STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 1st NOVEMBER 2011

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1.1 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING ‘VULTURE FUNDS’:

1.2 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING PROGRESS ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE ANNUAL REPORTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE AIR QUALITY STRATEGY:

1.3 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING A PROGRESS REPORT ON E-GAMING:

1.4 DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE GRANTING OF PLANNING PERMISSION:

1.5 THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE TENDER FOR WASTE METAL OPERATIONS:

1.6 THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING MANAGING A MAJOR INCIDENT:

1.7 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF SUPPORT FOR HOLIDAY CLUBS:

1.8 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING BREAKDOWN OF BENEFITS IN THE ANNUAL REPORT:

1.9 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE I.D.S. REVIEW:

1.10 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE REVISION OF CSR TARGETS SET IN 2009:

1.11 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING ESTIMATE OF COSTS OF INCOME SUPPORT:

1.12 DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHAIRMAN OF PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING ELECTION PROCEDURES:

1.13 DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL:

1.14 SENATOR F. du H. LE GRESLEY OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE PUBLICATION OF THE REPORT ON FARM SHOPS:

1.15 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE DETERMINATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS’ PAY AND CONDITIONS:

1.16 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING DETAILS OF HOSPITALITY EXPENSES:

1.17 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING HOSPITALITY EXPENSES:

1.18 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING HOSPITALITY EXPENSES:

1.19 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE AWARDING OF CONTRACTS:

2. Oral Questions

2.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the scheduled delivery date of the £100 notes to commemorate the Jubilee:

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

2.1.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

2.1.2 Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:

2.1.3 The Deputy of St. Martin:

2.1.4 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

2.1.5 Deputy M. Tadier:

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

2.1.7 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:

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

2.1.9 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:

2.1.10 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

2.1.11 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

2.2 Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the qualifications held by the Ships Master at the time of the accident involving the States tug:

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

2.2.1 The Deputy of St. John:

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

2.2.3 The Deputy of St. John:

2.3 Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding the use by families of holiday clubs in 2010:

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

2.3.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

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

2.3.3 Deputy M. Tadier:

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

2.3.5 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.3.6 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

2.4 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the monitoring of the nuclear power station and reprocessing facilities at Cap de la Hague:

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

2.4.1 The Deputy of St. John:

2.4.2 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

2.5 Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the number of people directly and indirectly employed in the fulfilment industry:

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

2.5.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

2.5.2 Deputy J.A. Martin:

2.5.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.5.4 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.5.5 Deputy A.T. Dupré of St. Clement:

2.5.6 Deputy M. Tadier:

2.5.7 Deputy M. Tadier:

2.5.8 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

2.6 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley of the Chief Minister regarding delays in settling the claims against the States of Jersey for compensation by some of the former residents of children’s homes who suffered abuse whilst in care:

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

2.6.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

2.7 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding .the long-term consequences for business ownership and locally generated personal income tax returns:

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

2.7.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

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

2.7.3 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.7.4 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.7.5 Deputy M. Tadier:

2.7.6 Deputy M. Tadier:

2.7.7 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.7.8 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

2.7.9 Senator J.L. Perchard:

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

2.7.11 The Deputy of St. Martin:

2.8 The Deputy of St. Mary of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the processing of items collected for recycling:

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

2.8.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.8.2 Deputy M. Tadier:

2.8.3 Deputy M. Tadier:

2.8.4 The Deputy of St. John:

2.8.5 Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:

2.8.6 Deputy S. Pitman:

2.8.7 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.9 Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the proposed Lesquende development in St. Brelade:

Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):

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

2.9.2 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

2.9.3 Deputy M. Tadier:

2.10 Deputy M.R. Higgins of The Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the impact of the recession on the Island:

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

2.10.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

2.10.2 The Deputy of St. John:

2.10.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.10.4 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.10.5 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.10.6 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.10.7 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

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

2.10.9 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

2.10.10 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

2.11 The Deputy of St. Mary of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding who made the decision to grant permission for the redevelopment of the former Portelet Holiday Village site:

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

2.11.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

2.11.2 Senator A. Breckon:

2.11.3 Deputy M. Tadier:

2.11.4 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.11.5 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.12 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding a review of the U.K. Human Rights Act 1998:

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

2.12.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

2.13 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding an update on the review of the draft supplementary planning guidance for Island Plan Policy H3 (Affordable Housing):

Deputy R.C. Duhamel (The Minister for Planning and Environment):

2.13.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

2.14 Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the cost to the taxpayer of support (through supplementation and Income Support payments) of minimum wage jobs:

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

2.14.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.14.2 Deputy M. Tadier:

2.14.3 Deputy M. Tadier:

2.14.4 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.14.5 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.14.6 Deputy G.P. Southern:

3. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Home Affairs

3.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

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

3.1.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

3.2 The Deputy of St. Mary:

3.2.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

3.3 Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:

3.4 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

3.5 The Connétable of St. Helier:

3.6 Senator T.J. Le Main:

3.6.1 Senator T.J. Le Main:

3.7 The Deputy of St. Martin:

3.8 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

3.9 Senator T.J. Le Main:

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister

4.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

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

4.1.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

4.1.2 The Deputy of St. Martin:

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

4.3 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

4.4 The Deputy of St. John:

4.4.1 The Deputy of St. John:

4.5 Deputy G.P. Southern:

4.5.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

4.6 Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville:

4.7 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

4.8 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

4.9 The Deputy of St. John:

4.10 Senator J.L. Perchard:

4.11 The Deputy of St. John:

4.11.1 The Deputy of St. John:

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY

5. Statement by the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding relocation of the States of Jersey Police Headquarters

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

5.1.1 Senator T.J. Le Main:

5.1.2 Deputy J.A. Martin:

5.1.3 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

5.1.4 Senator P.F. Routier:

5.1.5 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

5.1.6 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

5.1.7 The Deputy of St. John:

PUBLIC BUSINESS

6. Draft Currency Notes (Variation of Maximum Denomination No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.131/2011)

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

6.1.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

6.1.2 The Deputy of St. John:

6.1.3 The Connétable of St. Peter:

6.1.4 Deputy J.B. Fox:

6.1.5 The Deputy of St. Mary:

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

6.1.6 Senator P.F. Routier:

6.1.7 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

6.1.8 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

6.1.9 Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence:

6.1.10 The Connétable of Grouville:

6.1.11 Deputy J.A. Martin:

6.1.12 Deputy M. Tadier:

6.1.13 Deputy G.P. Southern:

6.1.14 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

6.1.15 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

6.1.16 Senator J.L. Perchard:

6.1.17 The Deputy of St. Martin:

6.1.18 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

6.1.19 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Senator S.C. Ferguson (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):

6.2 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

6.2.1 The Deputy of St. John:

6.2.2 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

7. Disciplinary and grievance hearings: right to a friend (P.112/2011)

7.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

7.1.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

7.1.2 Senator A. Breckon:

7.1.3 The Deputy of St. Mary:

7.1.4 Deputy J.A. Martin:

7.1.5 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

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

7.1.7 Deputy G.P. Southern:

7.1.8 Senator P.F. Routier:

7.1.9 Deputy M. Tadier:

7.1.10 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

7.1.11 The Deputy of St. Martin:

8. Clos des Sables: further development – petition (P.121/2011)

9. Draft Policing of Parks (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P125/2011)

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

9.1.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

9.1.2 The Deputy of St. Mary:

9.1.3 Deputy J.B. Fox:

9.1.4 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

The Deputy of St. Mary (Vice-chairman, Environment Scrutiny Panel):

9.2 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

9.3 Draft Policing of Parks (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.125/2011): amendment (P125/2011 Amd.)

9.3.1 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

9.4 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

9.4.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:

8.4.2 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

10. Draft Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Jersey) Law 201- (P128/2011)

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

9.1.1 Deputy T.A. Vallois:

9.1.2 The Deputy of St. Mary:

10.1.3 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

9.2 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

10.3 Draft Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.128/2011): amendment (P.128/2011 Amd.)

10.3.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

10.4 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

10.4.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

10.4.2 Deputy M. Tadier:

Mr. H. Sharp, H.M. Solicitor General:

10.4.3 The Deputy of St. Mary:

10.4.4 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

11. Jersey Financial Services Commission: extension of Commissioners’ appointments (P.129/2011)

[Debate proceeded in camera]

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS

12. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:

13. Draft Employment Tribunal (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.135/2011

13.1 Deputy I.J. Gorst (The Minister for Social Security):

The Connétable of St. Lawrence (Vice-Chairman, Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel):

ADJOURNMENT

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Greffier of the States led the Assembly in Prayer.

[9:45]

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1.1 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING ‘VULTURE FUNDS’:

Question

Can the Chief Minister outline what progress, if any, he is making on ensuring that so called ‘vulture funds’ cannot operate or pursue claims in Jersey?

Answer

On 14th September a Ministerial Decision was made to present a Green Paper Consultation on Debt Relief for Poorer Countries as a report to the States Assembly.  I duly presented the report (R.114/2011) to Members on 15th September and the Green Paper was put out to public consultation later that day.

The consultation closing date is 8th December 2011 and once all responses have been received the views expressed by respondents will be reviewed and decisions will be made on the next steps to be taken.

1.2 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING PROGRESS ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE ANNUAL REPORTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE AIR QUALITY STRATEGY:

Question

Would the Minister give a progress report on the following documents and outline the reasons for the delays in their publication –

(i) ‘Annual Report on the Environment’ promised in the Strategic Plan

(ii) ‘Air Quality Strategy’ promised in the Strategic Plan

(iii) ‘Annual Report on climate change and peak oil and the impact on policies of the States’, which resulted from my amendment to the Strategic Plan?

Answer

The Deputy will recall that the department pledged to combine item iii (Climate Change and Peak oil) with item i (Annual Report on the Environment). We are pleased to report that this has been published and is available on the Greffe website (R126/11). The Department regrets that this has taken longer than we would have liked and that we had indicated previously.

The reason for the delay is resource pressure within the Department and thus the decision to prioritise operational issues. For example the Department over the past few months has had a significant workload in relation to scrutiny reviews, the emerging fisheries management issues with Guernsey, a restructuring of the fisheries team following voluntary redundancies, and overseas work in relation to the rural economy.

Item ii – The Air Quality Strategy (or Air Quality Action plan) is in an advanced state of development and only requires a final consultation phase before it can be implemented. Some delays have occurred for good reason. These include very positive discussions with the Health Minister around cross departmental transfer of functions and resource constraints around key officers with the Environment team.

1.3 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING A PROGRESS REPORT ON E-GAMING:

Question

Can the Minister outline what progress, if any, has been made on the following issues upon which he gave assurances during the debate on P.28/2010 (Establishment of a regulatory and licensing regime for e-gaming for Jersey) on 21st April 2010, namely ­

(a) a report on all aspects of e-gaming, including the likely scope of any potential problems, the measures to be taken to reduce the harm caused and so on;

(b) the consultation into the Code of Practice for the e-gaming operations which might set up in Jersey?

Answer

The debate on P28/2010 (Establishment of a Regulatory and Licensing Regime for E-gaming for Jersey) was an In Principle proposition debated Wednesday, 21st April 2010. Having scrutinised the Hansard transcript of the debate I can find no reference to an agreement to the broad undertaking set out under point (a) of this question or the specific requirement of point (b). Understandably, the Assembly have debated various pieces of gambling legislation over the last two years, and I propose the Deputy of St Mary must be alluding to an undertaking made at the conclusion of the debate on the Draft Gambling (Remote Gambling Disaster Recovery) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.199/2010), on Thursday, 3rd March 2011.

Here I assented to 2 specific requests from Deputy M.R. Higgins, namely:

(a) To report on the progress of strategies and programmes to reduce any social harm.

(b) That e-gaming licences should not be issued until the Codes of Practice have been approved.

As the Deputy for St Mary was active not only in this particular debate, but was also a member of the Scrutiny Panel that examined P.199/2010, I am confident this proposition is the premise for his written question. Each area will be addressed in turn.

(a) Strategy to reduce and prevent social harm

The Commission established a Social Responsibility Panel to inform policy and offer advice on how best to meet its key objectives, for example, to:

•        protect children and vulnerable persons from addiction and other forms of harm associated with gambling; and
•        make assistance available to persons who are or may be affected by problems related to excessive gambling.

The Panel is made up of an independent Chair, a representative of the gambling industry and a specialist from public health. These individuals are experts in their own particular fields and all members give their time free of charge. To date and in line with its remit to investigate and engage a bespoke counselling service for Jersey, the Panel has agreed to trial an online help provider. This provider is Gambling Therapy and www.gamblingtherapy.je has been established as a dedicated website for Jersey residents. Counsellors may also be contacted by e-mail Jersey@gamblingtherapy.je. 

Staff and trained counsellors from Gambling Therapy have visited Jersey a number of times; they know the local gambling sector and understand the pressures that a problem gambler and their family may face. The Panel has approved posters and leaflets for this service, which have been distributed to betting offices, Citizens Advice and the library.  It should also be noted that CI Lottery terminals already carry responsible play banners but the content will also refer to Gambling Therapy services. Dependent on the data returned from Gambling Therapy and the assessment of individuals seeking help through this service, the Panel will move to arrange either regular or ad hoc face-to-face sessions with a Jersey based counsellor.  

The Panel have also been active in the production of the Responsible Gambling Codes of Practice, in particular the area of self-exclusion. Having requested a brief survey of self-exclusion processes across the betting industry in Jersey, it was evident that the majority of operators have in place a mechanism for self-barring from betting. With the pending adoption of the new Gambling Law in 2012 and the overhaul of the 1960s regulations, the Gambling Commission will be enabled to impose licence conditions on the terrestrial industry above those operational requirements prescribed in the 1965 Regulations and for the first time compliance with schemes such as self-exclusion procedures will become mandatory.

The majority of off and on-course bookmakers made voluntary contributions to the Social Responsibility fund at the level recommended by the Commission. These firms and individuals will be acknowledged in the 2012 annual report of the Commission.

(b) Codes of Practice

The Gambling Commission (Consultation on Codes of Practice) (Jersey) Order 2011 (R&O.136/2011) was made on 18th October 2011 and came into force on 25th October 2011. This Order specifies, as the title suggests, the procedure for consultation on codes of practice about gambling, and for publication and effective dates of approved codes. It should be understood that prior to this Order being made the Jersey Gambling Commission had no vires for the inception and adoption of Codes of Practice. While a licence could have been granted governed solely by licence conditions and not predicate on a Code of Practice, this, in line with my undertaking, has not occurred.

The Commission launched consultations on three different Codes of Practice on 28th October 2011:

•           Responsible Gambling Code of Practice applicable to E-gaming Operators;
•           Responsible Gambling Code of Practice applicable to Land Based Operations;
•           Code of Practice in Respect of Technical Standards applicable to Remote Gambling Operators.

The first two Codes of Practice deal directly with responsible gambling measures for the remote and terrestrial industry; the third code details those technical standards required by e-gaming operators to meet licensing criteria and once again this includes the use of tools in respect of age verification, play limits, spend limits and other social responsibility requirements. Copies of these consultations are available on the Commissions website www.jgc.je and have been sent to current (terrestrial) licensees, individuals signed up to the consultation register and other interested parties.

1.4 DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE GRANTING OF PLANNING PERMISSION:

Question

Does Jersey have an equivalent to a Section 106 Agreement found within the UK Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which allows a local planning authority to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission?

What amount of money, if any, was levied from flats that were approved during both Senator Ozouf’s and Senator Cohen’s tenures as President of the Environment and Public Services Committee and Minister for Planning and Environment respectively and how many were approved?

Answer

Planning Obligation Agreements were first introduced into Jersey via Amendment No. 8 of the Island Planning (Jersey) Law, 1964, which was adopted by the States in November 2002.  The provision was carried through into the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, when it was adopted in 2006.

In both cases, the provision allows the Minister to enter into agreement with the owner of an interest in land to

(a)   restrict the development or use of land in a specified way;

(b)   require a specified operation or activity to be undertaken in, on, over or under the land; or

(c)   require the land to be use in a specified way.

Typically, planning obligation agreements are used on larger projects to ensure that a developer adheres to a States policy objective which cannot be controlled by a condition on the planning permission.  Agreements must be relevant to the development under consideration by the Minister and also to a reasonable planning objective.  Examples include the carrying out of infrastructure improvements (provision of a footpath or bus shelter), controlling the occupancy of residential units to a particular group of people (either to first time buyers or the over 55s) or to the handing over of monies for the supplementation of a public service (such as enhancements to the bus service).

In relation to the second part of the question, the amount of money required from Planning Obligation Agreements relating to flats is as follows:

Senator Ozouf.

Bergerac Apartments, St. Brelade (54 flats and 45 houses)

a)  Bus shelter - £3,000

Fields 181, 182, 183 St Peter (24 flats and houses)

a)      Extend cycle track from airport to railway walk - £30,000

Westview Farm

a) Highway improvements on road junction

Senator Cohen

Portelet Holiday Village (46 flats and 7 houses).

a) Bus shelter - £6,000

Old Canning Factory, Chellow Dene etc., Plat Douet (14 flats and 20 houses)

a) Junction improvement – work carried out by developer - sum unknown

b) Pedestrian refuge – work carried out by developer - sum unknown

Esplanade Quarter (outline permission for 388 flats, plus offices, retail, restaurant, hotel and other uses)

a) Public art - £825,000

b) Transport (dependant on set tariffs per square metre of final floor space, not yet decided) - sum not yet calculated

Castle Quay (280 flats, plus office, retail and restaurant uses)

a) CCTV - £68,000

b) Transport - £105,877

1.5 THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE TENDER FOR WASTE METAL OPERATIONS:

Question

Further to a request from Picot and Rouillé Limited Scrapyard at the beginning of October 2011 which was circulated to all States Members, would the Minister provide Members with the following details –

(a) where and when the advertisement to tender for the waste metal operations was placed and how many replies were received?

(b) when the current operator was given notice that the contract would go out to tender, when the current contract expires, how long the current operator has been a tenant of the States and whether they have breached their tenancy agreement and, if so, how?

(c) whether the business belongs to the States, as claimed in advert, and, if so, can members see the annual accounts?

(d) within any tender process are the existing employees to be transferred to any new operator, and, if so, have discussions taken place with the current company and how many staff will be affected?

(e) would the Minister explain the rationale behind the decision to tender off-Island for this work?

(f) were the company books reviewed before the tender process began?

(g) did the Minister consider reviewing the current arrangement with the existing tenants and if not, why not?

Answer

(a) where and when the advertisement to tender for the waste metal operations was placed and how many replies were received?

The “expressions of interest” advertisement for the scrap metal contract was placed in: Jersey Evening Post, Materials Recycling Week (UK/International), British Metals Recycling Association, FEDEREC [Federation of Professional Recycling] (France), Official Journal of the EU. All the advertisements were released on the 16th September 2011, although some publications were a few days later.

22 expressions of interest have been received from the following jurisdictions: Jersey 7, Guernsey 2, France 2, England 10, Scotland 1.

(b) when the current operator was given notice that the contract would go out to tender, when the current contract expires , how long the current operator has been a tenant of the States and whether they have breached their tenancy agreement and, if so, how.

Picot and Rouillé Ltd., were informed of the Department’s intention to re-tender the contract at a meeting on 4th November 2010. The meeting was between officers of the department, the Directors of the company and their advisor a Mr A. Crowe.

The current contract is formed in two parts; a property lease for the site, held with Jersey Property Holdings and a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with Transport and Technical Services. The lease expires December 24th 2012 and the SLA has been extended to match the duration of the lease.

The States of Jersey have had a long association with Picot & Rouillé Ltd., and in general the relationship has been a good one. As with most contracts of this nature there have been some issues particularly more recently on Health and Safety and environmental practices. TTS has not pursued any breach of agreement.  

(c)   whether the business belongs to the States, as claimed in advert, and, if so, can members see the annual accounts?

Picot and Rouillé Ltd., are an independent trading company. The States of Jersey are not shareholders. Neither the States or Picot and Rouillé have any sole rights to the scrap metal business in Jersey and there are a number of other companies receiving and dealing in waste metals.

The operation in Bellozanne Valley is run by the company on a States owned site under a service level agreement. Part of the agreement is that the company accounts are reported to TTS but the Department is bound to respect the commercial sensitivity of this information particularly with the contract soon to be tendered.

(d) within any tender process are the existing employees to be transferred to any new operator, and, if so, have discussions taken place with the current company and how many staff will be affected?

The tender process has only just received expressions of interest. It would be premature to engage in such discussions as it is not yet known how the new service will operate. Should the current operator be unsuccessful in bidding for the new contract, it may well be that the new operator takes advantage of the existing skills base but TTS does not intend to stipulate this contractually.

(e) would the Minister explain the rationale behind the decision to tender off-Island for this work?

The waste metals market has changed over recent years, as have the environmental standards associated with the industry. The current financial climate and pressures on the public sector to become more businesslike and provide best value have led to a decision to widely test both the market and operational opportunities to update the way this service is provided for the Island. A wide net is intended to ensure the best outcome is achieved and it is pleasing that 7 local companies, including the current operator, have expressed an interest and are participating in the tender process

(f) were the company books reviewed before the tender process began?

The quarterly and final yearly accounts are reviewed by the Department’s finance team.

(g) did the Minister consider reviewing the current arrangement with the existing tenants and if not, why not?

At the last point of contract renewal in 2007 the property lease and SLA were extended with the current company without open competition. For the reasons given above and taking into account the need to provide the States of Jersey with value for money it was deemed appropriate to seek ideas from the open market. This process does not exclude the existing tenants but should provide new ideas and improved opportunities in providing this service.

1.6 THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING MANAGING A MAJOR INCIDENT:

Question

1. Would the Chief Minister advise whether local officers such as the Coxswain of the St Helier Life Boat, former lifeboat crew and also senior staff of C.I. Air Search, French Air and Sea Rescue services were invited to be part of the Managing a Major incident training on 6th and 7th October 2011?

2. Was our sister Island of Guernsey invited to send representatives to attend, and, if not, why not?

3. Were casualties from the local shipping disaster the St Malo contacted to give a first hand account of their experiences?

4. How many of those people involved in the exercise stayed overnight at the Radisson Hotel and what was the total cost of their accommodation, for both the off-Island and on-Island participants?

5. If local representatives, Channel Island Air Search, Guernsey and French Rescue services were not invited, will the Chief Minister be arranging a similar exercise to involve them and, if not, why not?

6.      Does the Minister accept that seeking advice from UK experts as opposed to a pan Channel Island/French approach is less valuable, given that the latter are more likely to be involved in any incident in Island Waters?

Answer

1.  The officers to which the Deputy refers were not part of the incident training event held on 6th and 7th October. The event was specifically designed for Chief Officers of Services and Departments in Jersey who could be called upon to lead and co-ordinate a response to a major incident.    Officers such as those the Deputy mentions would be expected to be on active involvement rather than management and co-ordination.

 Although not a legal requirement under Jersey Law, such training of a Gold Command Group is required under UK Law, and the Emergency Planning Council view is that this training is not only best practice but absolutely essential.

2.  Whilst Guernsey would need its own Gold Command structure and training, a representative from Guernsey was a delegate to the event.

3.  No. This was a generic exercise, and although the scenario in this exercise could have been land based, a sea based event was chosen to reflect the higher risk of a sea based incident in Jersey, and to involve as many officers as possible.  The purpose of the event was for senior officers to work and learn together for any major incident.

4.  30 people stayed overnight for the event, 9 from off Island and 21 from Jersey.  The total cost of the exercise was £19,811 with accommodation and meals accounting for £5,558.25, of which £2,642.40 was for off-Island participants (which covers two nights accommodation) and £2,915.85 for on-Island participants. 

 Had the exercise taken place off-island at an accredited Training Centre, the cost would have been about £1,750 per delegate.  A UK based course would also necessarily mean that 24 Chief and Senior Officers would be off Island for 2 to 3 days, which would not only add further to the cost but would leave the Island exposed to greater risk should any major or minor incident occur during that time.  In contrast, the cost for the exercise in Jersey was approximately £825 per delegate.

5.  Whilst those the Deputy mentioned do not form part of the Gold Command team, the overall training plan means that further exercises at a more operational level will be undertaken to include these important elements of any joint response.

6.  Certainly not.  The presenters and trainers in this exercise are internationally recognised as experts in this field and the Emergency Planning Council believe that the safety of Islanders and visitors to Jersey is paramount and is deserving of the best possible advice. At an operational level it might indeed be appropriate to have such parties in attendance.

1.7 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF SUPPORT FOR HOLIDAY CLUBS:

Question

Will the Minister explain to members why he has removed support for holiday clubs and confirm that this facility will no longer be available to working parents?

Will he further state –

(a) how much money has been saved by this measure?

(b) how many staff are involved?

(c) how he expects parents to be able to continue to work during the school holidays without this support?

(d) how the removal of this service promotes any of the aims supported by this Assembly in the Strategic Plan 2009-2014?

(e) what estimate he has for the cost per child of replacing this service for families who must continue to work through school holidays?

Does the Minister accept that the removal of this service to working families may tip the economic balance between work and non-work?

Answer

I can confirm that although Activity Clubs will no longer be run by my department, other options will be available for working parents.  This was identified as a saving for 2012 and was agreed by this Assembly as part of the 2012 Business Plan.  The ESC department will continue to run a wide range of increasingly popular holiday activities, for a large number of young people, either directly, or in partnership with clubs, associations and private providers.

The decision to cease the ESC activity clubs was arrived at as they were no longer cost-effective, and did not provide equal opportunities for all children.  Furthermore, there are a range of providers who are able to meet the needs of this particular group of young people and parents.  

The Education department used to be the sole provider of Activity Clubs formerly known as Education Play schemes, which were run in ESC facilities during the school holidays.  This is no longer the case.

In future, Activity Clubs will be provided in partnership with existing childcare companies, charities and specialist voluntary organisations.  The existing registered child care providers have confirmed that they are able to accommodate all children, and will work closely with the department to ensure that this provision will continue to be available to all working parents.

At present children attending ESC Activity Clubs are subsidised by the taxpayer as the service runs at a loss, whereas the children attending clubs run by private registered providers receive no subsidy and are expected to pay the full cost.  ESC has been competing unfairly with these providers who do not have the same access to facilities and subsidy from the States.  I am confident that the range of services available will meet the needs of all young people in the 4 to 12 age group.

The charge per hour for ESC activity clubs was £2.80.  In order to cover the full cost of the service the charge to parents would have needed to increase significantly in line, if not above, other providers whose costs start at £3.10 per hour and go up to £4.50 per hour dependent on the activities on offer.

In addition the numbers attending the ESC clubs has reduced in recent years making them even less viable.  This demonstrates that more parents are choosing to use one of the many alternatives available.

Parents who qualify for childcare under Income Support, or Childcare tax exemption, will, as now, continue to receive assistance when accessing alternative registered providers.

In answer to the specific questions;

a)      The overall saving will be £80,000 per year.

b)     There is one full time member of staff who has taken Voluntary Redundancy. There are 26 part time staff who work during the school holidays. Of the 11 weeks on offer most staff, who are mainly students, will work an average of 3 or 4 weeks. It is anticipated that students will still  be required to assist in clubs operated by private providers.

c)      Parents will be able to continue to work during the school holidays, as there is sufficient capacity offered by other providers. If there is extra demand for facilities the Department is committed to work with them to provide access to suitable premises, if required.

d)     Changes to the service are consistent with the aims contained in the Strategic Plan 2009 – 2014, specifically priorities 3 and 4 which is to reform the public service to improve efficiency and also to ensure sustainable public finances.

e)      On average children attended the ESC activity clubs for two and half weeks per year. Dependant on the club selected by the parents and the range of activities offered, the increased cost to a parent will range between £26.25 and £159.92 per year.

I do not accept that this will tip the economic balance between work and non-work as parents will still be able to access a wide range of holiday clubs.  Low income parents or children with special needs will continue to be supported as now.  Following discussions with Autism Jersey they have agreed to take on the administration and funding of the service for this particular group and the specialist provision at Mont a L’Abbe will continue.

Ultimately, the changes proposed will allow the more experienced private sector providers to improve the overall quality of service and offer more choice and flexibility of activities and venues.

Extract from the Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011): Thirteenth amendment (P.123/2011 Amd. (13)----Comments presented to the States on 9th September by the Minister of Education, Sport and Culture.

(5) Play schemes and Outdoor Education

The Deputy of St. Mary has requested the Department’s budget shall be increased by £54,990 with respect to the “Play schemes and Outdoor education” line in the Department’s service analysis in order to maintain the value of funding in this area.

ESC activity clubs were initially established as no other provider offered this service in Jersey. Now there are a number of providers delivering a similar service across the Island.

The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture aims to work closely with the private and voluntary sector organisations to ensure activity clubs remain affordable and available to parents who rely upon them.

Activity Clubs provide an important contribution to childcare services in Jersey. The Minister is keen that all children requiring a place receive one, and that the place is affordable and that quality in childcare services continue to increase. It is proven that working closely with the voluntary and private sector (e.g. with the Nursery Education Fund) has improved quality and delivered a more cohesive and flexible service for parents (e.g. increased choice of providers and locations).

Private sector providers are well placed to deliver childcare of high quality and flexibility and more choice of activities and venues for children.

Meetings have already taken place with parents to inform them of proposed changes, and discussions have been ongoing with existing providers over the use of Education, Sport and Culture facilities to expand their provision in appropriate locations.

Specialist activity clubs for children with special needs will not be affected. At this time, parents receiving the Childcare Component of Income Support to access activity clubs will continue to receive this support.

As part of the requirement placed on the Department to reduce expenditure, this proposal will make an ongoing saving of £80,000 from 2012.

1.8 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING BREAKDOWN OF BENEFITS IN THE ANNUAL REPORT:

Question

Will the Minister advise whether he will implement recommendation 7 of the Scrutiny Report SR.3/2011 into benefit levels (that a full breakdown in terms of individual components of the total paid through Income Support (IS) be made public in the Annual Report and Accounts) and, if not, why?

Does the Minister accept that the absence of any published analysis of £95 million of benefit expenditure is contrary to the Council of Minister’s commitment to open and accountable government?

Will he agree to the publication of a breakdown of the sums that have been dispensed on individual components of IS and, if so, when will he do so?

Will he agree to bring to the Assembly a report containing an analysis of the proportions of IS households which support claimants who are working or unemployed, pensioners, have children and live in States rental or private rental accommodation and, if so, when?

Does the Minister have any figures which reveal changes in the sums delivered by component or types of household over the period that IS has been in place and, if not, what analysis will be undertaken to address priorities for social support systems for the future?

Answer

As I advised in my response to the Scrutiny Report S.R. 3/2011 -Review of Benefit Levels, this topic is covered by the Income Support departmental review and further detail will be provided when this review is complete.  For ease of reference the relevant extract from the response to the report is reproduced below:

The Income Support review is underway and I would expect the new Minister to liase with the Scrutiny Panel to decide on the most appropriate way of providing this information.

1.9 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE I.D.S. REVIEW:

Question

In the light of the refusal of both her department and the States Employment Board’s to implement the recommendations of the Income Data Services review of recruitment and retention of nurses, will the Minister give members detailed information on the concrete proposals she has to address the issues raised?

Does the Minister accept the findings of the report which suggest that significant pay rises (of the order of 17%) are required if nursing vacancy rates are to be addressed in the long term?

Answer

The IDS report did find that Grade 5 nurses are 17% worse off that their UK counterparts once housing costs had been factored in. The report did not, however, recommend a 17% pay rise.

HSSD accepts that we are part of a global labour market and, if we are to recruit and retain high calibre nurses and midwives, we must be able to compete. Pay is obviously a critical factor in making Jersey attractive but there are many other important issues relating to broader terms and conditions of employment, the working environment, accommodation, access to training, career opportunities and overall quality of life. Managing our nurse vacancy rate in the long term is about more than salary increases, even if such increases could be afforded.

Since the publication of the IDS report discussions have taken place between:

• the States Employment Board
• HSSD Management
• employee representatives from the three unions that comprise the nurses and midwives pay group (Royal College of Nursing; Royal College of Midwives; the Jersey Nursing Association/Unite)

As a result, I confirm the following proposals have been agreed:

1.  More flexibility will be applied to the current relocation arrangements. In future nurses and midwives recruited from outside Jersey will be able to immediately access £3,000 of the available £8,000 to assist with their relocation.

2.  Additional nurses will be recruited in order to ease the operational pressures in elderly mental health services.

3.  Amendments will be made to the current pay structure including:

• changing the starting increment for newly qualified nurses and midwives, so that all registered nurses start on Grade 4, as opposed to some starting on Grade 3. Newly qualified staff will start at a lower increment on Grade 4 and experienced staff will start on a higher increment. This change will result in the Grade 3 band becoming available to support the development of new roles, for example the progression of healthcare assistants.

• Revise the Grade 8 structure to allow the expansion of roles whilst retaining the nurses and midwives pay structure.

1.10 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE REVISION OF CSR TARGETS SET IN 2009:

Question

In the light of continuing record unemployment figures, worsening business prospects over the whole economy, continuing uncertainty over economic prospects in Europe and the increased risk of double-dip recession in the UK, would the Minister revise the CSR targets he set in 2009, in order to prevent further hardship amongst Jersey households and promote economic recovery?

Answer

The international outlook has deteriorated in many of the developed economies in recent months and this has impacted on global economic growth expectations.  However, as the chart below shows, the expectation is still for growth, but at a lower level than before. 

Chart 1:  Index of World GDP (2007 Q1 = 100)

(black line: actual GDP and growth expectations in September 2011, dotted line: growth expectations in June 2011)

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook, June 2011 Update and September 2011

This slower level of expected growth will have an impact on our economic recovery.  The Fiscal Policy Panel (FPP) has recently published an updated economic forecast for Jersey on the basis of the most recent local and international data and expectations (Chart 2).  The FPP expect modest economic growth of 0% to 3% this year and slightly less growth in 2012 with a risk of a small decline (range -2% to +2%).

Chart 2:  Economic forecast for Jersey

% change in GVA on year before

(dotted line and dark blue range represent central expectations, light blue range represent outlying expectations)

Source: Fiscal Policy Panel Annual Report October 2011 Update

The expected return to growth in 2011 and 2012 should help prevent any further hardship of Islanders in what will be a difficult period. Although unemployment is at its highest level, it should be noted that employment in the first half of 2011 also rose to its highest recorded level, showing that some businesses are starting to increase employment again.  In addition, we are actively addressing the issue of unemployment through our “Advance to Work” and “Advance to Work Plus” schemes, both of which will continue next year.

Members will recall the following key recommendations made by the FPP:

• The implementation of the Fiscal Strategy and Comprehensive Spending Review measures in Budget 2011 and the Business Plan 2012 provide an absolute minimum. 
• The Stabilisation Fund (or other money) should not be used for further discretionary stimulus at this stage.
• Should the economic situation deteriorate, the States should be ready to support economic activity without weakening States’ finances.

The CSR objective to ‘control States spending by setting tough but achievable savings targets’ (2012 Business Plan) is consistent with these recommendations. A requirement of a healthy economy is to have spending under tight control and the predicted structural deficit bridged. Revising CSR targets downwards would be detrimental to achieving this objective and the Minister is not prepared to do so.

The 2012 Budget proposals are intended to help many households whilst ensuring that we bring our finances back to balance by 2013.  I have announced that there will be further initiatives to stimulate and support economic activity next year without weakening our financial position.

1.11 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING ESTIMATE OF COSTS OF INCOME SUPPORT:

Question

Will the Minister provide an estimate of the overall cost to taxpayers of the support given in Income Support and supplementation to the maintenance of low-paid jobs (at or around the minimum wage) in the economy, and if not why not?

Answer

There is little evidence currently available to identify the number of workers employed at or close to minimum wage.  Attempts to measure the number have produced results that are difficult to analyse statistically, due to the low number of individuals identified.  A question was asked in the Jersey Annual Social Survey 2008 and the recent Income Distribution Survey also examined wage rates.

The issue of income support being paid to workers on minimum wage was also considered by the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel during their 18 month review of benefit levels.   Their published report did not provide any evidence of the number of IS claimants working at the minimum wage.

Feedback from sectors that are more likely to employ individuals at lower hourly rates suggest that the minimum wage is mainly used when employing entry-level, seasonal and youth workers and the majority of locally resident workers are paid above the minimum wage.

The Employment Forum has recently published its recommendations on the 2012 minimum wage.  These include a proposal to undertake independent research to identify the extent of minimum wage jobs in Jersey.  I have accepted this recommendation and this research will be undertaken next year. 

Relevant extracts from reports mentioned above are included in the appendix to this question.

Both income support and supplementation are calculated on the basis of wages received, rather than the hourly rate paid.  An individual working 40 hours at the current minimum wage (£6.32 ph) will earn £252.80 per week.  The same wages would be received by an individual working 25 hours at £10.10 per hour, or 20 hours at £12.64 per hour.  Data held within the Social Security Department records gross wages on a weekly or monthly basis.  It does not differentiate between an individual working full time at the minimum wage as opposed to someone working part-time at a higher rate. 

Supplementation is a mechanism to ensure that the majority of workers are able to claim a full pension in old age.  As long as earnings in a month exceed a minimum threshold (currently set at £776), and contributions are paid by the employee and employer, then the contribution record for that employee is “supplemented” and is deemed to have been paid at the full rate.  The cost of this supplementation has historically been borne by the States through an annual grant.  Approximately 70% of all employees in Jersey receive some supplementation to their contribution record at any one time.  An individual with a weekly wage of £252.80 would have supplementation of £62.77 added to their contribution record.

It should be noted that the  States Grant in respect of supplementation has now been fixed for 2011, 2012 and 2013 following the adoption by the States Assembly of the  Draft Social Security (Amendment of Law No. 1) (Jersey) Regulations 2011 in July this year.

Income support is only available to individuals with five years residence.  Income support is based on household income and is only paid to households with total income below a given level.  Income support is available to those with and without work but it provides a significant incentive for individuals to take up and remain in work.  For example, the individual earning £252.80 per week and receiving income support, is  £2,629 a year better off than a similar individual who is unemployed.

Given the limited data on the number of workers working at minimum wage, the wide variety of workers who receive supplementation, and the targeting of income support based on residency conditions and household circumstances, it is not possible to make any meaningful estimate of the cost of supplementation and income support to workers working close to the minimum wage.

Appendix

Extract from the Employment Forum Recommendation – Minimum wage rates for 1 April 2012[1]; ‘Data on minimum wage earners’ section

“The Forum has been concerned for a number of years that this data is not available from current statistics and surveys. Discussions with the Statistics Unit indicate that it would not be possible to adapt an existing survey, or to initiate a new survey specifically for this purpose.  One difficulty is that the equivalent surveys used to collect this information in the UK and Isle of Man are required to be completed by law, whereas there is no such requirement in Jersey. Returns are provided on a voluntary basis, which can become a burden for employers.

Another factor is the small numbers of employees involved; questions relating to the minimum wage were included in a Jersey Annual Social Survey (JASS).  However, data representative of minimum wage earners was not available because the resulting sample of individuals earning the minimum wage was so small.

Data from the latest Income Distribution Survey (IDS) allows the number of minimum wage earners to be estimated at 400 +/- 200. However, there are limitations as the survey was not created for this purpose; there is unlikely to have been a representative sample of employees in the hospitality and agriculture industries, particularly seasonal workers. The Forum considers that perhaps this figure may be considered as representing the resident population of minimum wage earners, but is not confident in relying on this as a meaningful representation of the situation.

Those attending the public meeting expressed surprise at this low estimate of minimum wage earners. However, the minimum wage appears to be mainly paid in the agriculture and hospitality industries with a combined total of only 12 percent of the labour market - around 6,000 people - employed in those sectors in December 2010. Generally wages are banded and only a proportion of employees in a business will earn the minimum wage whilst other more experienced employees receive higher rates of pay.

In order to contemplate a higher minimum wage, or any other major changes to the system and method of calculation, the Forum must have data to fully consider the impact. The Forum particularly wants to receive information indicating the number of minimum wage employees in Jersey, the industries they work in, and the type of contracts, e.g. seasonal or permanent, part time or full time. The Forum expects that expert independent research would have to be commissioned to achieve this aim.”

http://gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Working%20in%20Jersey/R%20Minimum%20Wage%20Recommendation%2020110927%20JJ.pdf

Extract from JASS 2008[2]

Minimum wage

A small percentage (2%) of people reported that they earned less than £6 per hour gross wage (i.e. before deductions are made for tax, social security, accommodation and food provided by the employer, and also excluding overtime and bonuses). Of these people, the majority earned the minimum wage or above (the minimum wage was increased in April 2008 to £5.80 per hour). A very small number of people did report earning under the minimum wage. Whilst some of these reported being exempt from the minimum wage (for example because they are volunteers, or because the work is therapeutic) there was a very small number of people who self-reported that they are earning less than the minimum wage as their hourly rate

Extract from Response to Scrutiny report

Because only a very small proportion of workers receive the minimum wage, it is difficult to interpret survey data in this area, but it is known that the minimum wage is principally used in industries employing migrant labour. Seasonal workers are not eligible to receive Income Support.  As accommodation is often included in the remuneration package, local residents often do not take up work in these sectors.

Although the Scrutiny Report created several theoretical examples using the minimum wage, it provided no evidence of Income Support claimants actually receiving the minimum wage, which bears out the limited information that is available.

The only evidence on earnings levels provided in the Scrutiny Report (page 98 section 18.6) is that average earnings for Income Support households in January 2010 were

• between £22,000 and £23,000 per year for couples with children; and
• above £15,000 for lone parents

This compares with the minimum wage at that time (£6.08 ph) giving annual earnings of £12,650 for a 40 hour week.

1.12 DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHAIRMAN OF PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING ELECTION PROCEDURES:

Question

Following the recent elections, will the Chairman undertake to ensure that all manifestos and other material published online by candidates on the vote.je website will be available for future reference?

Will the Chairman undertake to invite those who were elected unopposed to file a manifesto for the same purpose, to ensure accountability for them also?

If the answer to either or both of the above questions is no, would the Chairman explain why?

Will the Chairman undertake to highlight the following items for future consideration by the new Committee –

(b) whether pre-poll voting should be situated at the bus station?

Answer

The vote.je website from the recent elections will be kept online and the candidates’ manifestos will remain available. The only information that will be removed is practical information that is now outdated such as the dates of hustings meetings.

PPC does not consider it would be appropriate to ask those elected unopposed to prepare a ‘manifesto’ at this stage. A manifesto is prepared for the purposes of a contested election and a successful candidate’s mandate comes in part from the fact that the electors have supported the policy proposals set out in the manifesto. A member can then be held to account in relation to the manner in which he or she has sought to implement the manifesto policies. PPC believes that there would be little value in asking candidates who were elected unopposed to prepare a ‘manifesto’ at this stage when that document could contain anything that the member wanted with no means of knowing whether or not the policies would have been supported by the electorate.

It is extremely likely that the new PPC will wish to review the lessons learnt from the recent single election day and the new Committee may wish to look at the issues raised by the questioner in parts (a) to (e) of this question. PPC’s own views on the matters raised are as follows -

(a) PPC agrees that candidates’ manifestos should, if at all possible, be available as early as possible to electors and it was for this reason that they were uploaded to the vote.je website some 8 days after this year’s nomination meetings. However there will always be an unavoidable delay in the production and distribution of the hard copy booklet to allow time for formatting, checking, printing and distribution (which can only be done by Jersey Post over the full course of a working week). It is likely that the opening of pre-poll voting (which occurred less than 2 weeks after the nomination meetings this year) would need to be delayed if it was necessary to await the distribution of the hard copy booklet. PPC would also point out that the time available for pre-poll voting will be further restricted if the whole election period is shortened to 4 weeks as proposed by the questioner in his recent proposition P.174/2011.

(b) Pre-poll voting arrangements are made by the Judicial Greffe and PPC would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the Judicial Greffe for the manner in which they handled pre-poll and postal voting arrangements this year. Although the location of pre-polling is a matter for the Judicial Greffe the Committee’s own view is that pre-poll voting should be located in a convenient and accessible town centre location. It must also be borne in mind that the location needs to be secure for the storage of ballot papers, registers, etc. and although the bus station might be a convenient location for bus users it is unlikely to meet the necessary security requirements. In addition it is not as centrally located as other town centre premises.

(c) The freedom of the press to report on elections is a fundamental aspect of any democratic society and PPC has not been made aware of any concerns that would merit a review.

(d) It is almost inevitable that a further review of the election procedures will be undertaken by the new PPC and the present Committee is content to recommend that this review should include public consultation.

(e) The introduction of a true rolling register in 2008 following amendments made to the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002 means that the parish electoral registers will no longer ever again be started afresh. An elector’s name can only now be removed from the register if the parish becomes aware that an elector no longer resides in the parish or if the elector does not return the annual return for 3 consecutive years and attempts to contact the elector are unsuccessful. Despite the existence of a rolling register it is nevertheless important for steps to be taken to keep it as up to date as possible and the sending out of an annual return which shows the names of the electors on the register at the address in question is part of that updating process. It must nevertheless be stressed that any failure to return the annual return in any particular year does not lead to an elector being removed from the register and removal would only happen if this happened for 3 consecutive years.

1.13 DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL:

Question

How many departing States employees have been compensated on the basis of ‘constructive dismissal’ in this year to date and in 2010?  What sums were paid in each such case?

Answer

There have been no cases where States employees have left the service and claimed constructive dismissal or have been compensated on the basis of constructive dismissal for the period 1st January 2010 to 25th October 2011.

1.14 SENATOR F. du H. LE GRESLEY OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE PUBLICATION OF THE REPORT ON FARM SHOPS:

Question

Could the Minister explain why the report on farm shops, commissioned by his Department, was released to the media by the author when it is yet to be circulated to States Members?

Could the Minister advise when this report will be officially released?

Answer

The Farm Shop review was commissioned by the P&E Minister in February 2011. It followed concerns raised by the Planning Applications Panel in dealing with proposals from one farm shop in the east of the Island.

This work was commenced in June 2011 and involved the appointment of a non paid independent chairperson to oversee the work. The chairperson was also to conduct their own work in assessing the community benefit from such outlets.

A report from the chairperson was received in July 2011. Under the terms of the review, this report was a report to the Minister, and it was to be used to inform the work being undertaken by the Department.

It was unfortunate that the independent chair released this report to selected third parties. This was not done with the sanction of the Minister and was not an intended outcome.

The department is currently finishing off the review by assessing the planning permissions which apply. A final report will be produced by the end of the year which will be informed by the Independent Chairperson report and the more detailed professional planning assessments.

All States Members will be provided a copy prior to general release.

1.15 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE DETERMINATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS’ PAY AND CONDITIONS:

Question

Would the Chief Minister advise members of the following –

(a) who is responsible for determining senior civil servants (such as Chief Officers and Chief Accounting Officers) pay and conditions and list all the individuals and bodies involved and their roles and inter-relationships?

(b) who is responsible for disciplining and dismissing senior civil servants guilty of misdemeanours or poor performance?

(c) who is responsible for judging the efficiency/incompetence of senior civil servants?

(d) what actions can be/are taken for dealing with incompetence or poor performing senior civil servants?

(e) how many senior civil servants have been disciplined/dismissed for misdemeanours or incompetence in the last three years?

(f) do contractual terms exist which require civil servants not to become politicised and to be truthful with Ministers and all States Members and, if not, what checks and balances are in place to ensure that they give honest, truthful and non-evasive or misleading advice, information and answers to Ministers and States Members?

Answer

(a)           The States Employment Board.

(b)          A Chief Officer/Accounting Officer appointed before 1st January 2007 is subject to disciplinary action for minor breaches of conduct or capability by his or her Minister, and for repeated or more serious breaches of conduct or capability by a panel of three appointed by the States Employment Board.

 A Chief Officer/Accounting Officer appointed on or after 1st January 2007 is subject to discipline/dismissal by the Chief Executive.

 The Chief Executive is subject to disciplinary action for minor breaches of conduct or capability by the Chief Minister and for repeated or more serious breaches of conduct or capability by a panel of three members of the Council of Ministers nominated by the Chief Minister.

 There are two Accounting Officers of small States Departments who are not Chief Officers.  These employees are subject to discipline /dismissal by the standard Civil Service Disciplinary Procedure agreed by the States Employment Board.  This procedure allows an appeal against dismissal to the Civil Service Forum consisting of Employer and Employee representatives.

(c)           The Chief Executive is responsible for judging the efficiency/competence of Chief Officers/Accounting Officers. The Chief Minister is responsible for judging the efficiency/competence of the Chief Executive.

(d)          Actions include performance monitoring, retraining/further development, redeployment, demotion, disciplinary warnings, and dismissal.

(e)           One Chief Officer/Accounting Officer has been disciplined for misdemeanours or incompetence in the last three years.  There have been no dismissals for misdemeanours or incompetence over this period.

(f)            All Jersey Civil Servants at grade 12 and above are classified by contract of employment and Law to be politically ineligible in terms of taking a public part in political matters. The well established custom and practice and culture of the Jersey Civil Service is that it is politically neutral. Honesty and integrity in performing ones duties are implied contractual terms in all Civil Servants’ employment and any employee who breaches this requirement is liable to disciplinary action.

1.16 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING DETAILS OF HOSPITALITY EXPENSES:

Question

Would the Chief Minister outline (date, nature and approximate value of) any hospitality given to himself, his Deputy Chief Minister or any of his Assistant Ministers and/or his senior officers by any firm, government or individual (including any person involved in any way with such a firm, government or individual) with whom they have contracted with, or dealt with, over the last three years, including in the case of his subordinates, whilst acting in their own right as a Minister or as his Assistant Minister during the present life of this States Assembly?

Answer

The Code of Conduct for Ministers and the Human Resources Code of Conduct provide guidance for Ministers and Civil Servants about receiving gifts and hospitality.

In order to reflect this guidance, the Department maintains a gifts and hospitality register in which entries are made of gifts and hospitality received by Ministers, Assistant Ministers and officers of the Chief Ministers Department   This register is available for inspection on request and I would be happy to arrange this for the Deputy.

I am confident these guidelines are followed correctly and that current arrangements are sufficiently robust.

1.17 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING HOSPITALITY EXPENSES:

Question

Would the Minister outline any hospitality given to himself, his Assistant Ministers and/or any of his senior officers by any firm (including any person involved in any way with such a firm) with whom the department has contracted with over the last three years or expects to contract with in the next two years?

Answer

The Code of Conduct for Ministers and the Human Resources Code of Conduct provide guidance for Ministers and Civil Servants about receiving gifts and hospitality.

In order to reflect this guidance the Department maintains a gifts and hospitality register in which entries are made of gifts and hospitality received by the Minister, his Assistant Ministers, or senior officers. This register is available for inspection on request by States Members and the Minister would be happy to arrange this for the Deputy.

In addition the Minister’s calendar is open to access by senior officials and his diary commitments are discussed with those officers at weekly Ministerial meetings.

The Minister is confident these rules are followed correctly, that all hospitality was received in appropriate circumstances and that current arrangements are sufficiently robust.

1.18 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING HOSPITALITY EXPENSES:

Question

Would the Minister outline any hospitality given to himself, his Assistant Minister and/or any of his senior officers by any firm (including any person involved in any way with such a firm) with whom the department has contracted with over the last three years or expects to contract with in the next two years?

Answer

In accordance with Code of Conduct for Ministers and Financial Direction 2.4 the department ensures that no excessive hospitality is given or received from individuals or firms with whom the department contracts with. The department’s hospitality register shows that no hospitality or gifts were received of a value in excess of £200 in the last three years. This position is not expected to change in the next two years.

1.19 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE AWARDING OF CONTRACTS:

Question

Would the Minister provide members with a table showing all contracts awarded in excess of £5,000 for work carried out for and on behalf of the department by private sector contractors showing the date, name of the contractor, nature of the work and value of the work or contract carried out over the last three years?

Answer

Preparing this response has been a time consuming exercise for my officers.

The Housing Department maintains strict standards regarding the issuing of contracts and complies with the States corporate procurement procedures in using the States e-tendering portal for the procurement of both capital and revenue contracts with a value of more than £20,000, other than where an existing fixed price or procurement framework agreement is already in place.  This ensures complete transparency and provides regular opportunities for new contractors.  Since the end of 2009 some 126 individual contracts have been procured in this manner.

During the course of 2009, 2010 and this current year the Housing Department has raised over 43,000 individual orders and contracts.  The vast majority of these are related to the maintenance of the 4,500 homes under its administration.  Of these orders and contracts only 548 have a value of £5,000 or more.  A full summary of those orders is attached hereto.  The Department would be happy to provide any further analysis required.