debate, the Minister for Treasury and Resources talked of “sensible efficiency savings” and you can just feel how nice and cosy that sounds. In the comments today that the Council of Ministers issued for this debate, in the second paragraph on page 2: “Savings must be well-planned and targeted.” In the fourth paragraph: “Adopting a pragmatic and realistic approach to savings.” There are 2 very different views there: rushed, too rushed and pragmatic, realistic and sensible. I just want to remind Members of the timeline of the major reviews.

[15:15]

These major reviews were trumpeted right at the outset of this C.S.R. process by the Minister for Treasury and Resources, he was going to set up review boards to look at the 6 major areas: E.S.C. (Education, Sport and Culture), Health and Social Services, court costs, terms and conditions, Home Affairs and another one that escapes me; the 6. We find out in answer to my written question on 13th September that, in fact, these reviews have taken 2½ months in the case of E.S.C., apparently, 3½ months in the case of Home Affairs. Health and Social Services: we do not have a review yet and this is supposed to be pragmatic, realistic and sensible. I cannot understand how we are being sold the notion that this process is a responsible and a thorough and a sensible process with that sort of timescale. In addition to the issue of timescale, I know from 3 departments that they are playing round this. E.S.C. has said in a written answer, effectively: “We are doing reviews but we have to consult with stakeholders, it takes time and, no, we will not be rushed into this.” One department has said: “There are so many new initiatives it is hard to keep up and we would like to do our job” and another has said: “We will say we can do it but we do not know how.” Those were in scrutiny hearings and I cannot remember whether they were in private hearings or public ones so I am not going to say which departments they were. But that is 3 out of the 10. It is not satisfactory and, as I said, Health and Social Services, we do not even have a review at all. Then that was £50 million, so we have got these reviews 2½ months, 3½ months or totally non-existent, and then on Friday we learn another £15 million. They have moved the goal posts by a third and those new savings must be with the Council of Ministers, we learnt this morning, by 22nd October; 3 weeks. You have to say that is farcical; £15 million of savings in 3 weeks. It is absolutely unacceptable for this House to be even contemplating, and for the Council of Ministers to come to us with a straight face and say that we can plan thorough-going, sensible measures in 3 weeks. That is the first point. The second point is consultation, and I am going to take a different approach to consultation. Indeed, as the proposer spoke a lot about consultation with the workforce, I am going to challenge the Council of Ministers as to what consultation there has been with the public. Right at the outset of this process, from the Minister’s budget speech: “The C.S.R. will be a significant investment of time, energy and resources but it is essential to increase the efficiency of the public sector” and I do not disagree with that: “raise public confidence” and I do not disagree with that either: “and ensure that we have an informed debate about the level of services that the public is willing to pay for.” Mr. Chief Minister, who has not spoken - or indeed any of the other Ministers - could you please let the Assembly know, can you point to, the consultation that has taken place about the level of services that the public is willing to pay for? In my view, that would involve at least identifying services and facilities and their value to the community and to different sections of the community, you would then have to evolve restructuring proposals, which is where those review panels should have come in, and then you would look at the tax and spend mix. You would then come with proposals that made some sort of sense and had some sort of route in the community who, after all, we are here to serve, and it has not happened. Or I challenge the Ministers to point to the consultation documents, to point to where that overarching discussion about how much we should be spending on our public services, has taken place and not just out of a hat, 50-50: “It is going to be 50 per cent savings and 50 per cent tax increases and that is that.” I am sorry, I did not notice the consultation, maybe there was one, but I certainly did not see it as it flew past. “We have to do this”, we are going to be informed, I am sure in the debate and I am pretty sure the Minister for Treasury and Resources more or less said that: “We have to do this.” I will not go over the whole ground again but not only do we have to do it, but we have to do it fast. I would just remind Members that we have no debt, we are the wealthiest jurisdiction on Earth - pretty well - and we spend the lowest percentage of our national wealth on public services and facilities. The problem is not as we are being told, but there is an additional issue which the proposer rightly referred to quite strongly, which was the risk of continuing the recession by putting more people out of work at the peak of the recession and that also seems pretty extraordinary to me. I do not buy the line, and I do not think anyone should buy the line, that we have to do this. The next point I want to make is that the cuts are completely impossible. I do not quite know where the Council of Ministers are coming from because, in one form or another, there will have to be more spending and I have said that before as well. We simply cannot do it. However our sewerage infrastructure is funded, because it is falling apart; however our roads are funded, because they too are falling apart; however our housing is funded, whichever which way - it is basically a public provision and it is going to have to be funded somehow. When the Council of Ministers say things like: “Financial management will not improve and the changing culture required to put States spending on a sound footing will not occur unless we do X, Y and Z” I just wonder where they think these massive savings are going to come from. Deputy Pitman rightly pointed out that the implication is that there are lots of people being profligate and/or lazy in the public sector. I am sorry, I do not accept that view; there are inefficiencies, I am sure, there are management layers that can possibly be taken out but not £50 million, not £65 million. The effect on morale, the people who work for us, when they are constantly being asked to do more for less, more tomorrow than today and more the day after than tomorrow, you are stretching the notion of public service, in my view. We heard a bit in relation to the Power and Warcup affair about people not wanting to come and work in Jersey, I am just wondering who of really good calibre will end up wanting to work for the meanest and the richest jurisdiction in the world. There is an issue there. It is the meanest, because we spend the lowest percentage. I am hearing murmurs behind me, I am being heckled, so I respond very quickly to heckling: we are the meanest, we do spend the least and we are the richest, it is on page something of the stats report from the Stats Unit so both statements are true. A quick word on borrowing: the proposer mentions borrowing and the Council of Ministers make an extraordinary statement about borrowing. They say on, I think that it is page 10 of their document that: “Borrowing, or using our reserves, is not a sustainable option.” Tell that to almost any business: “Borrowing is not a sustainable option” obviously borrowing over the top, getting yourself completely in hock like the U.K. or, if you are a real basket case, like Greece then that is totally not acceptable; apologies to Greece, but I am talking about their nation. But we are not in that position, so it is a false comparison and borrowing is sustainable, provided you use it to fund the right things. Borrowing or using the interest, if we were to do it to make our society a lower cost, better-quality-of-life society, more resilient for the shocks that are coming, more efficient in the use of resources, especially land and energy, then that would be a good use of borrowed money and you would get the returns in the form of a better economy, more resistant to the shocks that are still going to come our way even after the recession that we are in now. Taxation, G.S.T. Again, I hope to hear from some Minister or other about the social security ceiling, if it were to be raised. We are told by the proposer that would yield £45 million, that seems to me to be pretty well what we need, and yet we are still talking about G.S.T. We have heard about the split in public opinion about G.S.T. and I just challenge one of the Ministers to tell me why not with regard to raising the ceiling on social security? I am not going to take that heckle because I did not hear it. Finally, inequality. Inequality, under these proposals, particularly the £65 million, but even under the £50 million, will increase. We do have a strategic goal and the Minister for Treasury and Resources has himself said that he is committed to greater equality, and not just inequality but every other goal in the strategic plan is now at risk, have no doubt about it. You can read through all the fine words, and they are in the drawer underneath my speech, all the fine words will come to very little. Public expenditure is the social wage and it acts as an equaliser and that is what it was meant to do, that is why people struggled through the centuries for exactly a more mixed economy. We have left the days of the workhouse behind and children going up chimneys, and there is a long history of struggle behind this greater equality and behind the mixed economy that we have today with equality of opportunity and equality of treatment. I want to see a society based on common decency and shared values and this £15 million on top of a £50 million cut needs to be looked at again, the balance needs to be looked at again because we are in danger of going backwards to a place that we should not go to.

10.1.4 Senator A. Breckon:

I would like to start on paragraph (c) because Deputy Southern is asking that the business tax revenues, especially for non-local non-finance companies who do not currently pay tax… and in the comments we are told that the Minister for Treasury and Resources has already committed as part of the business tax review to investigate ways of recouping the tax loss from these companies which effectively cease to pay corporate tax in Jersey on the introduction of Zero/Ten, without incurring unintended economic costs. This has probably been going on for about 4 years, maybe 5 years, his predecessor said the same thing - there is some leakage here - and we must look at some way of doing it. There was a proposal to tax jobs under Regulation of Undertakings, that was seen to be non-compliant with something or other, and that did not happen. We have some leakage there that we have not plugged. Again, we are being told: “Yes, this is in hand” but what it says is: “Has already committed as part of this issue to investigate ways” not to do it, but just say: “Yes, that is a good way; that is not; this might be.” So in 3 years’ time we might even be in the same place. I think that what part (c) of Deputy Southern’s proposition does it perhaps gives a bit of focus to this and says well: “Somebody could get on with it, tell us what it is, how much will it raise and if we need some money then this is one way of doing it.” I do not agree with what the Minister for Treasury and Resources said about it being a pick-and-mix proposition, I think that the proposition is carefully crafted and I think that Deputy Southern is to be congratulated on that because what it asks is to request somebody; it talks about full consultation; it talks about full negotiation; it talks about an investigation; and it talks about a suspension of something until we have more information.

[15:30]

I am compelled to speak initially by some of the comments of Senator Le Marquand, which probably some of them were tongue-in-cheek, I imagine. So I just wanted address the issue of consistency or inconsistencies with regard to the previous vote to do with the Business Plan. Now, I intend to be entirely consistent in the sense that I opposed the further cuts of £5 million. I opposed, I think, all cuts on principle where they affected front line services or where I perceived them to affect front line services. Nonetheless, I think that it has to be acknowledged that there was an element of tactical voting and not everybody who voted for the £5 million extra was necessarily wanting to see that £5 million extra. I think it was simply a case of batting it back to the Council of Ministers to say that they were not happy with the process. So I think there were those 2 elements. In hindsight, I am considering whether I should have done that myself because I think we would have been in a different scenario. But it was an element of bluff and I think certainly from my point of view I could not take that risk of sending it back to the Council of Ministers only to find out that we are going to find some more draconian cuts over and above what we have already got. So I think that is the position for some. We saw an unholy alliance, but it was … I am sure some Members were being tactical in their vote rather than necessarily ideological, although I did not play that game. First of all, I think Deputy Southern needs to be commended not just in the research, but in the way this has been presented. I do not think there is anything wrong with Members who cannot support one part but want to support the other. I would hope certainly that today part (b) gets through. I think, as the previous speaker said, there has been a public expectation and there has been a promise, even though we later find out there is a qualified promise, figuratively speaking with the fingers crossed behind the back, that: “Oh no, 3 per cent is fixed” but that is only if things remain the same as they are now. I think we owe it to the public to honour that agreement that we have made that G.S.T. does not go up, certainly not before 2013 and I would say, you know, G.S.T. must be the last resort. I am also concerned about this puritanical approach - almost dogmatic approach - we have to dealing with borrowing. Now, companies borrow money, successful companies borrow money, individuals borrow money, to fund long-term purchases which they cannot afford in the short term. The question of course should be asked, is it a correct thing to invest in rather than just opposing borrowing or taking money out of the “Rainy Day Fund” per se. So these are the questions that should be asked: does it make sense in the long term rather than just saying: “No, we will not borrow because we need to match income and expenditure on a per-year basis.” We have spoken about this in the past and it seems far too rigid. Nobody can really work, businesses cannot work, on a one-year budget. I think this is all that is really being asked for. I am not going to say any more; well, not a great deal more. I will simply comment also on the process. I think some of the newer Members and probably Senator Le Gresley is finding out that we are hampered often due to processes; sometimes you cannot win no matter what you do because of the way the processes work. You are told that you should have debated it earlier, you are told that you should wait until another debate comes along and then do it after that and find out that it does not work. What I would suggest is that in these cases that any recommendations you can make, send them to P.P.C. They are a group - I know from having been on there - that listens to Members. They do take issues seriously for improving the processes, but nonetheless the process can be very frustrating. We saw that, I think, in various examples in the Business Plan, but also in the past when we have tried to get reform matters through the States. Because simply, you cannot line up all the different options one by one and say: “Do we all agree on reform? Yes, we do.” It is not that simple. So processes within the States must always be honed. I would encourage Members, in particular the new ones, perhaps, to raise these issues as we go along with P.P.C. Quite simply, I do not have much hope for a big u-turn in the direction from the Council of Ministers today. I will simply give a salutary warning that I think that they are making a rod for their own backs. I think that the way we are pursuing this … and I think that is again why so many voted with the Scrutiny Panel the other week; it was simply to send the message to the Council of Ministers that we are not happy with the process. Some of us were not happy because we thought the spending cuts did not go far enough. Others were sending the message back that we thought the process was too soon. Nonetheless, many States Members are not happy with the process. I think that message should be heeded. We need to look at areas that require more spending, not simply areas that require less. If there was truly a Comprehensive Spending Review, I think these things will have been done in tandem. We should not necessarily have a prescribed agenda to say: “We must find a 2, 5 or 10 per cent saving.” What we should be targeting is inefficiencies, bad spending waste, at the same time within the department finding areas that are under-invested, which may need more staff, more resources, and then putting the money back into those areas before we try and declare that we have made any real savings because it could lead to false economies in the future. So clearly I will be supporting all parts of this proposition. I think we do need to sit down, engage more with all parts of society, find out exactly what it is that people expect. We do need to certainly engage more with workers, whether they be in the public sector or not. We need to listen to our employees and we need to be aware of making false economies, short-term savings, which may be more convenient rather than necessarily commonsense. So I do commend this proposition in its entirety to Members and I hope that we can support it.

The Bailiff:

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

[16:30]

10.1.15 Deputy G.P. Southern:

I wish I had heard from a few more Ministers because I might have heard that in fact in giving evidence to the Corporate Services Panel over the timescale of the cuts that were being proposed I believe most of those Ministers - if not all of those Ministers - said that the timescale was very tight and rushed not only in the 3 years, but also in the preparation to decide what is going to be part of those cuts, and that would certainly add to the impression that I have got from outside, and certainly people on the outside of this building have got, that the whole process has been fairly well rushed. I want to start in summing up by commenting on the words of my maverick Constable, the concept of him in a cowboy hat - and boots- is just absolutely completely appealing. I look forward to seeing the day when he does dress up like that, maybe this Christmas at the Christmas party. But he did mention the magic word and he said: “What are we doing here? Are we looking forward to confrontation with the unions? Are we seeing them off?” Or words to that effect. It, very much struck me that the attitude of, certainly, the Minister for Treasury and Resources is one of macho politics, or putting out your chest. He says: “Making the tough decision, and seeing-off whatever opposition comes your way.” In particular, the speech of the Minister for Treasury and Resources was peppered with the phrase: “Tough decisions. Tough decisions.” Yes, it is a tough decision to tell 10s, perhaps 100s of middle managers, which he targeted this morning in answer to one question, middle managers or higher level managers indeed, in the public sector, in their 40s, perhaps in their 50s, with children, with mortgages, children about to go to university, that their jobs are at risk. As we look around, department after department… if Ministers and Assistant Ministers pay attention to what is going on, they will see that morale, among the civil servants, among their public sector workers, in all sectors, is at an all time rock bottom low. Everybody is walking around thinking: “Is it my job that is going?” They have not been consulted about the where and the how, and they have seen what has happened already in the 2 per cent cuts. They are absolutely dreading what is going to happen in the, now, £65 million cuts. The Deputy of St. Mary was also very informative when he started talking about the use of words, the sensible efficiency savings portrayed; they are well planned and targeted. There is absolutely nothing well planned or targeted about the last £15 million. There cannot be. On that particular item, I just want to refer to the Fiscal Policy Panel’s report written before that extra £15 million was announced, when they said in their September report this year: “Given the uncertainty around the forecasts and the fragility of the local and international economies, the Panel does not believe that this requires further action at this stage. No further action at this stage.” This Minister for Treasury and Resources says that he listens to his fiscal policy and pays attention to that and yet he is prepared, at the last minute, at the last stage, to throw in an extra £15 million. If, for no other reason, than the extra £15 million thrown in, at random, without planning, I believe Members should vote for this proposition in its entirety, for that reason alone. There is no doubt, as the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture pointed out and many of us pointed out at the time, this does fit in with the strategic plan. It was clear at the time that what was being proposed to deal with our economy was a massive, a massive, endeavour to outsource, to privatise the public sector. That was clear, back then. I pointed it out. Many people spotted it. That is correct. What is disappointing is that having set out that aim clearly… what is it? Nearly 2 years ago… this Council of Ministers has made next to no effort to get the public on board via consultation and saying: “This is where we are going, you know, join us. Is this the appropriate thing to do? Talk to us. Let us consult with you.” They made absolutely no effort to get the union representatives of the public sector on board either. That is absolutely crystal clear. Let my Constable be in no doubt of that. In fact, one of the items listed as consultation, was clearly not consultation whatsoever, it was just an announcement of: “This is what we are going to do, this is how we are going to do it, and this is the time scale we are going to do it in. Now go away and talk among yourselves.” That was the consultation. That particular session was announced with one week’s notice: “By the way, this time next week, we are going to be consulting with you.” If somebody was not there, at that particular time, it could be something to do with the short notice. But consultation has not taken place. Other people have mentioned this fear of borrowing that we have and how, in fact, in the rest of the world, governments, businesses, families, individuals, it is absolutely totally normal. For example, one of the problems, one of the issues around borrowing, is that as the Chief Minister said: “Oh, we will borrow this much this year and then it will just snowball.” No, we are not talking about that. Good grief. Let us look at another small island economy. Gibraltar, for years, has funded its capital expenditure through borrowing. What happens is you build something that has a return on it. What about our social housing, we are talking about the increased demand for social housing. Why are we not borrowing to invest in social housing, which services the borrowing of its own in the capital? It is easy. Why, and why, why are we not investigating, because that is all this proposition says, that option? The other sacred cow is the Strategic Reserve, the “Rainy Day Fund.” I just want to refer to some of the very words of the Council of Ministers when it talks about the sacrosanct nature of not touching the Strategic Reserve. It says, on page 11: “The States agreed in 2006, the policy for the Strategic Reserve that the capital in the reserve should be used only in exceptional circumstances, for example to insulate the Island’s economy from the severe structural decline of a major industry.” The severe structural decline, does that sound familiar? Certainly the word “structural” does, because I have kept hearing, during the Business Plan debate, the Minister for Treasury and Resources, say: “The deficit is not cyclical- just cyclical - it is structural.” It is about a structural decline, and he has mentioned it, he says: “We may never recover the position that we have had in financial services. We may never recover it.” That is structural decline, structural change. Deputy Higgins is right, not just the interest is there, and I was being very conservative in saying: “Only go for the interest.” That might be £20 million a year, or whatever. But there is evidence, that even under our own rules, we can touch the capital. If we have that money in the bank, then why are we not doing it to see our way through to the end of the recession? It makes absolute perfect commonsense. But, oh no, this Council of Ministers is in denial. This is not what is happening now, we, like everyone else, have to adjust to a new global environment. Only if we manage our finances carefully, and do not allow the position to get worse, is the answer they provide. But their own words say that maybe, it is time to use the Strategic Reserve. My proposition says: “Investigate the potential for use of the Strategic Reserve. Let us do it.” All the confident words in the world will not convince me that what we are doing here is planned sensible efficiency savings, and well-targeted. We talked about that. Senator Breckon correctly pointed out that rather than this proposition being the knee-jerk reaction, that is what it says: “Slow down a bit, let us consider where we are going and what we are doing.” The real knee-jerk reaction is the quick reaction that came from the Council of Ministers and said: “Right, we are cutting. Get on with it. Let us salami-slice the first stage and then get on with it”, at very rushed speed, without the required amount of planning. As Deputy Higgins correctly pointed out, this is about the flow of money in and out of the economy. Now, what we are proposing at this stage is to start cutting that flow of money because government spending is just about to go through the floor. That will have an impact on the economy. It will make, undoubtedly, recovery much more difficult. For those of a more conservative bent than me, just consider the possibility of tax rises. Before you vote on this particular proposition, consider: could I reduce the rise in taxation that we are about to engage with? Could I reduce that rise by, for example, using some of the Strategic Reserve? If the answer to that is: “Yes”, it may be well worth doing exactly that. Could I reduce the size of the tax rises for my constituents by borrowing money, sensibly, and appropriately, and targeting that money, that spend, into the economy? Could I reduce the amount that we need to raise through tax rises by doing that? If the answer to that possibly is yes, then vote for this proposition, because that is what it says: “Investigate those possibilities.” Absolutely. As many people have said, they may not support the first half, part (a), but (b) is completely independent of it. I deliberately put it in there to give this House the opportunity, because it has never had it, to say: “Do not raise G.S.T.” I believe that the arguments put forth by the Minister for Treasury and Resources are not valid on part (c) either, because I believe we ought to have an idea and the public should have an idea of how the business community is likely to be contributing to the tax bill, apart from personal taxation. That fairness issue that is required there, I think, is necessary to make sure that we can, at least, enable the public out there to consider that at least some of these changes are fair across the board to all sectors in our society. I propose the proposition and call for the appel.

The Bailiff:

Very well, the appel is called for and do you wish, first of all, Deputy, to vote on paragraph (a)(i)(1), is that correct?

Deputy G.P Southern:

Yes.

The Bailiff:

Very well then, so the vote before Members is paragraph (a)(i)(1) of the proposition, that refers to full consultation of the users of and stakeholders in the services. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 11	CONTRE: 39	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator A. Breckon	Senator T.A. Le Sueur
Connétable of St. Helier	Senator P.F. Routier
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)	Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)	Senator T.J. Le Main
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)	Senator B.E. Shenton
Deputy S. Pitman (H)	Senator F.E. Cohen
Deputy M. Tadier (B)	Senator J.L. Perchard
Deputy of St. Mary	Senator S.C. Ferguson
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)	Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)	Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)	Senator F. du H. Le Gresley
	Connétable of St. Ouen
	Connétable of Grouville
	Connétable of St. Brelade
	Connétable of St. Martin
	Connétable of St. John
	Connétable of St. Saviour
	Connétable of St. Clement
	Connétable of St. Peter
	Connétable of St. Lawrence
	Connétable of St. Mary
	Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
	Deputy of St. Martin
	Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
	Deputy of St. Ouen
	Deputy of Grouville
	Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
	Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
	Deputy of Trinity
	Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B)
	Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
	Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
	Deputy of St. John
	Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
	Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
	Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
	Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
	Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
	Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

The Bailiff:

Once the Greffier has reset the machine, we will then move to vote on (a)(i)(2), that refers to the negotiation with employee representatives. I will invite the Greffier to open the voting.

POUR: 11	CONTRE: 39	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator A. Breckon	Senator T.A. Le Sueur
Connétable of St. Helier	Senator P.F. Routier
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)	Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)	Senator T.J. Le Main
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)	Senator B.E. Shenton
Deputy S. Pitman (H)	Senator F.E. Cohen
Deputy M. Tadier (B)	Senator J.L. Perchard
Deputy of St. Mary	Senator S.C. Ferguson
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)	Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)	Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)	Senator F. du H. Le Gresley
	Connétable of St. Ouen
	Connétable of Grouville
	Connétable of St. Brelade
	Connétable of St. Martin
	Connétable of St. John
	Connétable of St. Saviour
	Connétable of St. Clement
	Connétable of St. Peter
	Connétable of St. Lawrence
	Connétable of St. Mary
	Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
	Deputy of St. Martin
	Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
	Deputy of St. Ouen
	Deputy of Grouville
	Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
	Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
	Deputy of Trinity
	Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B)
	Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
	Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
	Deputy of St. John
	Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
	Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
	Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
	Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
	Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
	Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

The Bailiff:

We come next to the (a)(i)(3), which is the “Rainy Day Fund” matter, and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 10	CONTRE: 40	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator A. Breckon	Senator T.A. Le Sueur
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)	Senator P.F. Routier
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)	Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)	Senator T.J. Le Main
Deputy S. Pitman (H)	Senator B.E. Shenton
Deputy M. Tadier (B)	Senator F.E. Cohen
Deputy of St. Mary	Senator J.L. Perchard
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)	Senator S.C. Ferguson
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)	Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)	Senator B.I. Le Marquand
	Senator F. du H. Le Gresley
	Connétable of St. Ouen
	Connétable of St. Helier
	Connétable of Grouville
	Connétable of St. Brelade
	Connétable of St. Martin
	Connétable of St. John
	Connétable of St. Saviour
	Connétable of St. Clement
	Connétable of St. Peter
	Connétable of St. Lawrence
	Connétable of St. Mary
	Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
	Deputy of St. Martin
	Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
	Deputy of St. Ouen
	Deputy of Grouville
	Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
	Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
	Deputy of Trinity
	Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B)
	Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
	Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
	Deputy of St. John
	Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
	Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
	Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
	Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
	Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
	Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

The Bailiff:

Deputy, (a)(ii) must fall because it is consequential on (a)(i)(2).

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Indeed.

The Bailiff:

So we move then to paragraph (b) which is the G.S.T. matter. I invite the Greffier to open the voting.

POUR: 21	CONTRE: 29	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator A. Breckon	Senator T.A. Le Sueur
Senator F. du H. Le Gresley	Senator P.F. Routier
Connétable of St. Helier	Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Connétable of St. John	Senator T.J. Le Main
Connétable of St. Clement	Senator B.E. Shenton
Connétable of St. Lawrence	Senator F.E. Cohen
Deputy of St. Martin	Senator J.L. Perchard
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)	Senator S.C. Ferguson
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)	Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Deputy of Grouville	Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)	Connétable of St. Ouen
Deputy S. Pitman (H)	Connétable of Grouville
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)	Connétable of St. Brelade
Deputy M. Tadier (B)	Connétable of St. Martin
Deputy of St. Mary	Connétable of St. Saviour
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)	Connétable of St. Peter
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)	Connétable of St. Mary
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)	Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)	Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)	Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)	Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
	Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
	Deputy of Trinity
	Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B)
	Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
	Deputy of St. John
	Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
	Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
	Deputy E.J. Noel (L)

The Bailiff:

Very well, then we come finally to paragraph (c). I invite the Greffier to reset the voting and then to open the voting.

POUR: 15	CONTRE: 35	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator A. Breckon	Senator T.A. Le Sueur
Connétable of St. Helier	Senator P.F. Routier
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)	Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Deputy of St. Martin	Senator T.J. Le Main
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)	Senator B.E. Shenton
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)	Senator F.E. Cohen
Deputy of Grouville	Senator J.L. Perchard
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)	Senator S.C. Ferguson
Deputy S. Pitman (H)	Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Deputy M. Tadier (B)	Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Deputy of St. Mary	Senator F. du H. Le Gresley
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)	Connétable of St. Ouen
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)	Connétable of Grouville
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)	Connétable of St. Brelade
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)	Connétable of St. Martin
	Connétable of St. John
	Connétable of St. Saviour
	Connétable of St. Clement
	Connétable of St. Peter
	Connétable of St. Lawrence
	Connétable of St. Mary
	Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
	Deputy of St. Ouen
	Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
	Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
	Deputy of Trinity
	Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B)
	Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
	Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
	Deputy of St. John
	Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
	Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)
	Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
	Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
	Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

11. Recycling of waste materials: identification of suitable sites (P.97/2010)

The Bailiff:

Very well, before we move to the next item, I can inform Members that 2 matters have been lodged. First of all, Projet 130 - Reg’s Skips Limited - planning applications (R.118/2010): compensation and further action - lodged by Senator Shenton; and an amendment to Projet 118 - Composition of the States: Spring Election and move to 4-year term of office - a second amendment lodged by the Deputy of St. Mary. Very well, we move next to Projet 97 - Recycling of waste materials: identification of suitable sites, lodged by the Deputy of St. John and I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to request the Ministers for Planning and Environment, Transport and Technical Services and Treasury and Resources to take the necessary steps to identify an area of land, already in public ownership, which would be suitable for use as a site where recycling of waste material can be undertaken by licensed haulage contractors and to report back to the States within 6 months with details of suitable sites identified for this purpose.

11.1 The Deputy of St. John:

Over recent times this Island has embraced recycling to a point where the Island now recycles in excess of 32 per cent of its waste. Yet the Environment Department and T.T.S. expound the virtue of recycling and spend large sums of money promoting this industry, which is as far as it goes. It is left to the industry to react to the Island’s needs. Since the 1970s and 1980s, when the Island found the need for scrapping vehicles and the like, it left it to private companies to carry out this work. First of all, we could see these businesses spread all around the Island, some that come to light was Jandron’s Yard at St. Saviour, Piqué & Roué at St. John and other operators around the Island. It was not until a very large fire that burnt out of control for several weeks, and molten metal was running across the New North Road that the States decided to act and find a site, in this case at Bellozanne, to co-ordinate the scrapping of vehicles and the like. Then in the early 1990s we saw recycling of building rubble being carried out around the Island. In particular, we had a site, once again, in fact, on the old site of the dump that held all these old vehicles that had caught fire. We had the frustration of the neighbours and the dust and noise that went ...

The Bailiff:

Can we have more quiet please on the Senatorial benches? It is very difficult for Members to hear with so much background noise. [Approbation]

The Deputy of St. John:

Yes. We had the frustration of the noise and dust at the time. I decided to act on behalf of some of the neighbours and the contractors of the day. As the Vice-President of, then, the Public Services Committee, I persuaded the Committee and the officers within the department, to find a recycling yard that could take the majority of all this recycling away from the neighbourhood of many households. In fact, this was put at La Collette. So much so, that the majority of recycling of the building rubble is done at La Collette and it is very, very successful; highly successful. Anybody who has been down and seen the works in operation will know that that is a big success. But yet again the States body with responsibility was slow to act. In the early parts of this century we saw green waste moved to La Collette from the sites of St. Peter and at Crabbé. This only happened after complaints from neighbours and the States Departments were forced to act after polluting the watercourse with such things as arsenic. I am sure the Deputy of St. Mary will be aware that bore holes in his neighbourhood were polluted - he is not in the House. We seem to continually be caught on the back foot: continually caught on the back foot. We are now seeing the promotion by T.T.S. of recycling household waste. This, in part, I suppose, by Parishes like my own, who, about 4 or 5 years ago decided, in my absence from the States, that it was the right thing to do, that we should collect waste paper and separate our cans and our bottles, et cetera, and this works very well. This has been promoted by other Parishes and has been taken on board and at the same time we start seeing other problems ... caught on the back foot. The operators of these recycling plants which they operate out of - shall we say, grey areas within our Island - whether it is farmyards, whether it is an old quarry, whether it may be a legitimate site, like the top of Beaumont Hill that we all know about. It could cost us a lot of money to resolve that particular issue to do with Reg’s Skips. We see these skip operators being chased all around the Island from one site to another. Yet, we do nothing about it. We see comments passed by the Council of Ministers that it should be down to the operators to find these sites. I believe it is totally wrong that we put the onus on the operators when, in fact, it is us - this House - which requires these services to be put in place. The day we decide that we want to recycle is the day we should have been thinking of where will this happen, because it is bound to grow, and grow it does. It has been very, very successful. To do with waste recycling at the moment, we have just seen a massive fire in the last few months at one of these grey sites, which was a hotel which became a lodging house, which became, also, a recycling centre at St. Peter. So much so that this fire got out of control; a lot of people lost their homes and, in fact, we were close to closing the airport down. That is how bad it was. Yet, the Council of Ministers do not think it is their responsibility to find a site to recycle. To me, this is absolutely ludicrous. I mentioned Reg’s Skips earlier because we all know… we have had debates in this Chamber over that particular company. We all know there has been a Committee of Inquiry, that there has been suggestions that we pick up [Laughter] up a rather large legal bill and the like and we should pay compensation, and quite rightly so. But I am not going into that particular company, I am just using that as an example of the money it has cost us, or going to cost us, and cost this Island dearly. That company, yet again, may have to move out of their current premises, depending how Planning and Environment deal with that particular application, where they are currently working from. It is for us ... we are probably the biggest land owner in this Island, we have commercial sites, whether it be at La Collette, whether it be at Crabbé, whether it be St. Peter, whether it be at Bellozanne. Bellozanne: we are about, in the next few months, to demolish the old incinerator once the new one is up and running. Therefore, I am aware that we have also to do a lot of major engineering works at Bellozanne, to do with the digesters and the like. But, a site needs to be found, maybe where the old digesters were, where this Island can let space out to these recycling companies and have them controlled from the centre, not people working in these outside of the Parish places in the backyard of somewhere creating problems for the neighbours and creating problems for themselves, because they are trying to give a service to this Island. They do give a very good service to this Island, these contractors, and yet we are not prepared to look at the end picture. It is the end picture that we require putting in place. I am disappointed, very disappointed, with the Council of Ministers in their response to my proposition. But that said; this is for this House to decide, not just the Council of Ministers. We are in talks with Guernsey, I am given to understand, to possibly take some of their waste. We have an incinerator here, which we are told by the officers, and others, that it is oversized for the next few years. That being the case, if we are going to be importing other peoples’ waste, we want to make sure that our own waste - our own waste - is properly dealt with in the first instance.

[17:00]

For the Council of Ministers to say otherwise, I think, is absolutely ridiculous, ludicrous. I have to read this out from the Council of Ministers in their comments under 6: “It is not accepted that the States should play a role in identifying publicly-owned land for private use. There is a responsibility for private waste operators to identify their own land use requirements and either apply for planning permission in the normal way, or gain wider acceptance of their sites through the Island Plan process.” Well this is bunkum, total bunkum, because at the end of the day it is us - this House - who have adopted recycling. Those skip operators are just doing what we require them to do, not what the Chief Minister and his 9 colleagues, or 8 colleagues - I am not sure where the Minister for Planning sits on this, he has probably declared an interest. So, therefore, for them to put a report together like this, washing their hands of our responsibility ... we are supposed to put things in place for the next generation, for my children and my grandchildren, not bury our head in the sand, because that is what we are doing. It is all well and good for the Chief Minister over there to be laughing like a Cheshire cat, but it is totally wrong that we are putting this Island, and the well-being of our children and our grandchildren, and the well-being of all those neighbours of these operators of skip companies, who are trying to do what is right by the Island… but they are not getting the support of this House. I am asking Members to support ... for the Ministers of the 3 departments mentioned, T.T.S, Planning, and Property Services to go away and come back within 6 months and see if they cannot find us a site that we can use - that we can use - to let to some of these companies and we can control from the centre the hours they open and the like. Surely, that is not beyond the capability of 3 Members of this Chamber because, at the end of the day, I think it is a poor show if we have 3 elected politicians who cannot get their heads together and make something like this happen. Because, at the end of the day ... I want, by this time next year, before this House closes in September next year, October, to have this resolved, because we cannot leave this to go over for another new House to deal with all these problems because we could have an additional fire, like we have had at St. Peter, only next time we may not be so lucky, somebody might get killed. That is the type of thing we should be taking note of, because there are skip companies operating, as I say, in the grey areas or in the legal areas, where other equipment is stored nearby and fires do happen. We have seen it twice in the past and twice we have got away with. We have got away with it when the big fire was at St. John, when the scrap vehicles were up there and we had molten metal in the road. We got away with it this year at St. Peter, but the next time we may not be so lucky. It is for this House to make sure things are done properly and the right checks and balances are put in place, here and now. I make the proposition and I will take the questions as and when they come.

The Bailiff:

Well you will deal with them in reply, I think, Deputy, yes. Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded]

11.1.1 Senator B.E. Shenton:

I will be fairly brief because I think the Deputy of St. John has covered most of the points. There is definitely a problem here, not just in the case of Reg’s Skips, but also over my period in political office, I have been involved with a number of other skip operators that have also suffered similar problems with neighbours complaining of nuisance. May I just say that in these cases - and certainly if you read the Committee of Inquiry report - you will find that the Minister for Planning and Environment does have some sympathy with the skip operators and also has a realisation that they need to undertake their work and that recycling is very, very important on the Island. Indeed, back in 2008, the Minister and myself did have a conversation with regard to trying to identify some sites, either at Bellozanne or on the Waterfront, where skip operators could operate from. I think it is a sign of the times where people expect to be able to order a skip and it just disappear out and make sure that it does not get sorted in their own backyard. There is a large element of N.I.M.B.Y-ism (Not in My Back Yard). Certainly, on a wider context, when I was the Minister for Health and Social Services, and involved with the statutory nuisance law, there were some quite extreme cases. One, in particular, was where the States had compulsorily purchased some land near a dog kennels and then we built the houses. Then the people from the houses complained about the dog kennels which caused us all sorts of problems. So there is definitely a problem here. I think that the Minister is aware of the problem and does have sympathy with the problem so it would be wrong to heavily criticise him. I have lodged a proposition - “Reg’s Skips Limited - planning applications (R.118/2010): compensation and further action” - which asks to deal with this matter as part of the Island Plan process, as was the recommendation of the Committee of Inquiry. However, there is a pressing need to sort out some of the current problems on a very short timeframe. Even now, Reg’s Skips are operating from an area that the Chief Minister will be well aware of because it is right next to his house. It would be better if we could get industrial operations operating from an area on the Island which causes the least hassle to the neighbours, as possible. So I hope Members will support this. I thought I better speak before the Minister for Planning and Environment, in case he thought I was going to be heavily critical of him, which I am not, because he has tried to take a reasonable approach on planning matters and has overruled his department and introduced a level of commonsense because he is aware of the problem and he is trying to sort it out.

11.1.2 Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:

During the time that I was on the Planning and Environment Committee, this was a problem that came all the time and did not go away, because we do not have enough sites to be able to do it. The sites we did have, because of the amount of building that we are doing nowadays, are shrinking fast and being used for what will be considered, and is considered, as far more valuable uses, whether it is for domestic housing or for other things. I think the value of this particular proposition is that we are asking to do something about it and I will support this proposition because one of the problems is always the perceptions of neighbours and there is N.I.M.B.Y.-ism; there are the risks of hazards of fire, et cetera. But wherever you go in this Island there is not enough space for having a distance from getting private people coming to an agreement, because nobody wants a bad neighbour within their neighbourhood. It is quite natural. Even down at La Collette, you will have the people in No. 1 district and Nos. 3 and 4 districts that I represent at Bellozanne, they will all say the same thing. One of the reasons is that we have a habit of building houses right next door to all these bad neighbours and the bad neighbours change, like the energy from waste plant is coming to a close at Bellozanne and we have put it at La Collette. Now, quite rightly, Bellozanne is a bad neighbour site at the present time and, quite right, you are looking for new constructive uses for it, everybody accepts that. But on the other hand, we cannot be looking at having vehicles arriving at a bad neighbour use, if it is going through people’s private residence areas - or public ones for that matter - where things are dropping off lorries, or there are fire hazards, or whatever, because that is what is happening at the moment. Now, I would suggest to you the reason that I am supporting this is because we have got a golden opportunity, hopefully in the next 12 months, with the new States Development Company. At the moment, Property Holdings do not have a lot of opportunities and W.E.B. (Waterfront Enterprise Board) is not geared to it, but the new development company will have the opportunities of being able to find such suitable sites. There will not be many of them. It might not be one of them, there might need to be more than one of them, for doing separate things but, at least, hopefully, they will be in a defined area that does not infringe on the children’s safety, the public’s safety of fire hazards, et cetera, and if we do not own it, at least we will be able to trade. We will be able to either swap out some other land that we own that might be interested for redevelopment or for ownership or whatever, or we can purchase it and sell off some of the other land. Now, I know we are short of cash at the present time and we are going to have a £100 million deficit, but we cannot go on the way we are going on. It is not a good policy and as safety becomes more prevalent in this world, we have got to take our responsibility and if we do not start doing it now, and especially as we are going into a recycling mode, we are going to get ourselves into an awful lot of pickle. Therefore, I support this operation and hopefully, with the new States Development Company, the Council of Ministers will bring that forward to be able to find a solution but utilising the places that we can do that are suitable in the meantime. Thank you.

11.1.3 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

When this first came to the Council of Ministers, our initial reaction was a no-brainer and of course we should support it. Then we began to think about what the proposition said and required and some of us had second thoughts. I must say, it is one of those matters where there is not a clear Council of Ministers’ line, because there are conflicting arguments here. Certainly, from a recycling point of view, there is a clear desire to promote and encourage recycling for environmental reasons, social reasons and all sorts of reasons. But then there are planning issues to take into account and I, for one, have concerns that if we are going to ask a Minister for Planning and Environment to take part in a process of identifying sites, it then puts that Minister for Planning and Environment in a very difficult position when a subsequent planning application for that site comes before him, as to whether he can approach that application in an unbiased way. I think that does give real cause for concern. So that was my first reason for questioning whether this was, in fact, the right proposition. Then, I tried to understand what the proposition was setting out to do. It might appear to be obvious, but I do not think it is. Because what this proposition will not do is to stop the bad neighbour problem. It will not stop private operators, if they wanted to, continuing to operate from privately-owned sites. So what we are going to have are some private operators operating on privately-owned sites and some operators operating on a publicly-owned site. Now, the Deputy of St. John talked about the situation at La Collette with green waste or refuse disposal. I pointed out that there is a crucial difference here: it is that the States are responsible for all refuse disposal and all green waste disposal on one site, whereas what we are talking about in recycling, are a number of privately-owned businesses. What we are going to do here is to favour some privately-owned businesses, which happen to draw the lucky lottery ticket and get a site and penalise other private operators who do have not the luck of the draw. So, if the Deputy was going to say: “It would mandatory for all recycling to take place on the site”, then that would be a much clearer proposition than the one he has put forward today. But, as I say, he has not put that proposition forward and we have to deal with what is before us. Now, in our comments we say that there are ways of doing this and perhaps a better way is through the Island Plan process. Since we are currently in the middle of an Island Plan review - I think this is something which Senator Shenton alluded to in his comments - maybe using the Island Plan and saying these sites, wherever they may be, in private or public ownership, are suitable or unsuitable for use, is a better way forward than the States simply trying to identify particular sites for a select group of people, no matter how well intentioned the proposition may be.

[17:15]

So, as I said, having initially thought this was a simple issue, we came to the conclusion it was not as simple as we thought it was. For the reasons which I have outlined, we have felt that, on balance, it was better to reject this proposition, sympathetic though we are.

11.1.4 Senator T.J. Le Main:

I concur with the last speaker. I have to say that I was rather surprised with Deputy Fox - my friend, Deputy Fox. I am afraid Deputy Fox and I had quite a lot of experience on the planning committees of the past, and he will know, as well as I do - and most Members will know - the real difficulty facing some of these issues. Of course, I do sympathise with the likes of Reg’s Skips, good Jersey people that are trying to make a living and running their businesses. But this is massive, this is a huge issue. I mean what Constable is going to want a site of the size that is going to be needed for all these people in their Parish. This is going to be ... I mean they do not want a few houses for ordinary Jersey people. How do you expect them to be going to have to put up with a site which, in my view, would be several vergées of open land, or land to run operations like this? I cannot believe that one Constable would support this, not in their Parish, perhaps in somebody else’s Parish. [Laughter] There are other contractors doing valuable work for the States of Jersey, for the utility companies, that over the years have been in desperate straits. I can remember on Planning where one or 2 current companies were, if not prosecuted, very close to being prosecuted, because they were going from site to site to try to store and operate from. So, there are other operators, and other contractors, that are doing work for the States of Jersey and for the utility companies. I just cannot see how this or a proposal like this will operate or work in Jersey. As I say, we are currently in all sorts of difficulties with some of these operations. You take commercial vehicles. It is a blight on St. Helier. We have no commercial operator’s licences in Jersey, so an operator can start straight away, operate trucks, he can operate from anywhere, park them in the street. You only have to go into places in St. Helier - Dorset Street and all that - and people are blighted with vans with ladders on the top in front of their windows, people are just parking them all over the place. It is a nightmare. I do believe… I do very much support the Island Plan looking at some of these issues, not only for the types of recycling but the issues facing other companies and other businesses. I have said it for a long time, there are not enough opportunities for commercial operators in this Island to be able to lease or operate from. It was a crying shame some years ago when the Norman’s Store, the Huelin’s at Five Oaks, a huge commercial site, was not seized upon by the States of Jersey to provide facilities for these kinds of businesses. I just offer, as I say, to the Deputy of St. John… I could think of a lovely site in Rue Ballam in St. John which would be ideal for this operation. [Laughter] I urge him to look at it because if the Deputy of St. John thinks, Sir, through you, that he has a chance in heck of getting [Laughter] an approval from one Constable for a recycling site in their Parishes, well he will have think again and I wish him the best of luck.

11.1.5 Senator F.E. Cohen:

I will be taking the unusual step of breaking with my Ministerial colleagues. I will be supporting this proposition. That is because I have had to deal with this situation and deal with it regularly and I have had to face the music and it has not been desperately pleasant. Everyone in the Island wants recycling, just not next door to them. We have an obligation to deliver recycling opportunities. If we do not deliver recycling opportunities, we simply will not meet our environmental obligations. We are all free to express our enthusiasm for recycling, but we need to commit to sites to provide the opportunity for those who deliver this throughout the Island. There are one or 2 sites, Sir, in private hands but they are very, very few and most sites are subject to noise issues. I became embroiled in the Reg’s Skip saga and although I am pleased to see the Committee of Inquiry were broadly commendatory of my efforts, I did not find a solution. I can tell you that I regularly wake up at night worrying out the experience that Reg and Rita Pinel have had to suffer. We have agreed the principle of paying compensation to Reg and Rita Pinel for the distress caused to them, but we have not found a solution to stop this happening again. I accept that there will be a cost - a significant cost - in giving up the land value of any publicly-owned site, but I believe we have an obligation to provide a publicly owned site for the facility of sorting skips. The Chief Minister has mentioned the issue of the Minister for Planning and Environment being involved in a possible conflict through being involved in the selection of sites and then determining an application. There are ample mechanisms within the planning system, including the use of the Planning Applications Panel and the use of the Assistant Minister’s powers, to prevent that conflict being an issue. As far as the Island Plan is concerned, I am afraid the Island Plan process is well on track and I think it is too late to rely on the Island Plan solution to miraculously deliver sites out of nowhere that do not suffer from a potential noise nuisance issue. So, and in conclusion, I would say that there is the possibility, of course, of providing a central skip sorting facility, rather than a facility for each individual operator and I, as I have said, will be supporting this proposition.

11.1.6 Deputy A.K.F. Green:

I am delighted to follow the Minister for Planning and Environment because I will be supporting this. I do not underestimate the difficulty. But the reason I will be supporting it, apart from the terrible problems we have seen with Reg’s Skips, is that recycling is part of our strategic plan. I cannot remember what paragraph - I do not have the plan here - but it is part of our strategic plan. Then, what we do not want to do, of course, is to make it possible for it to happen. I think, Senator Le Main was right about one thing, of course, as long as it happens in St. Helier, that is okay, but do not let it happen in any of the other 11 Parishes. I would like to remind the Minister for Planning and Environment, when he is looking for sites, that there are 12 Parishes and not to be tempted to try and replace the incinerator at Bellozanne with a recycling place because the people of Bellozanne deserve to have a rest. They have already had a bad neighbour. They continue to have the sewage works there, so I hope that the Minister will have an open mind and look around all 12 Parishes. It does not need to be ...

Senator F.E. Cohen:

Sir, if I may interject the proposition, is not just for the Minister for Planning and Environment to look for the sites, 2 other Ministers will be involved as well.

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

But the Minister for Planning and Environment so impressed me with his speech that I was giving him a little ...

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I am just worried about taking all the blame. [Laughter]

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

I would like to remind all 3 Ministers that there are 12 Parishes. Do not be tempted to come down on Bellozanne because you might accuse me of N.I.M.B.Y.-ism, but they have their share, they have had the incinerator for years belching out toxic, illegal fumes. We are getting rid of that and putting it in to another part of St. Helier, which I think is a crying shame. However, they will still have the sewage works and other scrap yards and that down there. So I urge the Ministerial team to look for sites across the Island. It does not need to be one big site, it could be a couple of suitable unused quarries around the place that could be used, 2 or 3 sites, in the middle of nowhere, but I will be supporting this.

11.1.7 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Cognisant of the time. In the gallery we have ex-Senator Ted Vibert who, I am reminded, was the leader of the charge in relation to the Trinity infill debacle where we had probably millions of pounds of taxpayer’s money forfeited because of an inconsistent and incoherent set of policies on recycling. We have gone for the wrong technology and we do not need to get into that debate but we certainly did, at the same time, as we went for the wrong technology and the wrong targets, agree to have an investment in an internal recycling centre. The money was agreed in the budget, I believe. Because the departments do have not have the rigor to ensure that what we agree to is done, they put the money into different areas. I would like Deputy Duhamel to brief us on that, in particular, because he is quite aware of what I am talking about because he happens to remind me about it every time I get on to the subject. I would like him to, in specifics, talk to us about that because it demonstrates a continuing lack of a commitment to tackle these things. Now, Senator Le Main, God bless him, has said that his friend - used to be his good friend- Deputy Fox was off-track. Deputy Fox brought a proposition at the end of the last Assembly to give Transport and Technical Services another £400,000 to recycle. Deputy Fox identified a site. Deputy Fox brought a proposition to give us money to give to Transport and Technical Services and it was not supported. Today, what we have, are a number of “how we cannot do its” from the Council of Ministers, as usual, to my very good friend, the Deputy of St. John. Now, the Chief Minister may have been laughing while he made his speech and the Deputy of St. John did remark that when I was on the panel I gave him a few instances for cause for a laugh. I do not think we should be laughing at him. I think we should be taking his suggestion seriously. I am motivated to support him by the Minister for Planning and Environment’s speech because it demonstrates, for once, so rare an opportunity of a “can do” attitude. When Deputy Duhamel and myself and other Members of the Assembly looked into the green waste situation, which was costing, and probably still is costing, the States and the taxpayer, £750,000 a year to run for a net product of £50,000; £700,000 to do something we do not even need to be doing, green waste operation. Deputy Duhamel and myself went out around the countryside and we identified 18 sites where we could do green waste composting in-vessel and included in that was the Parish of St. Helier, who came forward with a bid and said that we could do it. The whole report and the whole investigation cost us about £75 and that included my petrol and the report I typed up and produced for the Assembly, 98 pages. In response to that report, that £73 report, I was chastised by the former Minister for Transport and Technical Services, who I do not have as much ... I like this one much better. [Laughter] He said it cost him, I think it was £180,000 ... no was it £140,000, or £400,000? Hundreds of thousands of pounds to scrutinise the work that we had done. But, really, what it was all about was justifying: “Let us get to know quickly because we have got to burn it all. We have got to burn it all because we have spent a lot of money on an incinerator that is the wrong size and if we have high recycling rates and efficient recycling in this Island, then we are going to be looking really stupid, when it comes to the fact that we are not using the incinerator and it is not burning efficiently in the way that it was anticipated it would be.” I come down in favour of it, looking at the time now, last minute, into the end turn there. It is up for debate, I believe, on 7th, but there was not ... on the Planning Applications Panel but there are consistently incidences where we go and there are instances where we see skips and the recycling in skips in this Island. I have seen one this week which is not satisfactory, by any means. In fact, it has got to have, I believe ... and it is the subject of a planning enforcement notice, or is going to be. So, there are certainly issues. I can understand why Senator Cohen is waking up in the middle of the night because of the instances that he has spoken about. But, I sometimes question how the rest of the Council of Ministers sleep at all. [Laughter]

The Bailiff:

Very well, it is 5.30p.m., the adjournment is proposed. Very well then, so the Assembly will adjourn and reconvene at 9.30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

ADJOURNMENT

[17:30]

[1] “Fiscal Strategy Review Consultation Report”, Involve, 2010. Can be found at: http://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=452