May I begin by welcoming Members back to the Assembly after the Christmas break? I trust that everyone is well refreshed and, in particular, I am delighted to welcome His Excellency to this first sitting. [Approbation]

1.2 Church service – thanks

The second matter I want to do is to thank the Dean for organising the service we have just attended; also the town choristers for singing and Reverend Graeme Halls and Father McAuley for participating in it, so thank you very much. [Approbation]

1.3 Deputy Viscount – appointment

The next matter I want to raise is that as Members know, the Deputy Viscount, Mr. Peter de Gruchy, retired at the end of last year. The Viscount, with my consent, has now appointed a new Deputy Viscount and that is Advocate Mark Harris and he will be taking up his appointment on Monday, 28th January so I am sure Members will look forward to welcoming Advocate Harris as our new Deputy Viscount. [Approbation]

1.4 Former Senator R.J. Shenton – appreciation

I suspect that there is no one in the Island who does not know that the former Senator Dick Shenton died on 2nd January at the age of 86. Much has already been said and written about him and the many who attended his funeral on Friday heard moving and well merited tributes from his son Ben and from Monsignor Nicholas France. Breaking the mould by not standing first for Deputy, Dick Shenton was elected to the States as a Senator in 1969. Despite that being the first time he had stood for election, he topped the poll, as he was to do in the next 3 elections in which he stood. He served a continuous total of 30 years as a Senator, retiring in 1999 before coming back for a further period of just over a year in 2004 following the resignation of the late Senator Lakeman. During his time in the States, he was entrusted with the presidency of many committees. These included Health and Social Services, Defence, Establishment, Agriculture and Fisheries, Constitution in the Common Market, Island Development, Resources Recovery Board, Tourism, Broadcasting and Postal, as well as some committees of inquiry and special committees to look into various matters. He made his mark at almost all of these. At the I.D.C. (Island Development Committee), he was said by the Bailiff of the day, Sir Frank Ereaut, to have put a human face on planning and at Defence, which he assumed at a time of crisis because of criminal prosecutions involving senior police officers, he rapidly restored public confidence in the police. He was one of the most powerful orators that this Assembly has ever seen. He had, of course, great physical presence but he was much more than that. He would invariably speak without notes and he would speak from the heart. He felt passionately about matters and this came across in the way he spoke in the Assembly. His audience would be swept up in what he was saying, even if they did not instinctively agree with him. There is no doubt that he carried the day in the States on many occasions simply through the power of his oratory. Those of us who had the privilege of hearing him in full flow will long remember him. He certainly felt things strongly and he liked to have his say. I enjoyed Ben Shenton’s description of political discussions of the Shenton family as being rather like a States debate where the Bailiff has completely lost control [Laughter] but oratory is no good if there is no underlying purpose to it. There was certainly purpose in Dick Shenton’s case. He loved his Island passionately and he wanted to do his best for it and he was willing to stand up to anyone to defend its interests. A classic example of this was the incident at the Home Office. It was mentioned in the Jersey Evening Post recently but I think it bears repeating. He was part of a delegation of Jersey politicians which was attending the Minister at the Home Office with responsibility for the Crown Dependencies. As the delegation entered, the Minister sat down, undid his watch and ostentatiously placed it on the table in front of him. Now many might have been put off by this clear indication that the Minister was a busy man who had limited time but not Dick Shenton. He responded immediately by saying that the delegation had travelled all the way from Jersey to discuss a matter which was important to the Island and if the Minister did not have sufficient time to deal with it that day, they would leave and return another day when he did have sufficient time. The Minister was, of course, immediately shamed into retreat and the meeting progressed without time limit. Dick Shenton’s other abiding political belief was the need to stand up for the ordinary Jersey man and woman. His entire political career was underpinned by this desire. As Ben Shenton mentioned also in his address at the funeral, there was regularly a queue of people waiting to see him in his office and he invariably did his best to help them. During his time in the States, he lodged some 150 propositions in his own name, many aimed at helping those whom he felt had suffered a raw deal. For his services to the Island and to charity, he was awarded an O.B.E. and also made a Knight of the Holy See for his services to the Catholic Church but much of what he did was unsung. I was told the other day of an occasion where an 8 year-old girl from the U.K. (United Kingdom) had lost both her legs after illness and the suggestion was made that she and her family should come to Jersey for a holiday. An approach was made to Dick Shenton to see if he could help. He worked behind the scenes and he managed to arrange everything free of charge, hotel accommodation, hire car, entry to the Island attractions and so on. He was there to meet the girl and her family on their arrival at the airport but he made it clear he did not want any public acknowledgement of what he had done. It was a typical example of the way that he would help other people. The Island has lost a charismatic politician who gave much of his life to serving his Island. His devoted wife Jill and his family can be justifiably proud of what he achieved and our thoughts are with them at this time. I ask Members to stand with me in his memory. That concludes matters under A.

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS

2. Nomination of Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade as a member of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

The Bailiff:

I am able to inform Members that the Connétable of St. Brelade has resigned from the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel. Now I understand that the Chairman of the panel may wish to make a nomination for a replacement member.

2.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:

Before I do that, I would like to thank the Constable of St. Brelade for his contribution to the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel over the past year. It has been a pleasure guiding and training him in becoming a fully-fledged member of Scrutiny and learning from such a dedicated Member of the Assembly who holds such high standards, particularly for and sometimes against himself. The Constable has proven to be a great asset to the Scrutiny function and while on the panel, the Constable has been robust at demanding evidence from Ministers, officers and witnesses and readily repeating questions until actual evidence and not opinion is provided. The Constable has added a dynamic approach to the panel and his passion for young people, which I know is a subject close to his heart, has shone through, especially when discussing the Youth Service. While naturally the panel did not want to give up the Constable, we have reluctantly accepted his resignation and wish him every success in his ongoing role on the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel and fulfilling his role as Constable. I would not like to be the Minister for Economic Development who will now receive the undivided attention of such a well-trained scrutineer. On behalf of the Education and Home Affairs Panel and on behalf of the public, I would like to thank the Constable of St. Brelade, Steve Pallett, for his service [Approbation] but before the Minister for Education and Home Affairs can breathe a sigh of relief, it gives me great pleasure to be able to propose Deputy Montfort Tadier of St. Brelade to join the panel.

The Bailiff:

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Very well then. I declare that Deputy Tadier is elected to the scrutiny panel. [Approbation]

QUESTION TIME

3. Written Questions

3.1. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING HEALTH INSURANCE FUND PAYMENTS TO DOCTORS:

Question

“Will the Minister complete two tables using the following format noting that the information will be anonymous in that each doctor will be allocated a number and those who entered or left practice in or after 2009 should appear at the end of the list and only show an aggregate figure for each year for –

Doctor	2009	2010	2011
1
2
3
4 etc

(a) the amount of money paid to each GP out of the States Health Insurance Fund for visits to the doctor each year;

(b) the amount of money paid to each GP out of the States Health Insurance Fund for letters of referral for each year?”

Answer

These tables have been prepared according to the format requested in the question. It should be noted that between individual GPs there will be significant variations in funding received for several reasons including:

The total number of hours worked per GP;
The make- up of the patients seen by the GP - some GPs will have a higher number of elderly, under 5’s or vulnerable patients.
The proportion of work undertaken by the GP that receives funding from the Health Insurance Fund - some services provided by GPs do not qualify for health insurance rebates.

The medical benefit rates for the three years in question are as follows:

From	To	Rate
1 January 2009	16 May 2010	£15.00
17 May 2010	7 July 2011	£19.00
8 July 2011	31 December 2011	£19.59

(a)

GP Index No.	2009 Visits	2010 Visits	2011 Visits
1	£84,765	£99,609	£110,444
2	£66,225	£70,941	£71,288
4	£54,975	£67,465	£77,434
5	£100,485	£122,867	£124,957
6	£40,050	£44,510	£40,330
9	£34,905	£35,556	£44,485
10	£56,475	£64,662	£72,865
11	£70,185	£81,715	£92,142
12	£68,115	£69,653	£85,785
13	£32,130	£37,553	£39,488
14	£56,430	£69,601	£74,829
15	£70,830	£78,647	£97,859
16	£98,430	£97,398	£91,677
17	£67,275	£68,819	£77,459
18	£92,970	£101,278	£106,698
19	£67,065	£79,167	£68,200
20	£49,755	£51,857	£59,122
22	£63,840	£76,843	£82,577
25	£14,325	£6,935	£21,843
26	£64,305	£67,402	£72,267
27	£79,245	£88,332	£89,112
28	£72,075	£82,838	£89,365
29	£19,890	£30,037	£34,086
30	£77,415	£82,686	£84,762
31	£68,940	£75,396	£84,996
33	£30,165	£40,898	£40,282
34	£63,045	£62,013	£75,081
35	£75,915	£85,972	£92,177
38	£57,360	£57,091	£65,749
39	£56,070	£51,632	£51,748
40	£58,755	£68,311	£74,495
41	£130,815	£153,510	£179,733
43	£66,750	£70,911	£78,873
44	£54,615	£65,148	£75,982
45	£86,790	£97,434	£117,115
46	£55,080	£57,584	£63,304
47	£33,030	£32,553	£35,218
48	£76,635	£81,237	£86,992
50	£31,110	£34,450	£38,810
51	£77,475	£83,610	£107,310
52	£69,675	£75,781	£81,507
53	£40,020	£53,083	£61,049
54	£72,480	£77,427	£83,200
55	£62,640	£69,989	£78,494
56	£47,730	£47,458	£46,215
58	£44,010	£54,457	£43,285
59	£11,295	£13,461	£14,344
60	£56,775	£58,768	£70,547
61	£89,370	£95,578	£107,153
62	£61,125	£67,754	£74,333
63	£64,815	£69,388	£77,483
64	£15,465	£19,001	£13,714
65	£52,950	£64,564	£69,800
66	£49,200	£56,052	£60,179
67	£41,805	£53,991	£47,818
69	£36,150	£53,028	£53,048
73	£31,725	£40,665	£52,020
74	£61,230	£70,530	£84,248
76	£66,165	£76,070	£82,454
77	£43,410	£42,460	£43,525
78	£71,730	£63,368	£86,242
79	£88,665	£99,050	£93,941
80	£121,650	£108,055	£106,424
82	£35,655	£39,882	£42,346
83	£61,095	£69,117	£69,854
84	£73,815	£76,629	£77,628
87	£54,105	£62,053	£69,082
88	£30,120	£34,734	£44,267
90	£66,405	£67,041	£69,175
92	£47,295	£52,034	£56,934
93	£58,305	£67,915	£72,662
94	£41,205	£49,525	£55,621
95	£52,099	£55,333	£70,971
96	£82,905	£88,177	£88,914
99	£58,065	£65,125	£68,959
100	£73,845	£83,461	£79,722
101	£57,195	£56,315	£69,062
102	£57,210	£64,378	£78,552
103	£28,515	£34,680	£34,544
106	£89,835	£91,348	£93,555
107	£70,710	£87,937	£100,343
111	£132,420	£147,304	£154,705
113	£72,420	£78,729	£85,707
114	£57,150	£70,003	£74,406
115	£73,290	£65,520	£66,300
116	£46,725	£50,664	£53,398
118	£68,160	£81,160	£66,336
121	£54,615	£61,671	£70,252
126	£79,740	£89,630	£99,457
Retired & Started	£242,325	£210,927	£349,866

(b)

GP Index No.	2009 Referrals	2010 Referrals	2011 Referrals
1	£9,735	£11,644	£11,763
2	£5,415	£5,298	£7,827
4	£5,070	£6,915	£11,451
5	£13,380	£17,851	£17,778
6	£3,630	£4,010	£4,483
9	£4,965	£9,362	£13,364
10	£3,015	£3,670	£3,458
11	£10,665	£12,469	£13,437
12	£12,255	£14,424	£18,571
13	£3,300	£3,846	£4,274
14	£6,480	£9,493	£9,954
15	£16,605	£11,652	£14,588
16	£5,580	£7,028	£7,924
17	£4,425	£4,666	£5,743
18	£9,735	£11,671	£12,124
19	£7,740	£8,000	£6,224
20	£2,835	£3,918	£4,202
22	£3,795	£4,685	£6,866
25	£3,060	£1,284	£3,372
26	£10,185	£12,343	£16,389
27	£7,845	£8,519	£10,949
28	£9,015	£11,057	£12,873
29	£3,675	£5,759	£5,994
30	£11,565	£12,551	£17,649
31	£5,520	£6,628	£6,503
33	£3,150	£4,847	£4,664
34	£11,505	£11,848	£15,955
35	£4,260	£4,839	£5,463
38	£8,865	£9,692	£10,696
39	£5,415	£5,350	£5,991
40	£5,760	£7,774	£9,433
41	£13,320	£18,009	£21,335
43	£7,230	£6,847	£8,457
44	£7,680	£13,172	£17,582
45	£4,920	£5,027	£4,770
46	£4,380	£5,449	£6,787
47	£6,330	£7,648	£8,192
48	£8,985	£9,517	£10,287
50	£2,370	£2,689	£3,317
51	£12,045	£12,410	£18,136
52	£4,005	£6,384	£8,341
53	£6,015	£10,077	£12,139
54	£7,095	£8,637	£13,283
55	£7,035	£9,452	£11,241
56	£5,685	£8,017	£9,515
58	£4,665	£7,989	£8,689
59	£870	£1,081	£1,278
60	£9,510	£10,281	£14,418
61	£12,030	£14,946	£18,295
62	£5,760	£6,050	£5,874
63	£5,340	£6,549	£6,828
64	£990	£1,050	£810
65	£4,470	£4,651	£5,222
66	£2,580	£3,532	£3,549
67	£7,005	£8,110	£8,235
69	£6,735	£12,301	£14,771
73	£4,020	£7,939	£11,994
74	£8,670	£11,585	£13,515
76	£9,915	£11,334	£12,100
77	£5,820	£5,722	£5,897
78	£6,285	£5,309	£7,516
79	£7,485	£7,585	£7,006
80	£12,810	£12,903	£14,661
82	£3,735	£4,875	£4,241
83	£3,525	£3,985	£4,564
84	£14,745	£17,769	£20,909
87	£7,290	£7,861	£8,856
88	£810	£1,527	£702
90	£3,735	£4,710	£5,014
92	£4,215	£7,625	£8,093
93	£4,200	£5,048	£7,092
94	£5,520	£5,931	£8,636
95	£4,035	£4,450	£5,141
96	£10,620	£12,422	£13,352
99	£11,460	£13,586	£15,141
100	£3,645	£4,528	£5,377
101	£1,605	£1,862	£3,120
102	£3,390	£6,092	£6,551
103	£3,645	£5,172	£5,007
106	£6,360	£5,615	£6,593
107	£12,135	£13,772	£19,465
111	£22,035	£24,458	£23,911
113	£7,065	£7,694	£8,661
114	£5,925	£6,089	£6,618
115	£7,680	£6,088	£6,420
116	£10,875	£14,132	£15,441
118	£25,605	£25,953	£28,348
121	£4,020	£6,159	£6,742
126	£7,740	£6,931	£7,828
Retired & Started	£19,800	£18,154	£40,796

3.2 THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE ISLAND OF THE HANGAR8 PROJECT:

Question

Further to the Minister’s answer to my question of 11th December 2012 regarding Hanger8 in which he stated that the new operation will 'pay all relevant taxes’, what economic benefit, if any, will this company deliver to the Island?

Answer

As a Jersey registered business, the company will be subject to pay relevant government taxes, as well as Parish rates and other associated company operating costs.

There will also be increased revenue for Jersey Airport through ground lease payments, and growth in aviation income such as aircraft landing and parking fees.

In the short term there will be construction related jobs, from the design stage through to the actual building of the new facilities, subject to the usual planning permission being granted.

The company will also provide direct employment opportunities, in a variety of roles from administrative to highly technical maintenance functions. The exact number of roles will be determined by the company in accordance with their business needs.

The provision of such a facility increases the existing offering for high net worth individuals to locate and hangar their aircraft in Jersey. It will also provide businesses and individuals based in the Channel Islands with access to a worldwide network of corporate aviation available through the global links provided by the new operator, Hangar8.

3.3 DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE NUMBER OF ‘J’ CATEGORY PERMITS CONVERTED TO ALLOW PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN THE PAST 5 YEARS:

Question

How many ‘J’ category permits have, in each of the last 5 years, been converted from time limited permits to those allowing permanent residence and can a breakdown be provided of the occupational makeup of these changed permits?

Answer

	2012	2011	2010	2009	2008
Finance and Legal	23	32	47	38	62
Public Sector (civil servants)	5	3	4	2	3
IT	4	1	0	3	3
Private Medical	1	3	2	2	2
Construction	3	2	2	4	0
All Other Private Sector, including retail, tourism, and telecommunications	9	8	11	14	14
1(1)(j) category consents extended such that time limits are removed	45	49	66	63	84

It should also be noted that just because a 1(1)(j) consent is extended from a time limited to an unlimited basis, that does not necessarily mean the individual will remain permanently resident in the Island. Indeed, the 1(1)(j) population of the Island experiences a high turnover, with up to 40% of 1(1)(j) employees leaving in any one year.

3.4 DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE ‘GIGABIT JERSEY’ PROJECT:

Question

Would the Minister as representative of the shareholders confirm whether the ‘Gigabit Jersey’ project is on target in terms of predicted connections and projected costs?

How many connections have been made to date and how many were predicted?

What was the anticipated cost per connection and what is the actual cost?

Answer

Gigabit Jersey is a five-year programme that started in 2012 and will result in the removal of copper installed over the last 50+ years in buried ducts so that all fixed broadband services will instead be provided over fibre optic cables.

As JT is a commercial organisation working in a competitive market, it would be inappropriate to give exact costs of connection but the Board of JT remains confident that Gigabit Jersey will be delivered as scheduled by 2016 and to budget.

The fibre product is experiencing very strong consumer demand and is running ahead in terms of fibre optic cables installed in JT ducts under the road (26,115 homes passed by 31 December 2012 against a plan of 9,628) and the installation of the core network infrastructure was completed in 2012 to time and to cost. The Board of JT is now focussed on improving the delivery of the homes connected part of the programme. On 31 December 2012 this stood at 1,737 broadband homes connected against a plan of 3,505. This shortfall will be recovered over the course of the switchover.

3.5 DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING the recent sewer repairs along St. Clement’s Coast Road:

Question

With regard to the recent ‘hole in the road’ in St. Clement, would the Minister advise of the projected life expectancy of the repairs, whether there is any contingency to replace the sewer and, if so, at what cost?

Would the Minister also advise whether the ten men in the photograph published in the Jersey Evening Post watching two others working in the hole in the road were public sector employees and, if so, what their job titles are?

Answer

The repair to the collapsed sewer in La Grande Route de la Cote that was carried out over the 27th and 28th of December was a temporary fix to prevent further leakage of sewage from the sewer, and to enable sewage flow to be restored and the road to be re-opened to traffic as quickly as possible.

The department is currently in discussions with contractors over a more long term remediation, although this is likely to be some form of structural lining option as was carried a few years ago on La Grande Route de la Cote between the Rice Bowl Restaurant and the Ambassadeur Hotel.

The advantage of this form of remediation is that the structural integrity and flow capacity of the original pipe can be restored without having to carry out major excavations in the road as the relining can be carried out from existing manholes. The life expectancy of this remediation option is likely to be something like 50 years.

The exact costs of this remediation option are not yet known but they are likely to be of the order of £30,000. However, a survey of downstream sections of sewer has not yet been carried out as clearance operations to remove residual debris are still ongoing. It is possible therefore that consideration will need to be given to extending the re-lining to ensure that the risk of a further collapse is mitigated.

With regard to the ten men in the photograph featured in the JEP, these were a mix of public sector employees and employees of the private drainage contractor Brenwal. Brenwal were brought in as the department did not have sufficient experienced men available to address this emergency due to the Christmas break.

Of the ten men outside the excavation, seven were Public sector employees and three were from Brenwal. The two men in the excavation itself were also Brenwal employees.

Of the seven public sector employee’s, two were Driver/Operators of Specialist Vehicles, manning a jetvac tanker which was providing a sewer cleaning support function, two were Driver/Labourers who were collecting, setting up and operating support equipment for Brenwal such as lighting and pumping.

A further public sector employee was a Drainage Leading Chargehand who was supervising the work of the aforementioned personnel and another was the Manager Drainage Infrastructure who has overall responsibility for the day to day operation of the drainage network. The final employee was the Assistant Director Drainage Infrastructure who was attending site at the time to obtain an update for media purposes.

I should add that at the time the photo was taken, excavation had reached a stage where the pipe was about to be exposed which generated an interest in all those in attendance as to how bad the damage was.

Given the short time between personnel attending the original incident and the road re-opening to traffic, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all personnel involved, both public sector and those from Brenwal, for their efforts in resolving this emergency as speedily as they did, particularly as it occurred over the Christmas period when many staff were on leave.

3.6 DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING the average daily usage and the cost of administering the Island’s cycle path network:

Question

Would the Minister give details of the of cycle paths his department administers, together with the estimated average daily usage by cyclists?

Answer

TTS provides a shared walking and cycle route which, with the exception of a section of Commercial Buildings by the English and French Harbours, provides a continuous cycle route between Havre des Pas and Corbiere, with a connection through Quennevais Sports Centre, alongside the airport to the southern end of St Peter’s Village.

In addition to the above, the following discrete routes are also designated shared walking and cycle paths:-

The footpath on Beaumont Hill,

La Perquage Path in St Lawrence from Sandybrook to La Route de la Haule,

Gorey harbour to Lavender Villa.

Ignoring pedestrian journeys, TTS survey data shows the southern coastal cycle route at West Park is used by approximately 460 cyclists between 7.30 and 9am on a fair working day reducing to about half that number on wet winter days. Interpolating from various other data the estimated total number of cyclists using that route ranges between 2400 per day on a fair summer weekday and 1200 per day on a wet winter weekday. The States’ Statistical Unit 2012 Jersey Annual Social Survey shows ten percent of commuters’ state they cycle to work once or more per week.

The States Sustainable Transport Policy charges TTS to improve the Island’s infrastructure and to provide off road cycling and walking routes in order to facilitate and promote active travel, such that cycling and walking levels respectively increase by 100% and 20%.

3.7 DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING waiting times for hospital appointments with consultants:

Question

Would the Minister, further to the answer given on 11th December 2012, explain why over 4000 patients have to wait on average more than five months to see a hospital consultant?

Would she further explain why the average wait for General Medicine (affecting 1,094 patients) is eight months, whether she is content with these delays and, if not, explain what tangible changes are being made to remedy the situation?

Answer

HSSD absolutely recognise that some of our specialties have waiting times longer than we would wish and actions have been put in place to try and remedy this situation. The percentage of patients waiting less than 5 months, across all specialities, is 96.5%, specialties currently experiencing longer waits and their specific actions are detailed below.

Dental: An orthodontic dental officer has just been appointed and will start in February, additional clinics are also being undertaken.

Pain - Additional clinics were undertaken in December plus two additional clinics each week in 2013. All clinic profiles are being reviewed.

Trauma & Orthopaedics: HSSD has already maximised clinic slots and is currently reviewing options for a 4th consultant. It is recognised that demand for this service, which is in part related to an aging demographic, will continue to increase. To provide expertise and flexibility, specialist consultants visit the island on an intermittent basis, this can lead to those patients with specific requirements unfortunately having an extended wait. Availability of theatre facilities is a limiting factor for this specialty which will be resolved by the new hospital, in the interim time temporary options are being explored as a matter of some urgency.

Ophthalmology: HSSD recruited a locum to undertake additional clinics in December 2012. This will be repeated in 2013 followed by a substantive Consultant appointment.

Speciality Medicine [1]: This consists of a number of specialities which is why the number waiting appears so large:

Cardiology: A research fellow commences in February and will provide additional clinics. A review of clinic profiles is being undertaken to maximise utilisation.
Gastroenterology: Additional clinics were undertaken in December and HSSD has now appointed a locum consultant to deliver appointments in 2013.
Neurology: HSSD reviewed clinic profiles in 2012, maximised clinic slots and introduced an additional weekly clinic. As a result waiting times for a new appointment have reduced from 78 weeks in 2011 to 48 weeks. 280 patients were awaiting a new appointment in May 2012 has reduced to 89 patients in January 2013.

Speciality medicine is usually provided by a singular consultant, as opposed to a team of consultants this can result in capacity challenges due to annual leave, sick leave and study leave impact.

In addition to the actions outlined above HSSD is:

undertaking a refurbishment the outpatients department during 2013 to increase flexibility in use of the consultation rooms, thus allowing increased capacity in outpatient facilities
reviewing all outpatient waiting lists on a weekly basis to ensure clinic slots are maximised.

Waiting times are impacted upon by a range of complex factors that include:

increase in referrals: demand for outpatient appointments continues to rise This demand is driven by a number of factors including: population increase; population changes (eg: aging demographic; increase in birth rate); referral practice and patient expectations. Over 10,000 outpatient appointments are currently undertaken each month.
unforeseen breaks in service provision: staff sickness or absence creates a backlog in waiting lists which can take months to address because of single handed provision and physical capacity.
inter-relationship between outpatient and inpatient activity: an increase in throughput in one area has a direct impact on resources available in the other area.
resource availability: HSSD is continually seeking ways to reduce waiting times by maximising use of current resources, including staff and facilities. Despite this however there is a trend for increased demand across HSSD services which cannot be matched by improvements in efficiency alone. The redesign and investment outlined in the White Paper will help to address this.

HSSD is committed to bringing down waiting times and will continue to work to do so.

3.8 DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES regarding the funding of nurses’ pay awards:

Question

Would the Minister advise whether the ‘contribution from the Health and Social Services budget’ referred to by the Chief Minister in his statement on 4th December 2012 with regard to funding nurses’ pay awards, includes any component from the Health Insurance Fund transfer recently approved by the Assembly?

Answer

The contribution referred to by the Chief Minister does not include any monies from the Health Insurance Fund (HIF) transfer. The budget contribution towards the nurses pay award comes from funds within HSSD’s MTFP budget which were specifically earmarked for investment in nursing.

As previously reported to the Assembly, the transfer to HSSD from the HIF is to fund primary care services, for example Family Nursing and Home Care services, and is independently audited by the Treasury.

3.9 DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING the screening of the Energy from Waste plant:

Question

Would the Minister confirm that planting and other measures were to have been used to mitigate the unsightliness of the new incinerator and, if so, would he explain why this has not yet been done given that the last reason for delay given by his department (over a year ago) was that it was the wrong season?

Would the Minister further advise what action, if any, will be taken to screen the rusty containers and what seems to be a huge white plastic sheet that have appeared in recent times and when will this take place?

Answer

Approximately 5,000 trees and shrubs were planted on the mound to the East of the Energy from Waste Plant during the autumn and winter of 2011/2012 as a requirement of the overall development. Due to the exposure of the site to South and South Westerly winds and the closeness to the sea, establishing trees in the area is extremely challenging as they are repeatedly subject to strong winds and salt damage. Because of these conditions, the planting of 'Standard' trees was not possible and instead the trees were planted as transplants (approximately 50 cm's tall) rather than anything bigger. As a result it will be some time before the trees and shrubs mature and become fully noticeable.

As expected, many of the trees have suffered from the harsh conditions of the site and some trees have not survived. During the winter of 2013 more trees will be planted to replace the ones that did not survive.

The shipping containers are being used to store asbestos which has been stock piled over the last 10 years. Transport and Technical Services submitted a planning application two years ago for the transfer of the asbestos to a sealed pit at La Collette and the subsequent disposal of the containers. Unfortunately this application is still awaiting a decision by the Planning Minister. In the mean time there are no plans to carry out any screening of the containers.

The “white plastic sheet” is part of the lining system which lines the inside of the ash cells used to deposit incinerator ash. The particular cell where this lining is visible will have the sides raised to increase its capacity by July of this year which should screen it from view.

3.10 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING the roads resurfacing schedule for 2013:

Question

Would the Minister list which roads are scheduled for resurfacing during 2013 and the estimated expenditure budgeted for that work?

Answer

£3.2 million will be spent on road resurfacing in 2013.

Full resurfacing on sections of the following roads

Route de la Hougue Bie

Rue A Don

Gloucester Street and the Esplanade

Rouge Bouillon

Smaller scale resurfacing in the form of large panels

La Profonde Rue

St. Peter’s Valley

La Route de St. Aubin

In addition to the above a number of pavement and footway improvements will also be carried out

3.11 DEPUTY R.J. RONDEL OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING regarding the delivery of affordable housing:

Question

Would the Minister advise the Assembly how many, if any, new homes have been delivered in 2012 and how many will be delivered as 'affordable housing' for purchase in 2013 and 2014 and on which sites?

Answer

As I have said on previous occasions the delivery of new homes, including affordable homes is not something I can control. The supply of homes is controlled by the Minister for Planning & Environment and his Department under the policies set out in the Island Plan. Delivery is carefully monitored and reported on annually by the Department of the Environment in its report on Residential Land Availability.

As the Department of the Environment is responsible for this very comprehensive and detailed report, I would suggest that the Planning Minister is the most appropriate point of reference for questions of this kind in the future. However, on this occasion, I am pleased to be able to provide the information requested and would like to record my thanks to the Planning Minister and his officers for providing the data which they will ultimately publish in the aforementioned report. According to the Department of the Environment data 48 properties reserved for purchase by first time buyers were completed in 2012 and there is potential for an additional 51 homes in the next 5 years. Tables showing the sites and the numbers of homes thereon are set out below.

I have been drawing attention to the lack of affordable housing supply for some considerable time and wrote to the Planning Minister in December 2012 commenting on that and offering some suggestions (I have not as yet had a reply). I myself have been doing all that I can as Housing Minister to develop available sites in my control, specifically:-

94 new homes have been delivered in the past 18 months - 34 at Salisbury Crescent and 60 at phase 2a & 2b Le Squez

Work on 113 new homes which will commence this month - 24 at Le Squez phase 2c, 80 at Langtry Gardens and 9 at Journeaux Court

Contracts for a further 58 new homes will be entered into in 2013 – 35 at Lesquende and 23 at the former Le Coin site in Ann Street

As sites are made available to me through the Planning system, at least another 500 social and affordable homes can be delivered by the social sector

In respect of the social housing sector overall I think it is important to acknowledge the very important role played by our Housing Trusts some of whom are keen to develop more homes where sites are available, or to acquire homes produced by developers as part of their planning obligation requirement.

Table 1

Schedule of purpose built first time buyer housing completions 2012

Ref.	Site	Units by Type
Ref.	Site	1 bed	2 bed	3 bed	4 bed	5 bed	Total
Completions 2012
2206 P/2009/1092 B/2010/0659	Uplands Hotel – Phase 2, Mont-a-l’Abbe, St. Helier N.B. 3 other houses completed in 2011			7			7 houses
P/2007/0223 B/2007/0654 B/2009/0397	Fields 190, 191 & 192, La Rue de la Sergente, St. Brelade (H2 site)			14			14 houses
P/2007/0223 B/2007/0654 B/2009/0397	Fields 190, 191 & 192, La Rue de la Sergente, St. Brelade (H2 site) INTERMEDIATE			12			12 houses
(P.75/2008) 8053 P/2009/1600 B/2010/0234	Fields 561 and 562, St Mary			10	5		15 houses
Total completions				43	5		48

Table 2

Schedule of known completions due for first-time buyer housing, by type, in the next 5 years

Ref.	Site	Units by Type
Ref.	Site	1 bed	2 bed	3 bed	4 bed	5 bed	Total
Completions due by end 2017
19304 Prelim. Advice PA/2009/2243 Still no Application.	Field 873, Bel Royal, St. Lawrence (H2 site)			7			7 houses
19304 Prelim. Advice PA/2009/2243 Still no Application.	Field 873, Bel Royal, St. Lawrence (H2 site) HOMEBUY or equivalent			5			5 houses
(P.75/2008) PA/2010/1774 P/2011/0618 B/2012/0240 (Phase1) B/2012/0358 (Phase 2) Not started	Field 578, Trinity NB – App for 39 FTB and 4 social rented - this mix of units is different to the required tenure split set out in the Island Plan.			39			39 houses
Total completions due (net) to end 2017				51			51

3.12 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES regarding company tax returns:

Question

Can the Minister reconcile the figures given in answers to questions in March 2011 and November 2012 which stated that company tax returns of £54.6 million in income tax had been received for the trading year 2009 from all trades other than financial intermediation (15th March 2011) and £43 million from financial services for 2009 (6th November 2012) when a total figure of £83 million for company tax for 2009 was given on 6th November 2012?

Is the Minister able to provide the equivalent figures for the trading year 2010 along with estimates for 2011?

Given his consistent denial that the figures produced by the Statistics Unit for the overall profits for the financial services sector (£809 million for 2009, which gives an effective tax rate of 5%) cannot be used as a guide to the tax base used by the Income Tax department to assess actual tax due from the financial sector, will he inform members exactly how the differences in methodology can be used to produce a different figure for an effective tax rate?

Answer

The Deputy is not comparing like with like.

The £54.6m does not relate as the Deputy states to company tax but in fact relates to tax from all trading entities i.e. including non corporates (sole traders and partnerships) which derived profits from all trades other than financial intermediation for the year of assessment 2009.

The figure of £43m is the total tax payable in respect of all corporate entities that fall under the strict definition of a financial services company as defined within the Income Tax Law.

Therefore the sum of the two figures will not equate to the total of £83m for company tax for the year of assessment 2009.

As the Deputy will also appreciate the exact figures can change slightly as appeals are continually being settled and assessments being amended and therefore there can be a degree of variation depending on what date the statistics are provided.

I can confirm as at 9 January 2013 the figures for the 2009 year of assessment are as follows;

Year of Assessment	2009
Financial Service Companies*	£44.0m
Non Financial Service Companies	£22.7m
IBC Financial Service Companies	£14.3m
IBC Non Financial Service Companies	£ 1.0m
Total tax payable/paid	£82.0m

(*as defined in Article 3 of the Income Tax Law)

The figures for 2010 and 2011 as at 9 January 2013 are as follows;

Year of Assessment	2010
Financial Service Companies	£39.3m
Non Financial Service Companies	£25.7m
IBC Financial Service Companies	£10.9m
IBC Non Financial Service Companies	£ 0.8m
Total tax payable/paid	£76.7m

Year of Assessment	2011
Financial Service Companies	£48.0m
Non Financial Service Companies	£22.4m
IBC Financial Service Companies	£ 8.6m
IBC Non Financial Service Companies	£ 0.2m
Total tax payable/paid	£79.2m

As I have repeated previously the data provided by the Statistics Unit is not the appropriate information to give an accurate and effective tax rate for financial services companies. The main reasons being:-

The Statistics Unit figures include the total profits for businesses in the finance sector (including legal and accountancy). This will differ greatly from total profits of the companies that fall within the narrow definition of financial services companies for income tax purposes meaning that the profits subject to tax will be lower.
The Statistics Unit figures are based on an annual survey of estimated calendar year profits. Businesses are assessed to tax on their profits arising in their financial period ending in the year of assessment so these periods may not be co-terminus.
The Statistics Unit figures will also include International Business Company profits that fall within their definition of finance sector businesses. The profits of these businesses will have been charged to tax at varying rates.
There will be adjustments made to the profits disclosed for the purpose of the Statistics Unit survey and the profits on which tax is charged by the Taxes Office. As an example, loss relief brought forward may be relieved or group relief may be applied to reduce the taxable amount.

In conclusion – and for the reasons explained above - it is misleading to look at the whole of the financial services profitability figure and try to apply a 10% rate to arrive at a tax charge.

3.13 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING regarding the impact that the continued payment of funds to the Treasury will have on the ability to fund the Housing Transformation Project:

Question

Further to the answer given on 6th December 2012 (7269) will the Minister state what precise impact the continuing payment of the sum of £24 million (indexed) to the Treasury will have on the ability of the new arms-length housing organisation to fund the building, maintenance and repair of social housing over the coming decade with specific reference to the business plans on which the Housing Transformation Project (HTP) is based?

Will he further state what efforts he has made, if any, to reduce these payments in the HTP and, if not, will he do so before lodging the HTP proposition?

What evidence, if any, does the Minister have to contradict Professor Whitehead’s finding that £2.5 million would be produced by a £35 increase in weekly rent, but cost £3.3 million in additional Income Support, and if none, why does he not rule out rent increases to fund future day-to-day repairs and scheduled maintenance (historically running at £7.5 million annual under-funding)?

Answer

In my answer to the question from the Deputy on 6th December 2012, I stated that the overall budget allocated to the Housing Department over a long period had not been adequate to ensure that all States owned housing meets the English Decent Homes Standard resulting in a deteriorating stock. Clearly this is something that, as the Housing Minister, I have a duty to address whilst paying due attention to the States’ overall financial position.

I have supported the Medium Term Financial Plan and I intend to keep the commitments contained therein. However, the Medium Term Financial Plan also includes a section on the Housing Transformation Programme and forewarns that changes will be required to the funding of social housing to ensure that the sector is sustainable, viable and suitable in the long-term for residents requiring decent social rented homes.

The new wholly States owned Housing Association will be unable to operate unless these changes to the funding of social housing are made. The changes required are both complex and long term in nature and will be set out fully in the Report and Proposition and supporting Full Business Case that I will lodge shortly. As you would expect, my Final Business Case is a substantial and detailed document that sets out a coherent plan for the long term funding of social housing and it would be inappropriate for me to set out what is still policy in development in this answer.

I am and will continue to work closely with the Treasury and Resources Minister to ensure that the new Housing Association is sustainable, viable and suitable in the long-term.

In relation to the third part of the Deputy’s question, I refer him to my previous answer given on 6th December, 2012 and reiterate that Professor Whitehead was referring to the current arrangements. Further work undertaken for the Minister for Social Security by the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research, (currently policy in development), has indicated that there are other ways of setting the rental components for those renting in the private sector. Those alternative options would not result in the position set out within my Department's Green Paper.

The Minister for Social Security and I have agreed that he will publish his proposals for setting the private sector rental component of income support following my lodging of proposals for housing transformation so that all States Members can understand the full context.

3.14 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY regarding the recovery of Income Support overpayments:

Question

Following his response to my question of 26th June 2012 which revealed that some 2,688 cases of overpayment (median £135) had occurred on an annual basis in the processing of Income Support claims, what measures, if any, has the Minister put in place to reduce this level and, if none, why not?

Given that in supplementary discussion of the issue of the Department claiming back such overpayments, the Minister accepted that such claims could cause hardship and that a limit of £21 weekly reduction in benefit would normally be applied, what action, if any, has been taken on this issue, and can he assure members that any such hardship is being addressed?

Answer

As indicated in my responses to the Deputy’s question number 6972 of 26th June 2012, and furthermore his question number 7024 of 17th July 2012, Income Support benefit is always paid in advance, on either a weekly or four-weekly basis. Any change of circumstance that occurs after a payment has been made and during the period paid for, which affects the value of the claim rate, will result in the need for a payment adjustment in respect of the over or under payment.

This means that small overpayments are an expected and inevitable part of a benefit system that pays in advance, and in most cases simply result from the short-term repayment of extra income that households have received above their actual benefit entitlement. The alternative, which I do not support, would be to make Income Support payments in arrears - which could lead to real hardship amongst low income families.

The Department has undertaken a considerable amount of work during 2012 to improve communications with Income Support claimants to ensure that households are fully informed about their entitlement to benefit and their responsibilities under the Income Support Law, including a revised application form and detailed award letter. We are also investing in additional staff (MTFP) and further training for existing staff, both of which will support our efforts to improve service and communication with claimants. These measures were not undertaken principally to reduce the level of overpayments within the system but as claimants become more familiar with their legal obligations under the Income Support system, it is likely that the number and level of overpayments will decrease.

Contrary to the wording of the question, I did not accept the Deputy’s assertion that the current system of recovering overpayments creates hardship during the discussion of Question 7310, asked by Deputy Baudains, and I confirm that I still hold the same position. In particular, it should be noted that officers take into account the circumstances of the claimant before setting any repayment level. Circumstances that will be considered include the number of children in the household, the health needs of the household, the level of rental paid and any pre-existing debts.

However, it is an important principle that taxpayer-funded benefits must be recovered whenever they are overpaid, particularly when the household has failed to take appropriate action to notify the Department of changes, as required under the Income Support Law.

3.15 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING the negotiation of a Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act agreement with the U.K. authorities:

Question

What further progress has the Chief Minister or his Ministers, along with our colleagues in Guernsey and the Isle of Man, had in negotiating the terms of a United States’ (US) style Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) agreement with the UK authorities?

How is the position of the UK government affecting progress, if at all, with FATCA negotiations with the US?

Answer

The position on developments relating to FATCA and the UK Government remain as stated in the Joint Statement from the Chief Ministers of Jersey and Guernsey regarding FATCA issued on the 7th December 2012.

We continue to be engaged jointly with Guernsey in discussions with the UK government. In those discussions we are continuing to stress the importance we attach to the UK mirroring the approach of the US FATCA in being global in its application, ensuring a non-discriminatory approach for all jurisdictions. The Isle of Man is engaging separately with the UK.

Officials for Guernsey, the Isle of Man and Jersey continue to engage with the US authorities, in concert, on the negotiation of an inter-governmental agreement under the US FATCA regulations. The position of the UK government is not affecting progress with those negotiations which is currently waiting on the receipt of information requested from the US authorities.

3.16 DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING the procedures followed after receiving the Planning Inspector’s report in relation to Plémont:

Question

Will the Minister provide the Assembly with full details of the procedures he and Planning Officers followed after receiving the Planning Inspector’s report of the public inquiry for Plémont Bay Holiday Village on 6th November 2012 and before 14th November 2012, when he announced his decision to approve the application and, in particular will he advise -

(a) whether a draft report had previously been submitted and comments offered to the Inspector and, if so, would he disclose those comments;

(b) whether any questions or requests for clarification were raised with the Inspector on the reports contents and, if so, provide details of the matters queried and the replies received;

(c) whether he sought and considered the advice of his planning officers or third parties on the principle and practice of ‘enabling development’ in the UK and Jersey, the application of policy ERE 3 and the mandatory conditions applying to that policy and, if so, provide details; and,

(d) whether he considered the applicant’s policy arguments or absence of them, for proposing enabling development and the use of policy ERE 3?

Answer

I received the Inspector’s report on 6th November 2012. Having carefully considered the content of the report, I called a meeting with Department officers on 14th November 2012, where all aspects of the application were discussed. I made my decision the same day.

In answer to the specific points raised by the Deputy:

(a) The Director of Development Control was sent a draft copy of the report on 30th October 2012, with a request from the Inspector that it be checked for factual accuracy. The Director was on leave all that week and so the Inspector forwarded the draft copy to the Chief Executive on 31st October 2012. The Chief Executive checked the report and raised no queries with the Inspector, nor did he make any comment or alteration.

(b) Subsequently, on 5th November 2012, the Inspector sent a final draft to the Director of Development Control, who passed the matter on to the Senior Planner. The Senior Planner asked for one alteration to the appendix (to reflect the fact that he had been present at the Inspector’s site visit). This was the only alteration to the Inspector’s report requested by the Department. As Minister, I did not receive any versions of the draft report.

(c) When arriving at my decision on the planning application, I made it clear to all parties that I had taken into account all of the material considerations which were relevant to the case. Principal amongst these were the policies of the 2011 Island Plan. I do not consider that it is appropriate to isolate any particular policy considerations for examination within this Assembly, as my decision was based upon an overarching assessment of the Plan as a whole.

(d) See answer to part (c) above.

3.17 DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT regarding the planning obligation agreement associated with the development of the Plémont Bay Holiday Village site:

Question

Will the Minister confirm that his decision ref (MD-PE-2012-0120) dated 23rd November 2012 to approve the Plémont Bay Holiday Village application requires a planning obligation agreement to be entered into between the Minister and the applicant before the planning permit has any legal effect and, if so, will he inform the Assembly of the arrangements he proposes to reach agreement with the applicant and obtain any required prior approval from the Assembly or other Ministers, including the following matters requiring prior agreement;

(a) an appropriate body or trust to which the open land to be created outside the three housing clusters, is ceded by the applicant for public access in perpetuity in accordance with a scheme of public access determined by the Minister;

(b) the commuted sum payable by the applicant to the appropriate body or trust to fund the landscape maintenance regime works required to be carried out for at least 25 years;

(c) the restrictive covenants to be included in the contracts of sale of the houses proposed to be built, to prevent their owners and occupiers from using the land out-with their domestic curtilage for domestic purposes?

Answer

I can confirm that the planning permission which I will issue for the Plemont Bay Holiday Village will be subject to a planning obligation agreement between the Minister for Planning and Environment and the applicant which addresses the points in paragraphs (a) – (c) of the Deputy’s question.

As to the detailed arrangements of the agreement, these are currently being drafted and will be the subject of discussion between the officers of the department and the representatives of the applicant. The applicant may only enter into a planning obligation agreement with the Minister for Planning and Environment and the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 does not require the Assembly or other Ministers to approve the planning obligation agreement. Once agreed, the planning obligation agreement will be a matter of public record.

I include details of the Ministerial Decision (MD-PE-2012-0120) I made in relation to the Plemont Bay Holiday Village planning approval, and the associated planning obligations and conditions.

Plemont Bay Holiday Village: Public Inquiry
A decision made on 23 November 2012:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2012-0120			Application Number: P/2011/1673
Decision Summary Title :	Plemont Bay Holiday Village, La Route de Plemont, St. Ouen, Jersey, JE3 2BY		Date of Decision Summary:		14 /11/ 2012
Decision Summary Author:	Senior Planner Alistair Coates		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?			Person Giving Oral Report:
Written Report			Date of Written Report:		6 /11/ 2012
Written Report Author:	Mr Alan Langton Independent Planning Inspector		Written Report :		Public
Subject: Plemont Bay Holiday Village, La Route de Plemont, St. Ouen, Jersey, JE3 2BY Demolish all existing buildings and remove hard-standings. Return 67% of total site area (16.19 vergees) to public accessible natural landscape. Replace existing Manager's bungalow/Staff cottage with 2 No. four bed houses and construct 26 No. houses comprising of 10 No. three bed houses, 11 No. four bed houses and 5 No. five bed houses all in three groups plus landscaping, footpaths and reed-bed rainwater recycling pond. Create passing place on C105 at Western edge of Field 48.
Decision(s): The Minister has resolved to approve the application, subject to the completion of a Planning Obligation Agreement and to the compliance of Conditions. The terms of these Obligations and conditions is as follows:- The applicant shall, prior to any demolition or construction works, enter into a formal obligation with the Minister for Planning and Environment under Article 25 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002. The planning permit shall not have any effect until such planning obligation agreement is completed, signed and lodged with the Greffe. Thereafter, the conditions attached to the permit shall take full effect. Unless otherwise agreed by the Minister, the obligation shall, in relation to the development approved under this permit, guarantee the provision of the following; Obligations a) Prior to completion of the development the Applicant shall cede the open landscape created outside the boundaries of the three housing clusters (as defined on drawing no. 1871-08-68 Areas 2, 3 & 4) to an appropriate body or trust, with full agreement of the Minister, for allowing public access in perpetuity in accordance with a scheme of continued access to be agreed in writing with the Minister. The land shall not be ceded until the landscaping as set out in the approved plans has been completed to the satisfaction of the Minister. b) The Applicant shall submit a commuted sum payment and shall undertake, or arrange and fund for the body or trust referred to in a) above, to undertake, landscape maintenance regime works for a period of at least 25 years after completion of the development, in accordance with a comprehensive programme to be agreed in writing by the Minister. Such programme shall include a monitoring schedule and provision for the maintenance regime to adapt according to the findings of the monitoring schedule and shall further include details of a covenant relating to the Conditions of Sale with the express aim of preventing home owners / occupiers from using land outwith their domestic curtilage for domestic purposes. c) The Applicant shall provide appropriate funding towards a research and monitoring programme for conservation of Puffins and seabirds. d) The German Coastal Observation Post (M3) shall be refurbished as a publicly accessible bird hide by the Applicant, or with full funding from the Applicant, in accordance with a scheme to be agreed in writing by the Minister. The works shall be completed before any of the approved dwellings are occupied and the Observation Post shall remain in, or revert to, the ownership of the Public. e) The Architect appointed in the development of the scheme hereby approved (BDK Architects) shall be retained throughout all the construction phase of the development. Prior to the occupation / use of each dwelling of the development, the Architect must give written confirmation to the Minister that he or she is satisfied that the building has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and that the quality of materials and workmanship is of the highest possible order. The Minister reserves the right to request minor amendments to the approved development following advice from the Architect. f) The Landscape Architect appointed in the development of the landscaping scheme hereby approved (Michael Felton Ltd.) shall be retained throughout all the landscaping (both hard and soft) phase of the development. Prior to the occupation / use of each element of the development, the Landscape Architect must give written confirmation to the Minister that he or she is satisfied that the landscaping has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and that the quality of materials, planting and workmanship is of the highest possible order. The Landscape Architect shall liaise directly with the Department, including the Environment Division and the Minister reserves the right to request minor amendments to the landscape proposals following advice from either the Environment Division or the Landscape Architect. Planning Conditions / Reasons 1. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans, drawings and schedules, and strictly in accordance with the submitted reports. No variations shall be made without the prior written approval of the Minister for Planning and Environment. For the avoidance of doubt and in accordance with the requirements of Policy GD 1 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011. 2. Physical samples of all external materials to be used as identified on the approved Schedule of Required Sample Panels / Assemblies, dated 9 September 2010 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department prior to such materials being used. To safeguard the character and appearance of the area and in accordance with the requirements of Policies GD 1 and GD 7 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011. 3. Prior to the commencement of development, the finished floor levels, eaves and ridge heights of each dwelling shall be approved in writing by the Department. On sloping ground, detailed sections indicating the precise level of cut and/ or fill shall be similarly approved. No such approved level shall be exceeded without the express written approval of the Department. For the avoidance of doubt and in accordance with the requirements of Policy GD 1 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Planning and Building (General Development) (Jersey) Order 2011, or the provisions of any Order that replaces, amends or supersedes the 2011 Order, no alterations, additions, extensions (including loft conversions, conservatories, conversion of garages and car-ports to any other habitable space and, external lighting to dwellings and vehicular areas), windows, doors, external utility meter boxes, fences, walls, sheds or other structures shall be installed, affixed or erected on any part of the site or building therein without the prior written approval of the Department. To enable the Minister for Planning and Environment to control the development and so safeguard the character and visual amenities of the area and to ensure that adequate private amenity space is retained within the curtilage of the dwelling in compliance with the requirements of Policy GD 1 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011. 5. In respect of the provisions of Condition No. 4 above, a ‘pattern book’ shall be produced by the retained Architect for the applicant / developer detailing the form, style, materials and positioning of any future alterations, additions or extensions to the proposed dwellings that would respect the vernacular architecture of the development. Such a pattern book shall be submitted to the Department for written approval and shall thereafter, and without prejudice to any future decision, be used as guidance when assessing future planning applications relating to each dwelling. The Minister considers that the production of a pattern book would be an appropriate mechanism by which to guide any subsequent planning application for alterations or extensions to the new dwellings. 6. Before the dwellings are occupied, the proposed means of boundary treatment to all external aspects of the development and between dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The use of low granite walls, banques, post & rail fences and hedgerows will be required in accordance with the approved drawings. To safeguard the character and appearance of the area in accordance with the requirements of Policy GD 1 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011. 7. The stated Mitigation Measures, as embodied in the Environmental Impact Statement and supporting documents, and all other recommendations of the Environmental Impact Assessment and, any additional or revised measures as may be required by the Department as a result of a specific concern or consultation response, shall be implemented in accordance with a schedule of works, timings and on-going monitoring / remediation to be agreed in writing by the Minister. The Minister considers that the proposed development may not be acceptable without the implementation of the stated mitigation measures. 8. All demolition and groundworks shall be undertaken outside the main bird breeding season (April to August), unless written authority for specific elements of the proposal is given by the Department’s Environment Section. In the interests of minimising disturbance to seabirds which form an important element of the Island’s bio-diversity. 9. A rat eradication programme and programme for the clearance of invasive plants (including Hottentot Fig) shall be agreed and implemented to satisfaction of the Environment Department prior to any demolition works taking place. In the interests of allowing less invasive native species to establish within the area. 10. A detailed landscaping scheme shall be submitted prior to the commencement of the development to show sensitive planting with relevance to the landscape character and wildlife habitats of this area. The scheme shall provide for locally relevant habitat creation and shall be drawn up in consultation with the relevant Officers of the Planning & Environment Department’s Countryside Section. Such scheme shall be completed prior to any sale of property on the site. To safeguard the character and appearance of the area in accordance with the requirements of Policies GD 1 and NE 4 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011. 11. Precise details of the proposed means of foul and surface water drainage, including full details of the reed-bed ponds and measures to store and re-use rainwater where practicable shall be submitted to and approved in writing before works commence. A sustainable drainage system will be required. In order that such details can be the subject of further consideration by the relevant bodies to ensure that the site and development is adequately drained. 12. Precise details of types, positions, luminosity, shielding and justification for each external light, including measures to minimize sky-glow shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department before the development commences. In order to prevent unnecessary light pollution in this sensitive headland setting. 13. The garages to all the houses shall not be used for any purpose other than those incidental to the enjoyment of a dwelling house but not including use as habitable accommodation. To safeguard the character and appearance of the area and to ensure the provision of adequate parking accommodation within the three housing clusters and to avoid congestion by residents vehicles of adjoining lanes or public parking areas in accordance with the requirements of Policy GD 1 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011. 14. Reasonable access shall be given at all reasonable times for archaeological work. Reasonable access shall also be given to a nominated member(s) of the Department’s Historic Environment Team, Jersey Heritage Trust and the Channel Island Occupation Society for the purpose of observing and recording any Occupation structure or other archaeological finds. A minimum of 3 weeks written notice shall be given to each party prior to any works commencing. All finds and records of archaeology shall be safeguarded and lodged with the Department. The Minister is aware that the site may hold archaeological finds, including Occupation material and wishes to ensure that appropriate opportunity is given to record such objects. 15. Prior to completion of the development the Applicant shall provide and pay the costs for the construction of a bus shelter at the south-western end of the central area footpath, to a design and details approved by the Department. In order to promote the use of public transport. 16. A work of art shall be delivered in accordance with the advice of the appointed Approved Art Advisor and the Percentage for Art Statement dated 10th September 2010 which has been submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment. The work of art must be installed prior to the first use/occupation of the development hereby approved unless otherwise agreed in writing. To comply with the provisions of Policy GD 8 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011. 17. Details of the siting and nature of all temporary site huts, compounds, security fencing, security lighting, fuel storage and waste disposal during the demolition and construction phases shall be submitted to and approved by the Department before works commence. Should additional elements be required during the course of works, subsequent approval from the Department shall be required. To ensure that all construction / demolition related materials and operations do not result in unacceptable damage to the local environment. 18. Prior to commencement of the development, full details shall be submitted to the Minister to demonstrate how the proposed development will incorporate on-site low carbon or renewable energy production to off-set predicted carbon emissions by at least 10% or shall fully demonstrate that the proposed development will otherwise off-set predicted carbon emissions by at least 10% by alternative means. Any such measures as may be approved shall be implemented, retained and maintained in accordance with the submitted and approved details. To ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy NR7 of the Island Plan.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Minister has resolved to approve the application, subject to the completion of a Planning Obligation Agreement and to the compliance of Conditions. In reaching his decision, the Minister paid special regard to the Independent Inspector’s Report and recommendations into the Public Inquiry which was held over the days of 25 / 26thSeptember 2012 and to the representations and consultations received on the planning application and the subsequent Inquiry. The Minister originally called for the Public Inquiry as he considered that the proposal to redevelop the former holiday village by way of 26 new dwellings and 2 replacement dwellings constituted a substantial departure from Policy SP1 (Spatial Strategy) of the 2011 Island Plan. Nonetheless, Article 19 (3) of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 states that the Minister may grant planning permission that is inconsistent with the Island Plan but shall not do so unless he is satisfied that there is sufficient justification for doing so. In this instance, the Minister is satisfied that there is sufficient justification for allowing a substantial departure from the Island Plan. The crux of the issue has been whether the proposed re-development is justified as a means by which to secure a substantive, positive contribution to the repair and restoration of the landscape of the Plemont headland. Policy ERE 3 of the Island Plan makes permissible, as an exception, ‘enabling development’ which is something that would normally not be permitted but, may be permitted if it would provide a mechanism or funding to secure positive environmental benefits for the Island. Moreover, although Policy NE7 of the Island Plan presumes against the redevelopment of commercial buildings (for anything other than their original purpose) it does makes an exception where the redevelopment would give rise to demonstrable environmental gains and where it would make a positive contribution to the repair and restoration of the landscape. On this point, the Minister is satisfied that the proposal represents a clear and significant reduction in the building mass and floorspace area compared to the existing complex and that, by splitting the development into 3 clusters, this will further serve to break up the perceived bulk of the existing structures. The new dwellings would certainly be visible on the skyline from various viewpoints but the Minister does not consider that this would result in a seriously detrimental impact upon the skyline, nor result in the loss of any strategic view or important vista. The proposed new dwellings also share a high quality of design following a rural vernacular with significant openness punctuating the 3 clusters. Although not on the same footprint as the existing structures, the 3 clusters would be ‘pulled’ away from the North coast cliff path, offering a greater visual buffer between the coast and the development. The Minister is satisfied that this approach to the development of the site is an appropriate response to the sensitivities of the site and its surroundings. The Minister has fully considered the thorough and balanced report of the Inspector and accompanying submissions, including a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment. He has reached the conclusion that, notwithstanding the policy presumptions against the erection of new residential development outside of the Island’s principal settlements, this proposal will result in the significant and substantial repair and restoration of landscape character. It will enable the wholesale clearance of the existing Plemont Holiday Village structures which are, presently, a blight on the Island’s sensitive North coast. Accordingly, the Minister contends that the proposals represent a justifiable exception to Policy SP1 of the Island Plan, but also that they fall in with the exception permitted under Policy NE7 and ERE3.
Resource Implications: Nil
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature: Deputy R C Duhamel		PLeg / AS Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

3.18 DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING the legal impact of the planning obligation agreement associated with the development of the Plémont Bay Holiday Village site:

Question

Will H.M. Attorney General inform the Assembly whether the Minister for Planning and Environment’s decision to approve the development of Plémont Bay Holiday Village (MD-PE-2012-0120) on 23rd November 2012, which is conditional on a Planning Obligation Agreement being entered into between the Minister and applicant, has any legal effect before that Agreement is entered into and whether, in the interim pending the required Agreement, the Minister is permitted to use powers under the Planning and Building Law (Public Inquiries) (Jersey) Order 2008 to reopen the planning inquiry to consider any issues which are insufficiently or not covered in the Inspectors report, including issues arising in respect of the required Planning Obligation Agreement?

Answer

The Minister has given an ‘in principle’ decision subject to the preparation and completion of an agreement embodying the obligations set out in the Ministerial Decision.

The decision is not one on which the applicant can rely to start development. That stage would be reached once the decision has been perfected by the completion of the planning obligation agreement and grant of planning permission. However, given the substance of the Ministerial Decision, the applicant will have a reasonable expectation that the planning obligation agreement will be negotiated in good faith and on reasonable terms.

The Attorney General is not at this time in a position to give definitive advice on the legal effect of the ‘in principle’ decision in the time available and without further research.

Article 18(1) of the Planning and Building Law (Public Inquiries) (Jersey) Order 2008 provides:

The Minister may direct the inspector to re-open the public inquiry if, before the Minister determines the application, it appears to the Minister –

(a) that there are material considerations, other than the Minister’s policy, that either are not mentioned in the inspector’s report or are insufficiently considered in that report; or

(b) that the report contains any technical information that is incorrect in a material particular.

If the matter is one that that falls within Article 18(1), it is technically possible the Minister to exercise his discretion to re-open the public inquiry. The question as to whether or not such a decision would be open to challenge would also require further research and consideration.

3.19 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL regarding the final total cost of the Low Value Consignment Relief Court case:

Question

What is the final total cost of the Low Value Consignment Relief Court case and Jersey’s share of H.M. Government’s costs?

Answer

Whilst it is still not possible to give a final figure for the full cost of the LVCR judicial review proceedings, the final element, namely HMRC ‘s claim for costs has been received within the last few days and will now be the subject of review and possible negotiation with a view to agreeing the correct amount.

Once this exercise is completed, it will be possible to provide a final figure for the total cost.

3.20 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES regarding the final cost of failing to hedge the Euro for the Energy for Waste Plant:

Question

Will the Minister advise the final cost to the States of failing to hedge the Euro for the Energy for Waste Plant?

Answer

The final cost to the States of the delay in hedging the Euro for the Energy from Waste Plant was reported in the answer to oral question number 4868 from the then Deputy of St. Mary on 1st December 2009. The cost was £2.7 million.

3.21 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT regarding the final contribution from the fulfilment industry towards the costs of the Low Value Consignment Relief Court case:

Question

What is the final contribution from the fulfilment industry towards the costs of the Low Value Consignment Relief Court case versus H.M. Government?

Answer

As stated in written answer 1240/5(7029) tabled on 17th July 2012 by the Attorney General, the total contribution pledged by the fulfilment industry towards the cost of the legal action came to £85,000.

Whilst it is still not possible to give a final figure for the full cost of the LVCR judicial review proceedings to the States of Jersey, the final element, namely HMRC’s claim for costs has been received by the Law Officers Department within the last few days and will now be the subject of review and possible negotiation with a view to agreeing the correct amount.

Once this exercise is completed, it will be possible to provide a final figure for the total cost.

3.22 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES regarding patients treated at Orchard House over the past 5 years:

Question

Over the last five years how many patients have been confined in Orchard House, the medical classifications used for their confinement and what medication was usually prescribed for each particular classification?

How many patients were re-admitted over that five year term?

How many patients, if any, committed suicide after their treatment?

Answer

Over the last 5 years 1172 patients have been admitted to Orchard House, as shown in Table 1. 362 were admitted under Orders under Mental Health (jersey) Law 1969, and 810 were admitted voluntarily.

Medications and reasons for admission vary on a case-by-case basis so it is not possible to provide an accurate breakdown without interrogating every individual patient’s health record.

With regard to reasons for admission however, the most common presentations to Orchard House include people who are in crisis or at risk due to depression, psychoses (such as schizophrenia), bi-polar disorder and to a lesser extent severe anxiety disorders. The unit also has a dedicated detoxification facility which enables two persons per week to address their alcohol or drug dependency whilst experiencing poor mental health.

For those admitted under Order, Table 2 shows a breakdown of the different orders used over the 5 year period.

Medications vary on a case by case basis. All medication regimes in Orchard House are informed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and prescribed in accordance with the British National Formulary (BNF). This will include mood stabilisers, antipsychotic medications, antidepressants, and medications for insomnia, and to a lesser extent anxiolytic.

Most mental health problems have a high risk of recurrence within a one year period, for example 40-50% in psychosis, therefore in mental health the readmission rates are defined as the person returning to hospital within one year of being discharged. A review of 2012 readmission rates for Orchard House indicates that we have a 10% readmission rate. This is in keeping within the national averages.

With regard to suicide rates, Table Three shows total number of adult suicides in Jersey and, of those, numbers of patients who had been at Orchard House in previous five years.

TABLE 1 – INPATIENT SUMMARY INFORMATION

	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	TOTAL
Inpatient admissions to Orchard House	223	202	163	181	228	175	1172
No of admissions under Orders	81	93	52	39	54	43	362
No of voluntary admission	142	109	111	142	174	132	810
Percentage of admissions under Order to voluntary admissions	36%	46%	32%	22%	24%	25%	31%

TABLE 2 – USE OF ORDERS UNDER MENTAL HEALTH (JERSEY) LAW, 1969 FOR CLIENTS ADMITTED TO ORCHARD HOUSE

TYPE OF ORDER	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	TOTAL
Nurses Holding Power	2	1	3	1	0	0	7
Emergency Orders Article 10	13	13	5	3	1	2	37
Observation Orders Article 6	33	33	14	6	22	21	129
Treatment Orders Article 7	30	46	30	29	31	20	186
Guardianship Orders Article 14	3	0	0	0	0	0	3
Total	81	93	52	39	54	43	362

TABLE 3 – SUICIDE POPULATIONS

	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Total number of suicides in the adult population in Jersey.	11	15	20	9	10	8*
Number who were inpatients in the previous 5 years	0	3	2	1	3	0

*The data for 2012 is incomplete due to cases being processed by the Viscounts Office.

3.23 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE OPERATION OF THE ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT:

Question

Are all the outstanding problems for the Energy for Waste Plant now resolved and, if not, what issues still remain?

How much electricity, shown as a percentage of its capacity, has been generated by the Plant?

How much waste has been burnt since the Plant became operational and what percentage of its capacity has it averaged?

Answer

The Energy from Waste plant will remain within its Defect Liability period for at least another seven months. During this period outstanding defects will be addressed and resolved by the contractor CSBC (Jersey) Limited. As previously stated in question 7124, CSBC (Jersey) Limited are responsible for addressing and financing all defects and snags that are a result of design, installation or component failure. The Transport and Technical Services department is responsible for failures of equipment if such failure is due to misuse or incorrect maintenance.

There are presently 66 outstanding snags and defects and of these, 17 are new defects that have been identified and registered since the 9th October 2012.

CSBC (Jersey) Limited are working with the Transport and Technical Services Department to resolve these issues.

The Energy from Waste plant’s electrical power generation shown as a percentage of its full load capacity is 45.5% and 60.4% for the years 2011 and 2012 respectively.

Waste throughput since the plant became operational is 127,814 tonnes which represents an average of 61% of the maximum mass throughput.

The plant has processed approximately 100% of the waste that has been delivered to it since December 2010.

It is not possible to meaningfully calculate the plant’s throughput by reference to a single parameter such as weight as the true capacity of the plant is limited by a combination of the mass and the energy content of the waste.

4. Oral Questions

4.1.9 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

From what the Chief Minister has just said, is he not making a case that we need more Members so he can juggle to his heart’s content?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

No, simply that I can try and get the best person to do the best job in any particular portfolio requirement for the best interests of Jersey.

4.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Minister for Social Security regarding steps to prevent over-prescribing by G.P.s:

What steps, if any, are in place to prevent over-prescribing by G.P.s (General Practitioners) and how many such cases have been identified by the department in the last 5 years?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security):

I can confirm that the general principles that apply to hospital-prescribed medicines also apply to G.P. prescriptions and that community pharmacists check all prescriptions to confirm they are safe and appropriate before they are dispensed. In addition, the Health Insurance Law includes statutory limits on the number of days of supply that can be provided on a single prescription. The Social Security Department provides a Medicines Management Team which works very closely with local G.P.s. All prescribing data is analysed and a number of key prescribing indicators are published quarterly. The team provides regular educational sessions for G.P.s and pharmacists and has recently organised a software system for G.P. practices which provides guidance to the G.P. at the time the prescription is written. A report of all prescriptions issued by each G.P. is discussed at an annual meeting with a member of the Medicines Management Team and this now forms part of the evidence for the G.P.’s annual appraisal. With the recent appointment of a Primary Care Medical Director and the ongoing changes to health legislation, a much more robust local governance system is being established and any concerns regarding the prescribing habits of G.P.s, including over-prescribing, will be investigated by the Primary Care Medical Director working with the prescribing adviser. Prior to these recent changes, the only formal route in respect of G.P. governance was through the U.K. General Medical Council and 2 cases in respect of prescribing issues have been referred to the G.M.C. (General Medical Council) since November 2006.

4.2.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I infer that the situation was not satisfactory until very recently. I wonder if the Minister could tell me, in cases like alleged over-prescribing for depression where there is the possibility of other therapies being available, to what extent has this issue come to his attention and what steps have been taken to examine whether current procedures are working?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I officially refute what the Deputy inferred, that we have only just improved. In fact, I have had a number of emails from G.P.s and the primary care body expressing great satisfaction with the systems in place and saying it is a model which other communities might want to follow, so I am very pleased with what we are doing. However, in response to the matter of prescribing drugs for depression, this is one of the business cases that the Health and Social Services Department is pursuing known as the Improved Access for Psychological Therapies and, in fact, the department will be participating in that and it is all about using other therapies as opposed to drug treatment.

[11:00]

4.3 Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John of the Minister for Economic Development regarding a projected cost range for the Hanger8 project:

As Members have been given a cost profile for the new police station and other major projects, will the Minister identify a project cost range for the Hangar 8 project to fully inform States Members and if not, why not?

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

That would be a matter, I think, for terms and conditions negotiations which the States Employment Board would have to be involved with. I am being asked questions that go beyond my own area. My own personal view is that if that is a route that we are going to go down, it would have to be a route as part of a terms and conditions negotiation because it would represent an additional benefit to employees.

4.4.5 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Does the Minister consider that the sum spent was value for money, given the considerable doubts that have been expressed and the quite unprecedented move by the officers concerned to express their very deep abhorrence and feelings in public as to the experience which they were required to undertake?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Deputy Le Hérissier likes to ask me questions about value for money in such cases and he always gets the same answer from me, that it is a necessary part of maintaining a credible police force that we have a proper disciplinary process where that was necessary. Now what happened in this particular case, it may help to Deputy to know, is that the Police Chief, anticipating and correctly anticipating, that local officers would be very heavily criticised in any judgment of the Privy Council, which they were, decided before the decision came out in relation to that to institute an investigation which was conducted by the Hampshire Police Force. That investigation made recommendations in relation to disciplinary action and their disciplinary action has followed. The fact that the outcome has been as it is, in my view, is irrelevant. The fact is that the Chief Officer has followed a correct process in this case and I do not think he could have done anything else.

4.4.6 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Could the Minister tell the House whether he thinks the procedures followed, which are becoming almost similar to a court of law in the whole notion, have departed so seriously from the normal disciplinary procedure that the whole issue of discipline needs to be revisited and certainly the cost of discipline needs to be revisited?

Will the Minister inform Members when he will bring the Housing Transformation Plan to the Assembly for debate and what provision, if any, will he make to ensure that Members can examine in detail the figures which underpin the business case for the plan?

Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier (The Minister for Housing):

I am presently concluding discussions with my fellow Ministers in respect of the Housing Transformation Programme and anticipate bringing my proposals to the Council of Ministers in February and to lodge as soon as possible thereafter. It has always been my intention to share the full business case and the financial model with States Members when I lodge my proposition. Indeed, the Health and Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Sub-Panel and some States Members have already taken the opportunity to look at the proposals as I had them initially and to give me lots of useful information and feedback on that. That is the reason why I am slightly delayed in bringing it forward. But I will give Members adequate time to examine the full business case, which is a good one but a complicated one.

4.7.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Does the Minister not accept that the reason for his proposed rise in the States rental levels to 90 per cent of the private sector levels is solely or largely due to the continued payment of up to £24 million annually into the States Treasury under the H.T.P. (Housing Transformation Plan) proposals in order to make the scheme viable?

4.11.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

The Chief Minister has not answered the question. The question was have they threatened to prevent us entering into an agreement with the United States until we enter into an agreement with the U.K. on the same issue?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

We see no reason why we should not go ahead and complete the U.S. F.A.T.C.A. It seems to us to comply with the Letter of Entrustment that we have with regard to signing international agreements and therefore we expect to follow the normal course of affairs when signing these types of international agreements.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Sir, could you instruct the Chief Minister to answer the question he has avoided yet again?

The Bailiff:

Are you willing to answer the question about these negotiations, Chief Minister? The question was whether the U.K. has threatened or not to sign a F.A.T.C.A. with the U.S. unless we sign one with them.

Senator I.J. Gorst:

I have outlined exactly what I believe the process is and our interpretation of the Letter of Entrustment with regard to the signing of the U.S. F.A.T.C.A. and therefore I believe that that does answer the Deputy’s question.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I have exactly the same question as Deputy Higgins. I am happy to ask it again and see if we can get a yes or no answer but otherwise I will just sit down and be quiet.

4.11.5 Deputy M. Tadier:

That is a kind of nuanced approach. It was simply a yes or no question. That is what we were asking for, so that is beyond the Chief Minister. The next question has to be has any legal advice been taken and is the U.K. able to block the signing of the agreement between Jersey and the U.S. if it so chooses to? That is the fundamental question and if he can answer a yes, no, maybe, or it is likely that something to that effect, I would be most grateful.

Senator I.J. Gorst:

I am pleased that the Deputy recognises that negotiations are not straightforward yes and no, and that Members of this Assembly would not expect me to put it in any way to the detriment of Jersey’s best interests by being asked to simplify what are important but complex issues. I think I have answered the Deputy’s question. As I have said, what Ministers and I believe is the appropriate process with regard to the completion of the U.S. F.A.T.C.A.

Deputy M. Tadier:

I thought this was question time not negotiation time.

The Bailiff:

What was the question, Deputy?

4.11.6 Deputy M. Tadier:

The question is that I appreciate that negotiations are not simple yes or no answers but question time in the States Assembly can be and often are simple yes or no answers but it does require an element of co-operation from our Ministerial colleagues.

Senator I.J. Gorst:

I seem to have answered a great number of questions on this particular issue over the course of a number of months and I have made our position, I believe, quite clear. Jersey is in alignment with the United Kingdom when it comes to tackling tax evasion and therefore it is right that we negotiate and consider with the United Kingdom how we can help them achieve that aim.

4.11.7 Deputy G.P. Southern:

My question is a 2-part, I am afraid. The first was what is the timescale for signing with the U.S. and it has not been answered, but secondly …

The Bailiff:

I do not think it has been asked

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Pardon?

The Bailiff:

I do not think it has been asked.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

It was the original question, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Was it?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Yes, the schedule.

The Bailiff:

The schedule for negotiations, right.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

That could be months or years, Sir, or weeks. The second half, just for clarification really, the Chief Minister has explained that while he is co-operating fully with the U.S. over signing a F.A.T.C.A., he is now refusing to co-operate with the U.K. and not negotiating but blocking the signing of a F.A.T.C.A. with them, thereby allowing Jersey to continue to act as a conduit for evaded tax.

I have no knowledge of the cases at all so I cannot comment on that at all.

4.13.7 Deputy M. Tadier:

It seems that the Assistant Minister has been chosen to answer the question specifically because he does not have any knowledge about any answers that he can give which is convenient because we are not allowed any information on the question which has been approved by yourself, Sir, but I am sure it is more complicated than that. The question I have to ask is: is the Assistant Minister concerned that taxpayers’ money is being used for a case which ostensibly could or which could possibly use the defamation law because this is a case about defamation, not necessarily about data protection, which would not have to be funded by the taxpayer. Does the Assistant Minister have any concerns that taxpayers are being used to fund a secret case which we cannot even find out what the costs are at the moment when perhaps the best use of procedure would be for a civil defamation case to be brought against this individual so that taxpayers would not have to fund it.

[12:15]

Senator P.F. Routier:

The Deputy’s understanding of what cases are going on is greater than mine. It is not part of the responsibility of the Chief Minister or myself to be involved in any particular cases and I would respectfully suggest to Members that when there are cases which are sub judice, that politicians should not really think about being involved in it and I maintain that position and as long as the Data Protection Officers are working appropriately within the law, that we should be satisfied with that.

4.13.8 Deputy G.P. Southern:

If I may, can I ask the Assistant Minister to circulate the documents he has not brought with him today, the 2 items that he has mentioned in his answer?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I am not sure what the Deputy is referring to. All I have is an answer to the question that …

Deputy G.P. Southern:

The Bailiff:

Very well. That concludes Question Time on Notice so we now come to Questions to Ministers without notice and the first period is to the Minister for Social Security.

5.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Will the Minister inform Members what measures he has taken to ensure that income support recipients can afford their G.P. bills following the reduction in the award of Household Medical Accounts?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security):

The Deputy is aware that I have previously informed him that the Household Medical Account provision is part of the review of primary health care being carried out in conjunction with the Health and Social Services Department. There are no plans to make any changes to the current provision. However, if there is a household that has a high need to visit the G.P. regularly we could, in those circumstances, offer the Household Medical Account, which is basically just a savings account and no more than that.

5.1.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Does the Minister accept that he appears to be unaware of what officer practice is and that many people have been refused the establishment of an H.M.A. (Household Medical Account) being told that it is not necessary and that they can look after their G.P.s’ accounts without that special buffer provision?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I refute that I am not aware of what is happening. I am aware but the point is that the Household Medical Account is a savings account. It is no more than that and components are set aside from the weekly benefit to save towards G.P. bills. It is purely a savings scheme and no more than that. Therefore, if households feel that they would like to have that provision that is something they can talk to their officer about.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

May I have a supplementary there because I believe the Minister may be inadvertently misleading the House and I would not want him to do that?

The Bailiff:

All right.

5.1.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

It is also about clinical components which are extra money that needs to be applied for. He was suggesting that the H.M.A. is only made up of other components. It should not be made up of other components like the living component or the rental component. It should only be made up of clinical components and that is not always happening.

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

Here Deputy Southern, as usual, is expressing a view that only clinical components should be used for the Household Medical Account. That is purely his opinion. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that other components, particularly if the household has a high component for impairment, that some of that component can be used to top up the Household Medical Account with the agreement of the household.

5.2 Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:

My question for the Minister for Social Security is an aspiration to become self-employed as a result of unemployment. A constituent has advised me that as a result of unemployment he may wish to become self-employed starting with 5, 10 maybe 20 hours a week. He advises me that the Social Security Department are inflexible and onerous in the level of contributions that he may have to pay. Can the Minister consider or has he discussed with his officers a sliding scale of variable contributions so that a person who is unemployed can become self-employed starting with contributions based on 5 hours, 10 hours and so on per week?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

The issue of the self-employed and people wishing to become self-employed was addressed by the previous Minister when he was in office in the view that we would be looking to the income of the applicants 2 years prior to becoming self-employed rather than relying on a forecast of current income for their new business. We have tried to assist new entrepreneurs as far as their social security contributions are concerned. The fact is that people on income support who wish to become self-employed are receiving advice and assistance from Jersey Business as to whether their idea is one that has merit. Insofar as the whole contribution system is concerned, one of the projects for my department is to look at the fact that we only have 2 types of contributions, class 1 or class 2, class 2 being for the self-employed, and whether we should have other classes which might assist in paying a lower level of contribution.

5.2.1 Deputy S. Power:

If I might be allowed a supplementary to that. I am very grateful that the previous Minister has looked at this but I would like the current Minister to look at it again.

[12:30]

Very well. That brings questions to the Minister for Social Security to an end. Can I test the mood of the Assembly? Does the Assembly wish to commence questions to the Chief Minister and see them through or to adjourn at this stage?

LUNCHTIME ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

The Bailiff:

Yes. The adjournment is proposed so we will have a vote on that then. If you want to adjourn now you vote for it. If you do not, vote against. Those in favour of adjourning please show. Those against. Even my mathematical skills ... the adjournment is carried so we will reconvene with questions to the Chief Minister at 2.15 p.m.

[12:40]

ADJOURNMENT

[14:16]

6. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister

The Bailiff:

We come now to questions without notice to the Chief Minister.

6.1 The Connétable of St. John:

I was remiss this morning, Sir, firstly in not wishing you and the Governor and the Dean and the A.G. (Attorney General) and everyone in the Chamber all the best for 2013. [Approbation]

Senator L.J. Farnham:

I hope that was the question. [Laughter]

The Connétable of St. John:

We already have in the Channel Islands positions involving the areas of civil aviation, environmental health and data protection. What other senior Channel Island positions can we look forward to being created in 2013? Thank you.

Senator I.J. Gorst:

The Deputy asks a question which I am not in a position to answer with regard to specific individuals. I have very clearly laid out my view and vision for faster and more working with our sister isle. I believe that our destinies are aligned, that we should be working together and that we should be considering areas which perhaps we have shied away from considering in the past. If we are to do this faster and further working with our sister isle then we cannot shy away from creating confederated bodies to oversee and ensure the appropriate creation of cross Channel Island bodies. The Minister for Treasury and Resources has, subsequent to my speech last week, met again with his counterpart in Guernsey.

[14:30]

They will shortly be talking further about some of the programmes and plans that they have right across the departments to continue joint working and making efficiencies.

6.7 Deputy M. Tadier:

Would the Chief Minister indicate whether he would be in favour of a voluntary living wage for the Island and perhaps outline how that might work if so?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

That is a difficult question. It depends, I suppose, what the Deputy means by voluntary. As the Deputy knows, because we have had correspondence on this matter previously, in the United Kingdom, specifically in London, some businesses find that it is a mark of differentiation that they offer a living wage and it becomes a marketing advantage for them. I have got to tell the Deputy, as he well knows, that one of the most difficult consultations, which is undertaken more or less annually and certainly has been since the economic crisis, is that undertaken by the Employment Forum with regard to setting of the minimum wage and they always have to balance the creation and sustainability of jobs with an appropriate wage for employees who receive the minimum wage, so it is difficult for me to answer that.

6.7.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

Does the Minister acknowledge that there is a differential between, or at least a potential differential, between the minimum wage which specifically has to take into account effects on an employer and the economic effects with a living wage which is basically how much it costs on average for a reasonable standard of living in Jersey for the person in receipt of that wage?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

There is the emotive issue. It is quite difficult without research to say exactly what a living wage is or what any differential might be between that and the minimum wage. Of course there was work done previously in the Social Security Department by C.R.S.P. (Centre for Research in Social Policy) but inevitably one gets into asking the questions of individuals: “What do you need to live?” and then you cost that up. It does not necessarily help you in managing the balance between the creation and sustainability of jobs and an appropriate minimum wage.

6.8 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

A few weeks ago the Chairman of the Appointments Commission suddenly resigned. Nothing has been put in the public domain about this. Would the Chief Minister tell us whether he has been informed fully of the reasons for this resignation and what does he intend to do about those reasons?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

Yes, as Chairman of the States Employment Board I am fully aware of those reasons and as far as I am concerned there is nothing untoward. I do not think it is right for me necessarily to publicise an individual’s reasons for resigning.

6.8.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Could the Chief Minister confirm whether or not those reasons are directed to the actual manner in which the person was trying to perform his or duty?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

No, they were not.

The Bailiff:

Very well. That brings questions to the Chief Minister to an end. No matters under J or K so we now come to Public Business. First, the Tourism Shadow Board establishment P.113 lodged by the Minister for Economic Development. I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

Sir ...

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much, Senator Le Gresley. Yes, before we come to that the Minister for Social Security had asked if he could elaborate an answer he gave earlier. Minister, yes.

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

This is in response to Deputy Power’s question about new self-employed and the changes that were made to the Social Security contribution scheme which came into effect from 1st January 2012. If you allow me I will just read it because it is easiest to do so: “From 1st January 2012 if a person becomes newly self-employed they can opt to pay a deferred rate of contribution for a maximum of 2 full calendar years which is one-third of the rate set for the standard earnings limit. This means in 2013 they would pay £159.75 per month. To take advantage of this deferred rate the applicant must not have been self-employed within the last 5-year period. The applicant is required to produce their income tax assessment as soon as possible for any year in which they pay a deferred rate of contribution. The contribution rate will then be recalculated using the actual income from that assessment and any under or overpayment would be addressed.”

Deputy S. Power:

Can I thank the Minister for that and can I ask him to circulate that to States Members please.

PUBLIC BUSINESS

7. Tourism Shadow Board: establishment (P.113/2012)

The Bailiff:

Very well. Now the Greffier will read out the proposition P.113.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to refer to their Acts dated 1st February 2011 in which they approved ‘Shadow Boards and Ministerial Boards: approval by the States (P.170/2010); and 17th July 2012 in which they approved the ‘Economic Growth and Diversification Strategy’ (P.55/2012); and to approve the establishment of a Shadow Board for Jersey Tourism.

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

This proposition seeks States approval for the establishment of a Shadow Board for Tourism. In the next few minutes I hope to lay out exactly why I believe this to be such an important step. In July 2012 Members will recall that they approved P.55 the Economic Growth and Diversification Strategy. That strategy states and I quote: “Jersey Tourism will, in future, benefit from the appointment of a Shadow Board, drawn from the private sector, to oversee strategy and the day to day operation of the Island’s destination and marketing programme.” It also makes it clear that existing sectors such as tourism, the rural economy, retail and construction are an essential part of our economy if we are to meet objectives of economic growth and job creation. As I am sure Members will recall, in 2010 a proposal to establish a tourism private-public partnership, commonly known as a P.P.P. was published by my department. This followed years of research and discussion together with industry that in part predated the global financial crisis of 2008. The final proposal was reviewed by the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel of the day that was chaired by Deputy Higgins. In essence, the Scrutiny Panel concluded that it was not the right time to pursue a fully independent P.P.P. In my comments to the Scrutiny Report at the time, I agreed with this conclusion, commenting that the economic climate had deteriorated to such a degree that the cost of moving to a P.P.P. was now questionable. It had become clear that in a weak and uncertain economic climate it would be more sensible to target all available funds allocated to Jersey Tourism towards marketing and promotional activity and not to the set up costs that would be associated with a P.P.P. The last few years have been challenging for the hospitality sector, like many, but I am really proud of what all those in the industry, including everyone at Jersey Tourism, have achieved during this period. While acknowledging the very real difficulties faced, we have performed well against our competitors. I am sure that I do not have to remind Members that our tourism industry continues to provide a vital contribution to our Island, providing significant employment in hotels, restaurants and bars, to mention a few, and £242 million to our economy. In addition - and this is often underestimated - it plays an important role in sustaining our transport infrastructure, maintaining the environment and the facilities that support Island residents and businesses. Jersey Tourism has played a pivotal role in this through its product development, P.R. (public relations) and marketing activities. In 2010, we set up the Tourism Marketing Panel to advise and scrutinise proposals to market the Island. The marketing programme in particular has benefited significantly from the strategic advice provided by the Tourism Marketing Panel. I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the panel for their considerable efforts and applaud the very positive impact they have had on our marketing activity. The knowledge and expertise that these industry and marketing professionals have brought from the private sector illustrates the value that can be added by the public and private sectors working in close partnership. Sir, would you like me to pause while you ...?

The Bailiff:

I think so. [Laughter] While we identify the guilty party, who is owning up. Deputy Rondel. Yes, the fine no doubt will find its way to the Greffier’s fund.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Sir, has the rate gone up this year?

Senator L.J. Farnham:

I hate to point it out, Sir, but that is at least a second offence.

The Bailiff:

I will give consideration to the Greffier as to whether the fine should be upped. For the moment, Deputy, you will pay the existing fine. Very well. Senator?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Sir, before I continue, I might add that perhaps snitches should also be fined. [Laughter] [Approbation] Moving back to the rather more serious matter of our tourism industry and, in particular, the Tourism Marketing Panel that I was just referring to. I was saying that the knowledge and expertise that these industry and marketing professionals have brought from the private sector illustrates the value that can be added by the public and private sectors working in close partnership. The Scrutiny Report of June 2010 stated: “The Tourism Marketing Panel should be given time to establish itself and its experience used to determine whether full P.P.P. proposals require reassessment in the future.” It is my strong belief that now is that time. Not, I should emphasise, to progress imminently with a P.P.P. but to reassess what governance structure best suits the delivery of tourism in the global marketplace of today and to use what we have learned through the marketing panel to help deliver our strategy during the years ahead. The proposition before Members today, to establish a shadow board, will formalise a structure to fully capitalise on valuable private sector contribution to the evolution of support for tourism in Jersey, effectively building on the success of the Tourism Marketing Panel with a more formal structure and broader remit. Jersey’s visitor economy is the businesses that form the sector and their support for this proposition is of course essential. In this regard, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Farnham and the Jersey Hospitality Association for their support in developing both the original P.P.P. proposal and this proposition to establish the shadow board. Greater private sector input and broader oversight into the future of our tourism sector is critical and the proposed structure of the shadow board does just that. It will bring together and independent chair and industry professionals from Jersey and hopefully the U.K. and beyond. The relationship between the Minister and the shadow board will be based on a Memorandum of Understanding that closely follows the successful Harbours and Airport M.O.U. (Memorandum of Understanding). If Members approve its establishment, the shadow board will play a pivotal role in the delivery of 2 significant tasks. Firstly, overseeing the development of a new tourism strategy. There were over 1,000 responses to the recent Green Paper demonstrating both industries and the public’s interest and passion for our tourism industry, an industry that is vital to the Jersey economy and in so many ways is part of the very fabric of Island life as a whole, and an industry that has the potential to provide many more jobs and exciting new career opportunities for local people. Secondly, it will look at all operational aspects of Jersey tourism. As I stated earlier, I am proud of the team’s achievements but I am never complacent. We need to ensure we organise ourselves into the best possible way to deliver support in an increasingly challenging, competitive and price sensitive global marketplace. Based on experience with the Harbours and Airport Shadow Board, I am confident that a shadow board for tourism will be able to deliver strong advice on both of these issues. The Harbours and Airport Shadow Board have been an invaluable resource. Without them, the integration of Jersey Airport and Jersey Harbours into the Ports of Jersey, delivered in just 6 months, would not have been possible, not to mention the significant and thorough work undertaken on proposals for incorporation, which would not have been possible without their advice, support and expertise that such a strong board delivers. Therefore, to those who are uncertain as to how such a structure would operate, I ask them to look to the ports to see a working example. I will maintain political responsibility for tourism and indeed my Chief Officer will maintain a counting officer responsibility but we will be advised by a strong board as to the direction of both strategy and operations.

[14:45]

I will seek advice on all aspects of Jersey Tourism’s activity. As with the Harbours and Airport Shadow Board, I will not pre-determine the outcome of their considerations. The Jersey Tourism Shadow Board would have the freedom to consider the future of destination marketing of Jersey into the U.K., Europe and other international markets. They will have the responsibility of working with and overseeing Jersey Tourism as an organisation to deliver what I believe can be a strong and important future for the sector, be it within or outside of the public sector. I would now like to turn to our current Scrutiny Panel chaired by the Deputy of St. Martin, who has reviewed this particular proposition. I would firstly like to thank the panel for the timely and efficient and professional manner in which they have undertaken the review. I welcome their support, specifically the endorsement that the establishment of a shadow board at this time is a sensible and prudent step, which will help to improve oversight of the industry by better harnessing the wealth of private sector expertise in the Island and in our main U.K. market. I also welcome their comments around the requirement to ensure that although the shadow board will operate in an advisory capacity, it will maintain independence, a facet as demonstrated with the Harbours and Airport Shadow Board and a point that is vital to the ability for them to perform their role effectively. I did not quite appreciate the small slap across the wrist for giving the panel such little notice to this particular review but I think it was probably justified so I take it in that sense. To address the Scrutiny Panel’s immediate priorities in turn; for the avoidance of any doubt, I am wholly committed to taking a clean slate, I think the term was, approach to the board recommendations regarding the future of Jersey Tourism. Assuming Members approve the proposition today, I will be moving immediately to appoint the members of the shadow board and once formed, I will be asking the board for advice on 2 key priority areas. Firstly, they evaluate options and define a recommendation regarding all aspects of Jersey Tourism’s activity and in particular with an emphasis on the 2013, 2014 season. Secondly, and this is related to the first priority, to work with the Jersey Tourism staff and industry to bring forward a new tourism strategy that should include recommendations regarding the optimum operational and governance structure for Jersey Tourism. Tourism is a vital and enduring element of Jersey’s economy that has, contrary to what some may think, significant growth potential. That is why in 2013 and beyond, my Economic Development Department will invest between 30 and 40 pence of every pound of our budget in the sector. It is also why, through the recent Comprehensive Spending Review process and more recently the Medium-Term Financial Plan, that I protected the tourism budget. If approved, the shadow board will represent a major change in the way we look at marketing the Island as a destination for visitors from the U.K., Europe and other international markets. It will also represent a major change in the level of support and oversight for the sector. I hope Members will join me in wholeheartedly supporting this proposal and, by so doing, give a strong and much needed vote of confidence to our valuable tourism industry.

The Bailiff:

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

7.1.1 Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier:

I support this proposition; I believe it is long overdue. Tourism plays an important role in the economics of this Island. Everyone is aware of how necessary it is in our economy and the concern for its survival has plagued both previous Assemblies and those in the industry itself for years. How we position ourselves in the future will be crucial and having a team of professional practitioners has to be a step in the right direction. You cannot put your foot in the same river twice, so to keep looking over our shoulders at the halcyon days of the 1970s and 1980s serves little purpose. Some of the reasons tourists came back then have long gone; cheap booze, cheap flights and no V.A.T. (Value Added Tax) have all washed away. Equally, the concept of a bucket and spade holiday disappeared as the growth of cheap packaged holidays to foreign climes, where the weather was assured, grew. But the Island still has much to offer and yet the message described by decreasing numbers of tourists does not seem to be getting out there. I spoke recently to one of the McKinsey people, employed to look at the finance industry. Born in Hungary, educated in Singapore, he has worked in New York, London and now here. He has a global perspective. This is one of the reasons these people are so important to us. They spread the message once they have learnt it. He said: “You are a best kept secret.” He described all the things we take for granted and equally strive to preserve but he said: “If you want people to come here, you have to let them know. You have to shout louder.” He added a warning note that when they do come, you have to make them feel welcome. He said: “Jersey does not do it as well as the rest of the world.” There lies one of the dichotomies facing this new board; how to make the rest of the world know we exist while preserving and maintaining the very thing they have come to visit. Add to that a weak global economy, reduced spending, growth of the internet, changes in peoples holiday habits ... it is a tough call to any group to create a vision or a strategy with so many variables but I think creating a shadow board of practitioners with a vested interest is a good move. As someone with a responsibility to culture and creating events for event-led tourism, we will have bumper crop of attractions in 2013, so I am fully supportive of this new board. My only question to the Minister is a matter of conflict about the role of Senator Farnham as President of the J.H.A. (Jersey Hospitality Association). It seems to weaken the notion of real independence and it does not seem to have been addressed in the Scrutiny Panel. So I support the idea but would wish for some clarification about the Senator’s role. Thank you.

7.1.2 The Connétable of St. John:

Over recent times, I have been critical of shadow boards in certain areas of government, mainly Telecom, Postal, Property Holdings and Harbours and Airport, whereby this Chamber have put in place boards at great cost to the Island to do what elected Members historically did in an honorary capacity. In more recent times, Members got paid in part. But of course, under Ministerial government, a Minister has to shoulder all the responsibility and in some cases a Minister’s shoulders are not broad enough to carry that responsibility. So by setting up a board the Minister can pass the buck when things go wrong; and they do. Look at the number of C.E.O.s (chief executive officers) we have had on one board since 2005. I have been around some time and have sat on Postal, Harbours and Airport, Tourism among many other committees of the day and warned of the folly of adopting Clothier in principle without putting the meat on the bones prior to adopting a Ministerial system. As usual, the Members did not want to listen to the plumber from St. John, so here we are, about to go for yet more government reform in the way of a referendum being proposed by the group led by Senator Bailhache. We could see our Senators out of the Chamber and also the Connétables reduced to a Parish role, not unlike Guernsey. [Approbation] These outgoing men and women could have been running these former committees, which are now going to be boards or shadow boards at no additional cost to the Island. In most cases, this should have been the way forward but, and there is a big but, in this case I believe it is the correct thing to do. That must be a relief to the Minister for Economic Development and his Assistant [Laughter] to find he has got at least one Rondel on board. I hope that will not affect the outcome of the vote. I give the reasons as having been a member of the Tourism Committee over a number of years in the days prior to ministry. It became apparent that even at the time when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 that the world was going to grow, or did grow, a third bigger, because all the Eastern Bloc countries became open to tourism, as did other parts of the world and tourism in fact around the world declined, whether it was in the West Indies, whether it was here, at the turn of the 1990s by approximately a third, virtually overnight, because you had other places you could visit which were out of bounds prior to that. But, unfortunately, because tourism in Jersey is shackled to government, the industry could not react fast enough and it became apparent in the early 1990s, because at that time we had something in the region of 25,000 bed nights. We started the decline at about that time and it has declined right down now to something in the region of roughly 10,500 - 11,000 bed nights. So it has really shrunk and obviously because of the advent of our finance industry, believe it or not, the flights in and out of Heathrow, when we had our 1 million-odd tourists a year, we could interline on all sorts of flights in and out of Heathrow but we were putting too much emphasis on our finance and we were letting our tourism industry fall. One in fact was supporting the other. We gave people the opportunity of flying from all sorts of destinations to this Island on the back of tourism because we had all these flights interlining into Heathrow and other city airports. But that started to fall away, so much so that we lost the Heathrow flight and we had to use Stansted and Gatwick and London City, et cetera, but they were no good for interlining. One area of tourism was supporting finance and vice versa, but that fell away and it has been a worry to me because government could not work fast enough because of the committee system, then because of the Ministerial system. It takes so long to get anything through this Chamber that things needed to change within tourism. Tourism should have been allowed to have been master of their own destiny many years ago and to me this shadow board, yes, it should be a full board, and allow the industry to get on because they are all playing with their own money, unlike other departments, whether it is Harbours and Airport in general who are playing with our money. Tourism; they are all individual business people who are putting their own money out there building their hotels, advertising their products. In part it is 99 per cent all their money, apart from the small bit we put in for advertising. I think we should be allowing them to be masters of their own destiny and supporting them in every way possible and therefore, unusually for me, I am supporting this particular board. Thank you.

7.1.3 Deputy S. Power:

I just have 3, I think they are simple, questions for the Minister when he sums up. The first one is, can the Minister make it clear for Members that Visit Jersey, the logo Visit Jersey, will now be a complete identification change? So in all respects, the Tourism Department will have a new tourism identification and, I presume, an appearance programme, to be called Visit Jersey and that everything will be known as Visit Jersey. If that is the case, does the department have a budget to change everything to Visit Jersey? The second thing is, on the bullet point on page 6, the constitution of the board, will the Chief Executive of Visit Jersey be the same Chief Executive that exists at the moment and can he tell me if the financial amend power implications, the remuneration of the Chairman and the non-executive directors, if that is 3 years’ remuneration as linked to the Nolan principles? Could he give an idea as to what the expenses of this board are likely to be in the next 3 years? Finally, there is a fourth one, Sir, I know that the domain name, jersey.com is widely accepted and easy to use, are we going to retain that or is it going to be visitjersey.com?

[15:00]

7.1.4 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Yes, since the demise of the committee system, one of the most noticeable disadvantages possibly was the loss of a champion for agriculture and fisheries and for tourism and, in my view, tourism is very important. It is possibly the only other viable industry after the financial industry, which in my mind is getting on dodgier ground every day. I also find it somewhat ironic that in doing away with the committee system, the main argument seemed to be that committees were not efficient, here we are forming them left, right and centre, only calling them “boards.” But the main difference, really, is in days of old we had a committee for Jersey Telecom, for Jersey Post, for Jersey Harbours. I know that Harbours and Airport never had a place in Ministerial government and the whole idea was to incorporate that before Ministerial government came into being but that never occurred, but we have dealt with that just recently. Where I am headed is that I am on similar ground to the Constable of St. John. I think I will agree with this but I am concerned about these shadow boards being formed because they seem to be more boards than shadow boards. I mean, I do agree that the expertise this board will bring will be a major step forward and an advantage, but I also realise that by creating these boards, what we are really doing is creating a substitute for committee but with far less political accountability than we previously had. To find out what is going on and hold people to account becomes more and more difficult as time passes with these particular structures. That is my concern but I think, on balance, I may support this.

7.1.5 Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:

I do support the proposition but I am a little bit uncomfortable with the report to the proposition. The final line says something like: “The full costs of this board can be found in the Medium-Term Financial Plan for Tourism”, so I have been trying to find it. I cannot find the figures associated with the shadow board. So I looked up the M.D. for it to see what was contained in there and found the same statement in the M.D. which was signed off on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development by the Chief Minister and then I also looked at the report to the M.D. and I find the same statement there again. I find it very difficult to stand here and agree to spending public money when I do not know what that money is. Looking at the outline figures that we have already got, it does appear that the expenses are reasonably modest and therefore I am going to go with it on this occasion. I think it will be worthwhile noting that; please do not point me to have to go round the House somewhere to try and find a figure when it really should be in the Ministerial Decision or and in the report.

7.1.6 Deputy T.A. Vallois:

I will start on page 7 of the report on the proposition where it discusses consultation in terms of P.A.C.’s (Public Accounts Committee) involvement and I think it is important for me to clarify this. I was a bit perturbed by the Minister only contacting us very shortly before he intended on lodging this proposition in October and to find out not long after that the Economic Affairs Panel were placed in exactly the same position as P.A.C. However, I would like to inform Members that we did not in fact comment on the proposition as Public Accounts Committee because we do not hold the Minister to account and we referred comments that were made at that committee meeting to the Economic Affairs Panel. So it is to inform the States Members how that particular process was carried out. My other comments with regards to the report, and I am glad the Constable of St. Peter stood up before I spoke because it is relation to numbers again on the report. On page 3, we talk about 18.5 F.T.E.s (Full-Time Equivalents) plus seasonal staff and I referred back to the M.T.F.P. where it states that there are 24.3 F.T.E.s. I just would like the Minister to confirm that the additional 5.8 F.T.E.s are in fact seasonal staff or whether they are staff of the department. On page 4, we have a table from the reports and accounts in 2011 of which the Chief Officer for Economic Development was questioned about in a P.A.C. hearing for the reports and accounts in ... I believe it was November or December last year. There was no clarity established around the final net revenue expenditure for 2011 because the tourism report stated the different amounts to that of the reports and accounts. So I would just like to make the Minister aware of that and we were provided with the apology from the Chief Officer because the discrepancy was established during that hearing and the response back from the officer and it is apparently due to allocation of overheads by 2 different methods, which concerns me slightly, and 2 different amounts in publications to the public rather worries me, especially when it is over £6 million. I would like to say other than concerns over the report, I do support the proposition but I have concerns surrounding the information that is provided on the report because the Constable of St. Peter rightly says about the budget… and I did try to find it on the M.T.F.P. and I assumed that it was the overall budget for tourism that they were talking about. Then I found on page 83 of the M.T.F.P. something referring to tourism, which mentioned under note 54 that there was a request for £250,000 that was not funded by Economic Development, so I just want clarity around that from the Minister before I put my finger on the “pour” button, please. I think the Minister needs to provide clarification.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I am sorry, I did not get the last point the Deputy made. She wished for clarification on something. I did not quite hear what she said... if she could kindly repeat it.

Deputy T.A. Vallois:

It was about the budget, the same as the Constable of St. Peter, I was assuming that it was referring to the whole budget of the tourism area, however, when I looked at the M.T.F.P. I found another part which referred to tourism, which was asked for by the Economic Development Department on page 83, but it was not funded and that was for £250,000. So I just need clarification from the Minister as to what the budget refers to.

7.1.7 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Yes, I sat on the review of the tourism P.P.P. proposals under Deputy Higgins several years ago now and at the time, while there were certain elements very strongly pushing for the P.P.P., we wanted evidence to show exactly how they would improve over the offering of the Tourism Department at the time, or indeed how it would be better than the marketing panel that had been established. It was flimsy at best, which is why our recommendations were very much: “Well, carry on how it is because we do not have anything to kind of demonstrate how this will be better if you move from here.” I see very much what is being proposed here is not radically different so in that sense I am kind of relaxed about what is being proposed. It seems a consolidation of the particular panel as it was as opposed to all the nuts and bolts that went along with the P.P.P. proposal. I am thankful for the Scrutiny Report; it was very useful to read through. A few comments though. I do have to say that I was disappointed when the Minister was talking about this proposal because he did not talk about the importance of the role of the Minister in the sense of Minister as regulator and Minister as providing oversight because that is something which we discussed a lot during the P.P.P. proposal and it does apply to this one. If Members turn to page 6 of the report, it talks about the constitution of the board and something which we were very concerned about was noting that the tourism industry of the Island in itself was diverse and it was the issue of how to prevent certain sections monopolising on that board and therefore designing the business case appropriately in order to suit those particular interests. Now, there is an issue of saying: “Well, if you are growing the economy and you are growing that sector and it is providing jobs, is that necessarily a bad thing?” but is there not a role, if it is public funds, that it needs to be able to be spread to all the different sections within the industry. Again, I come back to why it was disappointing how the Minister did not labour on the role that the Minister will have in order to make sure that that particular aspect is addressed properly and that the capture which could potentially happen, does not. Although I am sure he will comment on that when he sums up. That is all I wanted to say. I do not think it is something which would prevent this particular move but I do think it is something which needed to be drawn attention to.

7.1.8 Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:

I am grateful for the Scrutiny Panel in reviewing this particular proposition but I am still struggling with why we need a board to deliver a tourism strategy. It must question whether the Minister and his department are up to the task because when I look at the key aims of the shadow board, it is: “To define the optimum operational government structure, to strengthen governance and good practice, to challenge and support the executive teams, to develop strategy and business operations, to ensure the optimum performance of the sector.” Well, surely that is traditionally and always has been a responsibility of the Minister. If that does not happen we know where to look. We have got someone that is absolutely accountable. In this case, it seems that we are going to create a board and basically pass all of that responsibility from the Minister to the board. It might be that that is the best way forward but I cannot understand why the Minister is not able to do all of the things and meet the aims and objectives that he set for this shadow board. What is the difficulty with the current system? Is it that we have not got the right staff? Is it that the Minister chooses to ignore all of the advice and comments that are freely given on basically a daily basis from those involved within the industry? Then I ask myself: “Well, okay, what is going to enable this board to make a difference? Is it that they are going to have access to more money? Well, no. In fact, the basic overall sum, which pays for all the staff as well, I hasten to add, is about ... well, it starts this year at about £6.3 million and it grows to £6.6 million in 2015. So the money is not increasing dramatically. Okay, well what other funds are available? Ah, let us not forget we have a Tourism Development Fund. That is great, what is in there? Well, £500,000. That is hardly going to light up the world. So I think when the Minister sums up, perhaps he can explain to me why his department cannot deal with all of the issues and aims that he believes the shadow board can. Thank you.

7.1.9 Deputy J.H. Young:

I think the move from committee government, when the sort of tasks that are set out in this paper, the aims, purpose of the body who will be leading the government interventions and government strategy on one of our major industries ... the proposals in the paper reflect elements that I think has to be recognised are very much more difficult for Ministers to fulfil under the Ministerial system themselves when compared with how things were when there were more people than one having to wrestle with difficult problems. So I think in our journey, as it were, in terms of how we do things, how we organise our government, I think there is very substantial merit in having more minds brought to major issues, more ideas are likely to come forward, more initiatives. It is not a question of criticising individuals, it is just that when you have a group of people, 2 plus 2, at least usually, equals 5 and I think that is the whole basis of people working co-operatively.

[15:15]

Of course, the assumption I make, though it is not covered in the paper, is that the 6 members of the board that we have will be very knowledgeable and expert people who are chosen with care. Very in touch with the way tourism and the business needs are changing fast. So as a principle, I go along with that. I have to admit, I am a little bit puzzled about a shadow board. What is a shadow board compared with a real board? I think the paper says is that the board will advise the Minister. They will not act in a supervisory capacity. I think that leads into this question of: “What arrangements are going to made in the board for better governance and accountability, which are definitely necessary ingredients in terms of structure?” Of course, we should bear in mind that the body of people within the E.D.D. (Economic Development Department) team at the moment have a budget of around £6.6 million of public money and clearly the board will be highly instrumental in where and when and so on, how that money is used to best effect. The paper says that the Minister will produce a Memorandum of Understanding between the board and the Minister of how it will work in practice and he will approve that. I would very much like to see that coming back to the States. I would also like to see further details of the governance arrangements also referred to in page 6. The only other point that I flag up, I see that sub-committees are going to be formed. I very much hope this is sub-committees of the people who are board members, rather than a proliferation of new people appointed by the Minister that creates a kind of a long-chain structure that, in the end, is not good governance and we do not know where decisions are being made. Having said that, I think it is the right way forward now and I very much look forward to hearing the comments of the Minister on those few points that I think are important in this paper on the governance and accountability.

7.1.10 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am strongly supportive of this proposition but I rise to briefly respond, if I may, to the remarks of the Connétable of St. John, who I hope is listening in the coffee room and also to the, if I may say, challenging remarks of the Deputy of St. Ouen. To respond to the Connétable of St. John, he was critical of the setting up of boards for Jersey Post and Jersey Telecom. While this of course is not similar, I think that this is obviously a much more similar body to Jersey Finance and the recently created, exciting Digital Jersey. There are some similarities. I need to say to the Connétable that boards have worked. J.T. (Jersey Telecom) and Jersey Post, at which I spent the morning last Thursday visiting, would never have achieved the kind of transition, the kind of changing environment and service improvements, I am afraid, with a political committee. It is difficult to say to fellow parliamentarians that our job is not effectively to stand for public office and to be de facto micromanagers of organisations, whether that is Jersey Post or Jersey Tourism. That is not what we are good at. We need to put in place the right people, the right government structures in order to achieve those objectives. I know some Members will not like hearing that, particularly some Members that - I know that I cannot see anybody in this Assembly that wants to do that - want to kind of justify their elected position in having lots of seats on lots of committees. The public interest is not best served by, if I may say, amateur boards of directors with their seats in this Assembly on different boards. This Assembly is best served by a focus on insurance that appropriate governance is in place and there Deputy Vallois is quite right to ask and to focus on her remit within the P.A.C., which will of course have an oversight role on implementation, just as the P.A.C. and the Comptroller and Auditor General have an oversight on all owned entities and boards that have been set up. So best interests of taxpayers and indeed the industries themselves are certainly, without question, served by boards which also have carefully selected non-executives. Non-executives are absolutely vital and are frankly better than Ministers or chief officers in challenging individual decisions. In not only challenging decisions but assisting the good people that work in these organisations. We have got some fantastic public sector employees who work within Jersey Tourism. I know many of them because I worked, as the Minister did, with his department and those individuals are going to be better served and they are going to be freer outside of direct political controllers. Some Members, I think, are in danger of suggesting that is best served. Accountability is best served with a clear separation of duties with a Memorandum of Understanding between the Minister and the board just as is in place for Jersey Finance. I ask Members to just think about whether the highly performing Jersey Finance would really have been best served by effectively an arrangement with a Minister and a government department. I do not think so. I think that Jersey Finance has been a remarkably performing organisation. It has been nimble and small and with non-execs on a board, with a clear separation of duties, where the Minister holds the organisation to account for their budget to achieve certain targets. That is the best way to secure a positive, dynamic future for our tourism industry, which is so important as an employer of local people, which provides vitality in the Island with a portfolio of restaurants, hotels and other attractions that we would never have. We need to continue to see tourism grow and I agree with the Minister when he says there are growth opportunities for tourism and there are some exciting investments that have been made in tourism. This board is going to ensure that that future is better and going to be more dynamic and to secure more local jobs in a very competitive environment. That is all I have to say.

7.1.11 Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville:

I would just like to say to the Minister that when he is choosing his board, would he please be bold and look for new faces? We do not want the tired old timeservers back on this board. [Laughter] We want people who will put us into a brand new way of thinking about tourism and I cannot resist while I am up here saying that the initiative that they took on supporting the rugby club with the £75,000 ... I go to virtually every home game up there and I hear the people who are coming over and we see hundreds of supporters coming over to support their clubs over here and virtually all of them say: “Gosh, we did not realise Jersey was like this. We have had a huge welcome. We have really enjoyed ourselves. We will be coming back.” That is the most terrific investment they ever made. So please come up with the new ideas, come up with the new faces and let us get on with it.

7.1.12 Senator L.J. Farnham:

I feel compelled to spring to my feet and respond because while my views on tourism are particularly well known, I hope the Constable of Grouville was not referring to me as a potential old timer. Not yet, at least, although I feel like it at times. I was particularly pleased to follow Senator Ozouf who has shortened my speech by a good 5 minutes [Approbation] and I think most of the valuable points he raises about the opportunities and benefits that this board could produce. I also felt a bit like when I went into bat in Guernsey against the Guernsey cricket team when Deputy Bryans stood up and bowled a googly in my direction and I am surprised, I had hoped that perhaps Deputy Bryans would have had a chat with me beforehand and I would have explained why I feel that I am not conflicted. Unless, being particularly passionate about tourism, being a strong believer in tourism, a strong supporter of tourism, believing that tourism can be turned around and it can be brought back to growth, both in a political capacity and in my capacity as President of the Jersey Hospitality Association, which I would add I held before I was elected back to the States and I have been a member of the association and on its committee for some time. I do not see any conflict. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no ambition at all to be a member of the new tourism board. The hospitality industry largely supports this move and I want to thank Senator Maclean for, at long last, doing something about it. That is not meant to be a criticism but there has been some impatience from within the industry because, as Senator Ozouf will remember, it was a plan of the Economic Development Committee that this was a preferred route for the business of marketing tourism and marketing Jersey. So I would like to thank Senator Maclean and of course I would like to also thank Deputy Lewis and the Scrutiny Panel. I think the Scrutiny Report, which they did not have a lot of time to produce, was thorough and did hit the nail on the head and it covered some really key points and they grasped the nettle, for example, by saying the board must be independent and the tourism industry, as I do believe, that should be the case. Of course, I want to also make it clear that by supporting this board we mean no disrespect or criticism of the Tourism Department who have, and I have said it before and I will say it again and again, worked extremely well in challenging times but the bottom line is tourism has continued to decline, so without wanting to, we have done nothing more than manage a slow and gradual decline in the industry and this simply has to stop. Tourism is a growing industry around the world. It is one of those industries that the growth of the internet is helping and can help further and we simply must now do something to halt this decline and turn it around. I am not talking about expectations of going back to the 1970s and 1980s; that is unrealistic, but we do have capacity, especially in the shoulder months to do something really special and different. As the Constable of Grouville said, let us be bold. Let us push the boundaries. Let us try new ideas and exciting things that perhaps would just be a little too much for a politician to put his or her name to. In summing up, I thank the Minister for bringing this and both I and the Jersey Hospitality Association and the majority of the industry are in favour.

7.1.13 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Tourism is hugely important to Jersey. It is hugely important to Jersey for any number of invisible benefits that members of the public may not realise they have on the Island. But when you look closer and realise that the transport links, the destinations and the frequency of those links, the fuel that we put in our cars, the hotels and restaurants that we enjoy at weekends and the facilities that we enjoy around our wonderful Island are all linked to tourism, we realise just how important it is. Tourism has been on the up in Europe and the surrounding areas over the last couple of years, but in Jersey we have not enjoyed that small resurgence and while the 2010 Scrutiny Report might have indicated for the P.P.P., the time was not right then. But I feel now that the time is right for this move that the Minister is proposing to us today. I would like to thank him for mentioning in his opening remarks rather than his closing remarks, the acknowledgement of the Scrutiny review. I would like to thank him for mentioning the small, medium and large participation from not only locally on the Island, but also off-Island, which might be required when it comes to the setting up of the shadow board. I would like to thank him for reminding us that he is still, as Minister, going to be responsible for overseeing this industry, but he will take independent advice that he will be looking for from the shadow board. He has also told us, and I am thankful for that, that he will listen to them in regards to strategy, the operation and the marketing side of the industry in the future. The one question I would have for him in response to the question from Deputy Power. I would like the Minister to clarify that the rebranding and any expenses on rebranding will not occur until he has a recommendation that he can listen to from his shadow board.

7.1.14 Connétable S.A. Rennard of St. Saviour:

I think this is a wonderful idea because there is more to this Island than wonderful restaurants. I have worked in tourism indirectly; I did shows for Dick Ray down at Caesar’s Palace, The Watersplash ... I worked with the Fort Regent when they used to have lovely shows there. We do have a lot more to offer, which is not being offered. I have worked for Jersey Heritage Trust for nearly 19 years up at Hamptonne, the Country Life Museum and the people who used to come there used to say: “Oh, we have walked and it has been a lovely walk through the valley. We have ridden our bikes, we have got lovely bikes.” There is a lot more to this Island, as I said, than just restaurants because we could offer so much more.

[15:30]

I go to America a lot and when I go into Nashville, which is the music city of America, bless its heart, you have buskers on every street. The music is sometimes wonderful, sometimes you think to yourself: “Oh my God” and you walk past but here, the town sometimes, when you go through it in the summer is absolutely dead. There is nothing here and I believe that to have a busking licence here you have to pass an audition and you have to pay to get a busking licence. This is ridiculous. If you are bad and you are playing on a street corner, no one is going to give you anything and you will walk off. But you laugh. When we used to walk through to Nashville and some people were really, really bad, it brought a smile to your face as you were walking up the street and a bit further along was somebody who was great. But it brought your town alive and I am very, very pleased that things are being taken into hand. As I say, it is no disrespect to the Tourism Committee and Board that we have now. They have worked hard and they promoted us but we need a lot younger people, somebody with a bit more drive and a bit more ... to see things which happen in different places and bring them here. As I said, we are more than the Battle of Flowers and the restaurants. There is so much that could be done with this Island that could push it and I think that having a new board and somebody with some new, fresh ideas will just kick us into the next century, which will be fabulous.

7.1.15 Deputy M. Tadier:

I know the main debate has been had on this, really, and we are just in one sense rubberstamping the decisions that have already been made, but very briefly, just to pick up on something that has partly been said and something in the report and then I have a technical question to ask of the Minister, which hopefully is straightforward. It has been acknowledged that our industry has seen a decline in the last decade and it is a decline which represents 30 per cent of footfall of visitors visiting the Island but 20 per cent in profitability, if you like, or in the take, which tends to indicate to me that the price of coming to Jersey has gone up and it is more difficult to attract, certainly in the conventional sense of the way we have done it in the past, visitors to come over to Jersey and to spend their money. This is an area I think many of us feel passionately about and it is certainly an area that I have concerns about. I think what we have to acknowledge here and it is not going to be an easy thing for us to do is the fact that ... I think part of the reason that Jersey is so different culturally from what it was 20 years ago is that when you have a vibrant tourist industry, almost to the point when you have as many tourists as you can take, certainly in the summer months, where you cannot move in town, where you have saturated capacity in all the guest houses and beds in the town area but also throughout the rest of the Island and you are almost turning tourists away, it has the effect of the wider public knowing in their heart and in their mind that Jersey is a tourist Island. At some point in our past we did make a decision to invest, I will use the metaphor, all our eggs in one basket. That was in the finance industry. That may have been the incorrect thing to do, it may not have been and it certainly has had an effect on the Island and it has given some, certainly a lot of affluence to a certain amount of the population which would not have necessarily have been there. Perhaps in some people’s minds it was misjudged to the extent that we did it and we did perhaps underestimate the fact that it does have unintended consequences and so it is good to grow the cake but obviously in a small and finite economy the cuckoo in the nest syndrome can have an effect. So these are the issues that we need to be looking at and I suspect ... of course, on the other hand, there is always a synergy between finance, between business and business visitors to the Island in particular and tourists, because there is a symbiotic relationship, as we well know, between restaurants, et cetera, which could not survive solely on finance workers and tourists but which cannot survive solely on visitor and leisure tourists either. I think that is a very exciting way forward to look at the business opportunities with investing in China, India with Jersey Dairy, for example, which are expanding out there. Some very exciting opportunities, hopefully, which will be longer term not just short term, and engaging with our oriental counterparts. Not simply on a financial and business level, but also to promote the Island’s beauty and tourism when we get out there. I would hope that it is not so relevant whether we call this a shadow board or not. It is really important that we have policy direction, which must always remain with the States Assembly. It is simply unacceptable to have policy driven by non-politicians. That is just the way it works. Of course we can have people contributing ideas, but the buck stops with the Minister. The buck stops with the Assembly and if there has been a downturn in tourism it has to be because of decisions that have been made in this Assembly combined with the unintended consequences of the economy outside. So we do have to take responsibility and I have no reason to think that those 2 cannot be married, but it is important that we all play our parts. Just a very small anecdote before I ask the question, I was visiting the U.K. and I was in Glasgow and in Edinburgh, which are 2 beautiful cities in the north and the weather was not too bad, over Christmas and New Year. As the Constable of St. Saviour said, you did wander around, you would hear people playing various types of instruments, not solely bagpipes incidentally, although that was the customary instrument in Edinburgh and people were doing that out there. As a former busker myself in Jersey, I know that there was a phase where you would go and do a short test and it was at the Art Centre. I did not really have a problem with that and I think in one sense there are arguments to be made for that. You make sure that the people have got a reasonable standard, although I think it is self-policing anyway. I do not see anyone who is going to want to stand outside on the street in town playing an instrument if they are incompetent, they are going to be ridiculed and not win any money. The other point is, gradually, it was free initially and then a charge started to come in, I think, of £20. It does not sound like a lot of money but if you are a student and you are perhaps only back in Jersey for a few weeks or a month and you are a very good artist - you may be studying at the Royal Academy - are you really going to go and spend £20 to go and do an interview to be able to play your instrument on town or are you going to think: “I might as well just go and do some photocopying work for the local trust company” and that does nothing to enhance the tourist industry in Jersey or that particular student’s passion for creating a vibrant town. So we do have to be very much more, I think, enterprising and we have to cut a lot of the nonsense red tape which does not simply relate to busking in Jersey but putting on events, for example; I think questions need to be asked around that. Is it still the case that permission for events in the Island has to be sought from the Bailiff’s Department? I know that there was a review that went on with Deputy Le Hérissier and Senator Farnham quite a while ago which looked at the whole issue about how we put on events in the Island. When young people want to put an event on which is going to attract both locals and tourists to come and spend money, are we creating too much ted tape? These questions, I am sure, will be looked at hopefully by the new board as well when it is established. The technical question is simply relating to the finances. It says that the board will be subject to expenses and they will be payable to the board; can I just ask what format that will take? Will it be a fixed amount of expenses that will be given as is the case for States Members - which is a taboo subject - or will it be simply that any travel will be done on a receipts basis? Thank you.

7.1.16 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

The Connétable of Grouville said that we should be bold and I asked the Minister: should Government be running tourism marketing? Marketing is not an occupation for politicians except in the run-up to an election. Why do we not just let them go? Who knows better how to market the industry than the practitioners themselves? Why should it be a shadow board? Why should it not be an independent board? I was going to say give them the seedcorn and let them go but I am sure that the financial arrangements can be worked out quite easily. But stop Government interfering where it has no competence whatsoever. Let them get on with it. Like Senator Farnham, I do have an interest in the hospitality industry; I am the director of a hotel - or one of the directors certainly - and we do our own marketing effectively. We get some benefit from the overall background marketing but we go out and get business so I think the people in the industry know best how to market themselves. Let us give them the backing and let them get on with it. Let Government get its sticky fingers out of marketing.

7.1.17 Deputy G.P. Southern:

It is always bracing to hear Senator Ferguson on the sticky fingers of the States and it is always good value to listen to the Minister for Economic Development. Time after time I enjoy many of his speeches, in fact, I am reminded of when I stood on the hustings with him and on occasions thought: “Oh gosh, he has my vote as well, I think”, because the words flow out, all the right key phrases are all hit in the right rhythm, it is positively mellifluous. Then I wake up from my revelry and I look at the hard facts. So I have looked at the hard facts and the phrase that struck me was: “And here we are committing to tourism with between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of our total budget directed in that direction.” So I thought: “I am going to have a look at that quickly. Fortunately the annex to the Medium-Term Financial Plan 2013 to 2015 is on my desk this morning. I look through the aims and the key objectives in this particular document (pages 42, 43 and 44) and I look for tourism. What I find is: “Key objective 1: encourage innovation, improve Jersey’s international competitiveness, create new, high-value businesses” but no mention of tourism. “Key objective 2: grow the financial services sector capacity and profitability.” That is clear; that is more of the same. No mention of tourism there. “Key objective 3: create new businesses and employment in high-value sectors.” Ah, the key there is “high-value sectors” looks like what is measured there. Oh yes: “Gigabit Jersey”; it does not look like that is attracting more people. That is not tourism either. “Key objective 4: raising the productivity of the whole economy and reducing the reliance on inward migration.” Very laudable, that sounds very good. There we have, under (iii) “Tourism and rural sectors.” At last, a mention, and it says: “Link continued support for the tourism and rural sectors to increase local employment and reduce reliance on inwards migration.” So it is not just about investing in tourism; it is about getting local people to work in tourism. So it is an immigration issue and a training issue but not one about supporting tourism particularly. “Key objective 5: continue to improve efficiency and effectiveness across the department.” Hear, hear, hear. There is one mention of tourism, between 30 per cent and 50 per cent of our budget. So we look at the figures on the budget and lo and behold, back in 2012 we find that the spend on tourism destination and marketing was £5.9 million, which is 37 per cent of the overall spend of £15.9 million that Economic Development spends as a total, 37 per cent. Come 2015 this investment - this continued support - is at £6.6 million. As a proportion of £19.9 million it has been reduced from 37 per cent of the total spend to 30 per cent of the total spend. At the same time this is linked with continued support for the tourism and rural sectors while the rural support sector goes down from £2.1 million to £1.7 million, a 20 per cent reduction. This combined support does not look very strong and indeed the proportion has gone down.

[15:45]

Then we talk of another way of analysing what the real priorities are, what the real meaning behind the words are, and we go to the business cases, the growth bids that E.D. put in to the Medium-Term Financial Plan. We look down it and it totals £4.5 million of growth bid; very good. J.F.L. (Jersey Finance Limited): “increase in grants J.F.L. £800,000; J.F.L. additional, another £730,000 by 2015; J.F.L. Saudi and G.C.C. (Gulf Co-operation Council) Financial Services £350,000; Financial sector legislative development, £200,000.” Of that £4.5 million spent over £2 million (£2.1), almost half of it is finance sector; again, yet more concentration, specialisation and less diversification. Looking down the list we have “Inward investment, Digital Jersey”; that is not going to bring more people. “Inward investment, non-financial services”; it might be there, I might take a look at that in a minute. Then we have: “Jersey business, skills and workforce development” and here we have, at the bottom of the list: “Tourism Development Fund, £500,000 flat across the 3 years”; a very small percentage of the growth bids going towards tourism. I then looked at the latest press release that has just come from Economic Development and, lo and behold, here we have a new inward investment policy that has just been set up and their 2012 figures. You look down, 30 companies attracted to come to Jersey as inward investment to set up businesses in Jersey. Look down the list of those 30 companies. How many of them are finance companies? Fourteen. How many of them are tourism companies? A big, fat zero. The words sound very fine and apparently we have this tremendous commitment to growth in the Island and particularly of supporting our tourism industry but I do not think the words mean much, because what you always have to do is chercher the money, look for the money. The reality underlying the fine, mellifluous words that come from the Minister for Economic Development’s mouth is that spending proportionately is going down on tourism in the next 3 years and not up and there is going to be more specialisation and less diversification in the Island in 3 years’ time and I can probably guarantee that with or without this initiative. I will wait to hear some more of the Minister for Economic Development’s magnificent phrases to see if he can swing my vote but otherwise I do not think I am supporting this.

The Bailiff:

Deputy, you have managed to make a speech on this subject without mentioning the board once, I think. [Laughter] Very well, does any other Member wish to speak? Then I call upon the Minister to reply.

7.1.18 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Many Members have spoken. I will try to cover the salient points. I do thank all Members for their contributions. Deputy Baudains started off and raised a point which is raised on many occasions and that is with regard to a champion for tourism. I hear it time and time again, certainly since I have taken office, and I know that it has been around since we moved to Ministerial government. I consider myself, with the avoidance of any doubt at all, the champion of the business community including tourism. I say that on numerous occasions but nevertheless we still get the comment: “There is no champion of tourism.” I had hoped today, in my earlier remarks, I had demonstrated my views about the tourism sector, the importance of the tourism sector and the fact that as Minister for Economic Development I am the champion and will remain so, even on the basis that the Assembly Members support this proposition, because even with the introduction of a shadow board, which is a major step in the right direction as you will have gathered from my earlier remarks, it is in fact an advisory board to the Minister and the Minister remains accountable. This is a key point. The Minister remains accountable. I should also make it clear that the Chief Executive of Economic Development, who is the accounting officer, also remains accountable. So those are 2 key points. The Deputy also talked about the old days of committees, which I know he holds together with the Constable of St. John, and I am going to be jolly nice about the Constable of St. John because he nearly knocked me over with a feather with his support earlier on, which I welcome greatly and I do not want to say anything that might get him to waver in the opposite direction. I will make a few additional remarks about the Connétable in a moment. But with regard to committees versus the Ministerial system and indeed boards that Deputy Baudains was referring to, the simple difference is that committees were clearly populated by Members of this Assembly, some of whom had had experience no doubt in the tourism sector but nevertheless you cannot, with the best will in the world - and I include myself in this - possibly hope to replicate the expertise that the private sector in a particular industry has to offer. That is the simple reason and basis behind the move towards a shadow board. What I want and what a Minister acts upon is advice, good advice, the very best advice. That is how we are going to have the right policies as we move forward, the right strategies and hopefully the success that will return the economy to growth in the future. I believe these boards move us in that direction and certainly a shadow board for tourism will I am sure, if we can get the right expertise on the board, which I have every confidence we will, will help to do that. The Constable of St. Peter made a valid criticism and it was meant in good spirits, I know; I know the Constable well. He is right, it was not clear enough in terms of the figures but to be absolutely clear about that, there are 2 points. First of all the cost of the board. The chairman is £12,500. The figures are contained - I am sure the Connétable is aware of it but just for the record - and each N.E.D. (non-executive director) will be paid £5,000. There are expenses; that is a question that was raised and that is on a receipted basis incidentally. Usually, as far as N.E.D.s are concerned, that would be relevant to a non-local N.E.D., for example, travel expenses across to the Island or something similar. Administrative expenses will be met within the existing budget of Jersey Tourism and that is all wrapped up as the support mechanism that the board would need. I also had criticism and again I have to, although I am loathe to say so, admit that it was fairly placed from Deputy Vallois, with regard to the late contact that she as chair of P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) got with regards to this proposition. It was the same point for the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel. It was quite simply our fault; we had not taken on board in the preparation of this the decision by this Assembly as a result of a proposition brought by the former Deputy Le Claire to bring such structures forward and, as such, it had not figured in our planning process and consequently we were late in picking up on this. So I apologise both to the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel, who rapped my knuckles in their report over this, and to Deputy Vallois who sought to do exactly the same thing and very successfully, I might add. She also raised the point about staff and she was absolutely right in terms of the differential and seasonal staff. She also raised the point about £250,000 which was not funded. Deputy Tadier will be disappointed at that because I know he has an interest in the German market; he has made some recommendations in the past. We had put a bid in as part of the Medium-Term Financial Plan for some additional funding to support the activity in the German market. The German market has been very successful for the Island, as I know the Deputy has raised that point with me in questions before. He will be interested to know that we took on board what he said in the past and we sought some additional funding. Sadly it was not successful but we are still looking at ways in which we can do more with the German market. So that was why that was not successful, nevertheless, within the resources a total of £73,000 has been allocated for dealing with the costs in association with the board. Deputy Maçon asked his points about the role of the Minister and the board and I think his main thrust was concern about industry capturing the board. He is right in the respect that the industry is very diverse in the Island and in the past we have always had situations where different particular component areas of the tourism sector … those that have shouted loudest feel that they have had a better return than those that perhaps do not have quite the same voice. But it comes back to the point I made before; the board is there as an advisory body to advise the Minister. I am looking forward to the advice. I hope, regarding the comments of the Connétable of Grouville, that we will get some bold suggestions from the board but I do not feel that there is going to be any capturing of the board and a failsafe mechanism is that they are an advisory board and the propositions and proposals that they put forward will ultimately come for approval to the Minister. I thank Deputy Bryans for his comments. He made some very interesting comments, in particular in relation to McKinsey and I have heard this point raised many, many times by friends that I have had who visited the Island and others that Jersey is the best-kept secret and these are people who come from London and major cities in the U.K., have never thought of coming to the Island before and been surprised by what we have to offer here in terms of the sheer beauty of the Island but also the diversity of the restaurants, the quality and all the other things, the beaches, and so on. It is a valid point that he makes and certainly the gentleman that Deputy Bryans spoke to. I was struck with the other point that the Deputy made about making people feel welcome when they come here. I think generally people are made to feel welcome when they come to Jersey but I have to say, when I recently had the opportunity to visit Dubai I was amazed by the step change in welcome and the quality of service and I do believe we have something to learn here in the Island. It started right from the beginning with immigration where you are welcomed with a smile; you are engaged with, all the way through to hotels, taxi drivers, the whole remit. There is a tremendous warmth and I think competing in a competitive world we have to continue to raise our standards and look very carefully at what competing jurisdictions are doing and make sure we at least match, preferably surpass, that. That is the type of analysis that I hope and expect the board to bring to the equation from their position of expertise and that is why I am quite keen and hopeful that we will get the right expertise on to the board and some of it will be from outside of Jersey, outside of the Island. I said I would come to the Constable of St. John; I would just like to thank him for his support. He is not always terribly keen on boards; he made the points himself. He does feel he does not get listened to. I am not sure about that; I think it is hard not to listen to him. But I am just pleased that he started the year off in such good form. I hope this is setting a new trend in his support for Economic Development and I am delighted that hopefully he is going to be on the winning side this time. Perhaps I had better not say that too loudly or I will tempt fate. Deputy Power asked a range of questions. First of all I need to make it absolutely clear with regard to Visit Jersey and this is somewhat confusing. It does appear like it is a fait accompli that Visit Jersey is the new brand and consequently the Deputy then asked: “What is it going to cost?” He is going to be bearing his mind back to previous rebranding exercises. I should make it clear that the decision to rebrand to Visit Jersey has not been taken; it is an idea and certainly the papers give that impression and there was confusion. The Scrutiny chair, the Deputy of St. Martin, asked me to clarify this point and I will and I am hopefully doing it now. The decision has not been taken to rebrand Jersey Tourism as Visit Jersey; it is an idea, it is a concept and it is certainly a point that I will be asking the shadow board to look at. They will have to make the decision as to whether indeed there is value bringing us in line with, for example, Visit Britain, Visit Guernsey and a number of the other similar brands that exist but that is a matter that I will be looking forward to receiving advice on. In that regard his further question about the chief executive officer clearly falls away because the status quo remains at this time. The board does operate under the Nolan principles contained within the report and I have covered the cost which hopefully will satisfy him as well and his other question about jersey.com would also fall away. I would imagine, just as a point, that with the amount of investment over the years in jersey.com, I would find it hard to believe that - from a personal point of view but I wait to be advised by the principles - it would dropped. The Deputy of St. Ouen stood up and spoke passionately. I was hoping he would speak passionately in favour but he seemed to be speaking passionately with an opposite view and, if I may say so, a rather cynical view about why would we get somebody else to do it when we can do it ourselves? I made the point earlier that I am no expert in tourism.

[16:00]

A Minister operates and can make decisions based on advice and the Minister needs good advice. The purpose of this shadow board is to ensure we get the very best advice possible and that is the underlying principle behind this decision. On top of that, and it is an important point, the industry in the past has made quite a significant investment together with Jersey Tourism in joint marketing initiatives, for example. The industry has often said that if they had more say in where the money was going to be invested, where the marketing was going to be used, then they would spend more money. This was one of the underlying principles of the public-private partnership that we were considering initially; more involvement, therefore more investment. This is one step. It is a shadow board which means that we do not have the same cost as a formal structure that you get with a public-private partnership but you get a lot of the advantage of the private sector expertise to advise and you get, importantly, the independent oversight that such individuals will give to an organisation. We have seen it very strongly - I certainly have seen it with regard to the Ports of Jersey which I referred to earlier on - and I am confident that we would get a similar position here. The Minister talked about accountability; I hope I made the point that the Minister is still accountable. Even with a shadow board the chief executive as accounting officer is still accountable so that does not change. What it does change is the oversight, what it does change is the quality and flow of information and advice that I believe we will receive as a result of the decision if the Assembly decide to take it. Deputy Young asked a valid point about governance and again that is something that I will be looking to the board to advise on; that is one of the key points. One of the areas that I think is really important and it works well with regard to the Ports of Jersey, is with regard to the Memorandum of Understanding that will exist between the Minister and the board to lay out exactly how that relationship will work. But what I will be looking for the board to do as part of their remit is to look at the governance structure and advise accordingly to make sure that it is appropriate. I thank the Constable of Grouville; he was one of several Members who said be bold. The last time I was bold, and he mentioned it, was the £75,000 investment that we made in sponsoring the rugby. Sometimes you make bold decisions and you get slated for it but that is just part of the territory, I am afraid. I believe it was the right bold decision to make. We will see in due course. Certainly the feedback I have had to date is, as the Constable was saying, we are getting a significant number of visitors coming to the Island as a result of the rugby sponsorship. Not only are they coming to the Island in numbers in excess of what we anticipated when we did the original figures but the other interesting point and of value is that they are staying for longer. We had anticipated they would stay for one or 2 nights; they tend to be staying for 3 or 4, taking the opportunity to stay for a long weekend. Many of them are coming up with exactly the same point that Deputy Bryans made; they think Jersey is a best-kept secret. They have never been here before but these are new people, hopefully they are spreading the word and I think that is really encouraging. But moving forward; new ideas from the board hopefully and hopefully bold ideas. Again, it is a point probably relevant as much to the Deputy of St. Ouen and that is that there are always going to be limitations on how bold a politician is going to be, if I may say so, and how bold the public sector is going to be. If you can get that mindset with the private sector who, by nature, have to be a bit bolder, have to look at new and exciting ideas, those are the types of proposals that I would want to see coming forward. Certainly, as I know one member of the public suggested: “Well, the Minister is simply doing this so he has somebody to hang the blame on if it all goes wrong”; I am afraid that will not wash. Members know that will not wash, they know who is responsible; I remain responsible. I am responsible now and I will continue to be responsible for the foreseeable future so if it goes wrong it is my fault and I will have to hold up my hand and take appropriate responsibility. Senator Farnham, I thank him for his support - I have mentioned it earlier on - in his role with the Jersey Hospitality Association. It has been a constructive dialogue that we have had. I have known that the Association have wanted this move to happen earlier. We have stated the reasons why there was a delay - principally around the economic climate - and indeed the introduction of the marketing panel bridged the gap in the interim period. I think they have done a fabulous job and I paid tribute to them earlier. I would like to just repeat that again, that they really have added significant value to the decisions with regard to marketing and I believe they are one of the reasons why Jersey’s figures have held up over the last few years much better than our competitors. It is still very difficult for the industry in terms of profitability - margins have been shrunk in the climate that we are in - but nevertheless the actual performance has been quite strong. I thank the chairman of the Scrutiny Panel, the Deputy of St. Martin, for his summing up of my speech and I have covered the point about the brand. The Constable of St. Saviour, I thank her for her comments. The important point that she made was that we need to make sure that to do business in Jersey is as easy as possible - she was talking about licences and costs and so on - and that is something that I feel very strongly about. Red tape, bureaucracy; we need to make business life as easy as possible for businesses in the Island. It is all about sustaining their profitability, sustaining jobs and creating job opportunities and we will not give confidence to businesses to do that unless we make it … I am sure we have the right protections in place but nevertheless that things happen swiftly and effectively. It was a point I think Deputy Tadier made about red tape. I have covered the point to Deputy Tadier about the cost of the N.E.D.s and the receipted basis of the expenses. Senator Ferguson, I have covered the point she raised with regard to the tourism marketing - why we are having a shadow board. She said: “Why do we not just go the whole hog and get on with it” and I was rather worried she was going to pick that stick up next to her and beat me over the head with it. But the reason is quite simple, that it was deemed, as I have said, during the more difficult trading conditions that we are in at the moment we did not want to spend the cost involved in setting up a private-public partnership at that time. We wanted to ensure that money went into frontline marketing and advertising and that is exactly what we have done. I believe that was the right decision. This decision for this shadow board is inexpensive. It is a halfway house. I believe it will give a significant vote of confidence to the tourism industry. I really hope that Members will support wholeheartedly, as I said originally, this proposition because the industry, like all sectors of our economy, need the confidence and to have the confidence of this Assembly fully behind them will add considerably to the difficult task they face as we move forward. I maintain the principles of the proposition and ask Members to support. Before I forget, I am terribly sorry, I do not know how I could have forgotten him, Deputy Southern. [Laughter] This is very remiss of me. He was so kind saying that I have always been such good value and he enjoys listening to me. I was bowled over. I was also made aware that recently when I was unfortunately out of the Assembly he very kindly quoted at length from an email of mine and said that we were virtually joined at the hip on that particular issue. I think it was probably the first and last time but I nevertheless thank him for his kind words and also for his kind words in relation to listening to me at the hustings. Perhaps he would like to pay more attention. He did, though, to be fair, raise some points that need to be addressed and I will seek to do so. He talked about references to innovation, competitiveness, productivity. His main thrust was that there was not enough reference to tourism, the word “tourism”. In all that I say continuously, in terms of supporting our important tourism and hospitality sector, is that that sector itself needs to improve its productivity and has been doing so. It needs to innovate and it has been doing so, and it needs to be more competitive and it is beginning to do so. It has to be more competitive in terms of the global economy, the global marketplace that we are in. People can go over the world now; Jersey has to be ensuring that it is a competitive offering in all respects. “It is about jobs”; the Deputy talked about the fact that I was referring to more jobs for locals. Yes, I would like to see more local people in tourism jobs. I think job substitution of that nature is going to help dramatically in addressing some of the very sticky issues that we are faced with in this Assembly with regard to population. The reality is that a lot of the people coming into the Island - and have been over the last few decades - have been coming in to service tourism, agriculture, retail; those are the people who have been filling those jobs. Now, with higher than we have seen before unemployment in Jersey, I would like to see and find ways, working together with colleagues on the Council of Ministers, the Minister for Social Security and I have had discussions and indeed are formulating policies, and with the Minister for Education on the Skills Executive, to try and get, encourage and incentivise more local people to go into jobs in those sectors and in tourism in particular, and indeed to incentivise and encourage more businesses in those areas to look to employ local. It is really important and I think we have to work hard to deliver it. [Approbation] The Deputy also talked about the figures and the numbers clearly can be twisted any which way you like. A good accountant will always make a statistic sound more interesting than perhaps it is. The point I made in my opening remarks is that I have protected, through the Comprehensive Spending Review and through the Medium-Term Financial Plan, the budget for Jersey Tourism. That was done specifically and it was done for a reason as we go through this change programme. The Deputy talked about the fact that what has happened is that new money has gone into Economic Development as part of the approval by this Assembly of the Economic Growth and Diversification Strategy. It was right to invest in the economy. It is right to try and invest to save, maintain and create job opportunities but just because our overall budget is rising and the percentages in terms of our spend have been readjusted in order to meet those overall and overarching objectives, it does not mean that we have not maintained the baseline figure for tourism. We have, and in fact in recent years, as issues have arisen and challenges have been faced by the industry, additional money has been found within Economic Development to support specific marketing and advertising campaigns that have been requested. Members will remember the volcanic ash incident and various airline strikes; when the Island has faced those sorts of situations additional funding has been put in. But the funding for tourism has been maintained and rightly so and will be through the period of the Medium-Term Financial Plan. I have now finished with Deputy Southern and indeed all Members and I would like to maintain the proposition and call for the appel.

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for then in relation to the proposition of the Minister for Economic Development. I will ask Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 48	CONTRE: 1	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator P.F. Routier	Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Senator A. Breckon
Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Senator F. du H. Le Gresley
Senator I.J. Gorst
Senator L.J. Farnham
Senator P.M. Bailhache
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. Saviour
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
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 M. Tadier (B)
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)
Deputy of St. John
Deputy J.P.G. Baker (H)
Deputy J.H. Young (B)
Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Bryans (H)
Deputy of St. Peter
Deputy R.J. Rondel (H)

8. Connétables and other Parish officials: explanation document and new legislation (P.119/2012)

Very well, we come next to the Connétables and other Parish officials: explanatory document and new legislation, Projet 119, lodged by Deputy Higgins and I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States must decide whether of opinion (a) to request the Chief Minister in conjunction with the Comité des Connétable to produce within 6 months of the adoption of this proposition a document setting out for the benefit of all Islanders the legal powers and roles of the Connétables, Centeniers, Vingteniers, Constable’s Officers, Procureurs du Bien Public, Chefs de Police, Parish Roads Committees and all other officers and bodies associated with the administration, governance and policing of Parishes; and (b) to further request the Chief Minister, in conjunction with the Comité des Connétables, to take the necessary steps to bring forward for approval by the Assembly new legislation in English to consolidate by re-enactment all existing legislation, and to codify customary provisions where necessary, in relation to the roles and responsibilities of the Parish officials and bodies referred to in paragraph (a).

8.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I would like to start this debate by stating why I have brought the proposition to the Assembly. It is not, contrary to the belief of one or more Connétables, an attack on their ancient office, the Parish Hall staff or the honorary system. I happen to be an admirer of the honorary system in Jersey and commend and pay tribute to the many men and women who give up their free time in the service of the community. I also believe that by and large the Parishes are well-served by their full-time staff and I especially admire the Honorary Police for turning out day and night in all weathers throughout the year in the service of all Islanders. [Approbation]

[16:15]

More controversially, while I personally do not believe that the Constables should sit in this Assembly simply by virtue of being a Constable, I also believe, perhaps to the surprise of some of their members, that they do a good job running their Parishes. So what then is the purpose of this proposition and why is it targeted at the Parishes? The purpose of the proposition is to highlight and hopefully to put forward a solution to what I believe is the unsatisfactory nature of legal information available to States Members and the vast majority of Islanders. I would add right at the very beginning this is not criticism of the Jersey Legal Information Board, which I think is an excellent site, but a statement that I would like to see it correct one or 2 of its deficiencies; one being translations of laws in French and the other restricted access to case law. Another reason why I have brought the proposition is I am trying to highlight and point out how I think we should improve the way in which the Assembly enacts and amends legislation. Also I want to highlight the possible failure of some public authorities to take sufficient notice of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 which came into effect in 2005 and the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The proposition is targeted at the Parishes in the first instance because of the deficiencies that I believe were highlighted in the debate in P.36/2012, the Draft Constables (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law, which the States debated in May 2012, but I sincerely hope that if either or both parts of this proposition are successful that it will lead to similar changes in all other areas of the public sector. During that debate, which was primarily concerned with repealing the policing function of the Constables, and enabling a Procureur du Bien Public to deputise for a Constable in certain circumstances, we amended a number of laws including the code of 1717, the laws of 1797, 1842, 2 laws in 1852, the law of 1864, 1884, 1905 and 1937, all of which were written in French. Not only were we not given marked-up copies of the laws we were amending so we could not satisfy ourselves that the amendments achieved what was intended or would not cause some unintended consequences, we were not even given English language translations of the laws written in French. While this was all right for Members of the Assembly who could speak and read the French language, it was not satisfactory for those Members who could not (me included). A trawl through the Jersey Legal Information Board website to look up copies of these laws in English also proved abortive. To my mind this is unsatisfactory as those Members who could not read French were not able to effectively scrutinise the law and there is a danger in such circumstances that bad laws could be enacted. It also destroys the public’s confidence in the States’ ability to scrutinise legislation. Because I could not fully understand what we were amending and its effect, I voted against the proposition and not, as I put erroneously in the report saying I abstained. I was one of 3 Members to do so. The Constable of St. John voted against it because he felt that the proposition effectively reduced the Constables’ role to that of chairing the Parish Assembly, being responsible for the administration of the Parish and issuing dog licences and firearms certificates. I do not know why Deputy Trevor Pitman voted against it but I am certain that I am not the only Member of the Assembly who is not able to read or speak French and did not fully appreciate the changes they were voting on. This experience caused me to carry out some research into how many other laws were written exclusively in the French language and to discover what translations were available. I discovered a wide range of civil and criminal laws that were in the French language, including a number relating to the officers and activities of the Parishes. I also discovered that neither the States Greffe nor the Law Draftsman’s Department have a complete English translation of the Code of 1771 or some of the other pieces of legislation drafted in French. I discovered that the partial translations of the Code that have been made are primarily relating to the oaths of office of the Constable and other Parish officials. I found that the translations that had been made had been done so in a piecemeal and uncoordinated fashion. Also, while some translations are reliable and are a reliable guide to the law in French, some others are less so and some may not be fully up to date. The last 2 of these discoveries have been confirmed by the Council of Ministers in their own comments paper on this proposition. To my mind this is unsatisfactory. If I, as a States Member, have difficulty in discovering what the law is, what chance does the ordinary man and woman in the street have? While some of you may think or say that this is not such a big deal, it does have a number of implications, not least to the rights of our citizens. It means that people who cannot read French do not know what the law is and therefore cannot know or exert their rights or conduct their affairs in such a way that they are in conformity with the law, something I shall elaborate on in a moment. It also means that those officers and officials in States departments, Parish Halls and all other forms of public authorities who cannot read French may not be applying these laws correctly and may, as a result, deny people that interact with them their rights and entitlements. Now this latter group - public authorities - could also include paid, voluntary or charitable organisations contracted by the States to deliver services on its behalf, something that is going to be very important as much of the health provision will be farmed out to doctors and to primary care proposals and to the third sector who may provide home care for the sick and the elderly or the Parishes who run housing schemes for the elderly. The failure to translate all the laws written in French into English so that all members of our society can understand them also goes against the principle of legal certainty, which is at the core of the rule of law, which according to the United Nations refers to: “a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards.” Legal certainty is also a fundamental principle of the civil law and common law legal systems found in Europe and in our own common law system in Jersey. While it cannot be achieved absolutely, it is stated as a general principle that the laws should be sufficiently precise to allow people, if need be, with appropriate advice to foresee to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances the consequences of their actions so that they can organise their affairs in such a way that they do not break the law and so that official actions are predictable to the maximum extent possible. To me the high cost of access to legal advice and the courts that we have in Jersey means that our citizens need as much help and support in advance to assist them in today’s world and I believe that translated laws and consolidated or codified legislation is one way of doing this. Legal certainty is also one of a handful of legal concepts recognised by the European Court of Human Rights, which brings us on to another important implication. As most of the laws written in French were enacted long before the advent of the European Convention on Human Rights or before such rights were even contemplated, there is a danger that these laws and especially the way in which people interpret and/or apply them will lead to the Parishes or other public authorities breaching parishioners’ or Islanders’ human rights. Human rights can either be absolute, limited or qualified: absolute rights such as Article 2, the right to life or Article 3, the right to be free of torture, inhumane and degrading treatment cannot be restricted or infringed in any way; limited rights or those that can be limited to a degree permissible in the wording of the article, such as Article 5, the right to liberty; qualified rights are rights that the State can lawfully or justifiably interfere with in certain circumstances. Generally in such Articles the right is set out at the start and then qualified by certain criteria such as whether the interference is in accordance with or prescribed by law, depending upon the Article in question, and whether it is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and whether it is necessary in a democratic society. Examples of qualified rights include Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence. I am sure Members will be pleased to hear that I am not going to go through all the rights contained in the Human Rights Convention but I want to illustrate a few examples of why our laws need to be clear and accessible from a human rights point of view, 2 in particular, that have specific relevance to the Parishes and to other areas of public life. I am going to take Article 8 to start with, which is the right to respect for private and family life. It starts off by saying that: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.” Part 2 says: “There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” While these exemptions that I have just read out, all the 6 areas, sound very extensive, they are much less so when you read the case law of the European Court. But what do these terms mean? For an interference to be justified it must be in accordance with the law and this means that there has to be a clear, legal basis for an interference and that the law should be readily accessible. A public authority which intends to interfere with a person’s rights under Article 8 must be able to show that what they are doing pursues one of the 6 legitimate aims that I just mentioned, however, this is rarely a problem as the legitimate aims are also widely drawn. The crucial issue, however, is the third: “necessary in a democratic society.” There must be a good reason for the interference of the right and the interference must be proportionate which means that it should be no more than is necessary. If there is an alternative, less intrusive way of achieving the same aim, then alternative measures should be used. Under Article 8 the European Court of Human Rights has been particularly consistent in requiring that no laws breach the principle of foreseeability and accessibility, especially in surveillance cases. Foreseeability means that the law must be laid out in enough specific detail in order that individuals can regulate their conduct accordingly. The court refers normally when addressing these 3 main principles. Firstly, the public authority must have a legal basis for their actions. Secondly, citizens must have access to the law and this accessibility to the law must give adequate guidance as to what circumstances are covered by the law. Thirdly, the law must be constructed with sufficient clarity to allow citizens to reasonably foresee how this law will affect him or her should they act in a certain manner. That is one example where the court is laying down quite specific criteria in terms of knowledge of the law. Another Article contained in the law is directly relevant to the Parishes and that is Article 1, Protocol 1 of the Convention, which relates to property. It reads: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.” It goes on to say: “The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” So, in other words, it is another qualified right. It protects your rights to the peaceful enjoyment of your property but there are certain exemptions to those rights. The Article refers to possessions and I would say this is where it has a wider relevance to everything we do virtually in the Island because “possessions” has a wider meaning more than just land and property interests. It can also include shares, a pension, contributory welfare benefits, social security benefits that are dependent on the claimant having made National Insurance contributions and it is also the only article in the Human Rights Convention that mentions “legal persons” and thus extends these rights to companies. The court has held that it is not sufficient for the law on which basis the States limited the enjoyment of the possession to be a formal legal source within the meaning of domestic law but that it must furthermore contain certain qualitative characteristics and afford appropriate procedural safeguards so as to ensure protection against arbitrary action. In the case of James v The United Kingdom it took the view that: “… the law must be accessible (published) and its provisions formulated with sufficient precision to enable the persons concerned to foresee, to a degree that it is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail and to regulate their conduct.”

[16:30]

I just wondered really why the Deputy is focusing on the Parishes and the Parish officers in his proposition. He mentioned in his examples why he was doing this piece of work that it involved a States police officer and a civil servant as well as a Parish authority. So, I wonder why his proposition is not much more expansive and not so narrowly focused as it currently is. I just think: why is that? He did say in his proposal speech that it was in the miscellaneous provisions to do with the Connétable losing their policing powers that prompted him to think about this. If that did prompt him to think about the French laws being translated to English, that applies to every law that stands in our Island. I cannot understand why he does not want to do the whole lot. If he is going to do it, why just do a bit of it? I question that. As a little crumb of comfort - and it is just a crumb of comfort in the scale of what the Deputy is asking - the Comité des Connétables is doing some work at the moment to help, certainly out of the work of the miscellaneous provisions.

[17:15]

There is a very small group with the Constable of St. Martin, the Constable of St. Ouen, the Constable of St. Brelade and myself, the Constable of St. Peter, working together looking at all the necessary legislation regulations underpinning the changes brought about by the miscellaneous provisions of Constables losing their powers. Those will all be done in English and be coming back to this Chamber in the form of regulations. That is the best I believe that we can offer to the Deputy today. At least some Parishes are refining what they are trying to do and put it in a form which he will certainly understand in that. Also, as a subset of work, this sub-committee has decided it would like to continue after it has done this piece of work and look across the Parishes as a whole about the role and responsibilities and accountabilities of every officer in every sort of group within the Parishes and have, for example, what I am calling, please excuse me fellow Connétable, an Idiot’s Guide to Being a Constable, for example. So, anyone can understand exactly what happens within a Parish and every role within the Parish. Unfortunately we would have liked to have delivered that later on this year, but I think we are going to be rather set aside in the next 2 to 3 months. I think we have a little challenge ahead of us, which is about the Constables remaining in the States. Certainly I hope the Deputy will be reasonably satisfied with my crumb of comfort, because I do not think we can support the piece of working he is asking us to do today. Thank you.

8.1.7 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

In a similar vein to Senator Bailhache, I have difficulty, as it is apparent that most Members have, about translation of laws which happen to be in the French language into English. It is my view that if we do not understand a law that happens to be in the French language then it is our duty to learn the language rather than change the law to suit us. Having listened to Senator Bailhache, I was on the Law Revision Board when we revised all Jersey’s statute laws except we did not touch those that were in the French language, for a very good reason. That is where I disagree slightly with Deputy Tadier, that it is likely not possible to translate directly and take the nuances that go with it. I mean, the example is that if you take the funniest joke you can think of and translate it into another language, the person of that country will not think it is funny at all. It just does not work. If you translate to another language you could end up changing the meaning, which is why we did not do it. Another example, which the Senator raises, the Loi (1905) au Sujet des Assemblées Paroissiales. I have looked at that law a few times. My understanding of it is that a Deputy can assist, but not vote for the powers of Assembly. Other people take a different view. So, where are you? It is too dangerous; I could not go with it.

8.1.8 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I am not going to support this proposition and I cannot really put my objections as eloquently as Senator Bailhache, so I will be blunt. I feel that we all have better things we could be doing with our time. [Approbation] I do not like being cynical, especially in this House, and I do not like making light of propositions, but I cannot resist the opportunity to suggest to the Deputy that there is a quick and simple solution to his problems. This solution can be found on a website and it comes in both English and French languages, as well as others. Of course, that website address is www.condorferries.co.uk.

8.1.9 The Connétable of St. Mary:

Just very briefly, following on from what the last speaker said, it is not only that we have better things to do with our time, it is we have better things to do with the resources that this Assembly has at its disposal. I made a resolution. I do not normally make New Year’s resolutions, but I am resolved that I would not try and get the rebuilding of Les Quennevais School into every proposition that I speak for, but we could speak for some money on that instead. We are not going to do that, are we? But the point is, as has already been said, when a law is substantially changed, and it is written in French, then the custom has been to bring it back into English. Over time these things will happen. My question to the proposer is: what is the actual benefit that we will gain from this? Where has the groundswell of interest in having these laws translated come from? Because people are not generally banging down the doors of my Parish to say: “We do not understand this.” There are a couple of misconceptions. Firstly, we are not talking about Parish laws. We are talking about laws that might regulate certain areas of the Parishes. The Parish did not enact these laws. The States of Jersey enacted these laws. So, you would no more go to the Parish to ask necessarily for a translation of a particular law than you would go to the police and say: “This police law is written in French. Give me a translation.” You would look at it holistically from the law body. We have the Jersey Legal Information Board, as it was, or jerseylaw.je. All the laws are listed there. As already has been offered, if there is something that genuinely cannot be translated or cannot be understood, there are avenues you can go to to have that addressed. We really do have better things to spend the money on. The translation is not necessarily the difficult thing. I think that was misunderstood by Deputy Tadier. Although I do completely understand the Deputy of St. Clements, Deputy Baudains’ point that the translation is not the thing that you go to. You go to the original language, but you do that in so many walks of life. It is not the translation, it is the second part really that is the real problem, the re-enactment of laws. We are not talking about a small piece of work. That is where the huge resource would be. That is where we would need possibly ... I do not think years of man hours of time is too much of an exaggeration. We would be talking about drafting, debating, taking to Privy Council. It is a massive piece of work. There was an email today, I think, that said the Discrimination Law was being lodged. We have waited such a long time for that law. When I started in the States in 2005 it was on the horizon. At various times its budgets were taken and given to other things that were deemed to be very important at that time. We have reached the point where that now has been achieved. But, you might as well say: “Well, let us not do that. Let us divert the money to this, because this is going to be a very, very cost dependent piece of work.” I really think that we have to be responsible in how we direct the use of resources. I do not think this is the way to do it. If there is someone who has an issue, let us talk about one particular piece of legislation. At random I am going to pick the Loi (1914) Sur La Voirie, the Roads Law. This is the law that deals with, for example, the branchage. That affects pretty much every landowner who has land abutting to a Parish or a main road. Every year the Constables Committee puts out notices in the Gazette and other places where they are required to do so in English. We produce booklets saying what the responsibilities and duties of the landowners are in English. We already go that extra mile to explain to people what the requirements are. The law is in French, but 95 per cent of the people in this Island never even think about that. They know because the information is given to them in their common language. I think the proposer must understand that already these efforts are made right across the board. That is just one example. We target our resources effectively to give the information. I do not believe that going further to re-enact those laws in English gives the public anything more than they have at present. That is the pure and simple answer to it. I really do not see the cost benefit of this piece of work. I really do not think that the Deputy has thought of where else that money, in these economic times, could be better spent to assist the citizens of this Island, which I think is his stated ultimate aim. I think we are going over time to evolve there anyway and I cannot see the benefit of pushing this through to the detriment of some other very long awaited and very much deserved legislation that this Island is anticipating. Thank you.

8.1.10 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I have been a Centenier for St. Mary for 8 and a half years prior. During the whole of that time I never once had to administer a law written in French or charge anybody with a law written in French. The only law that we used in French was in fact the Port d’Armes, and that was scrapped in 2000 for the Firearms Law. Most laws these days that are administered on a daily basis are all in English, it is only very obscure laws which are not used very much that are still in French. It is our obligation to get that into English should we have somebody that requires it. To change everything into French at this time when we have far more important issues to deal with and far better things to spend our money on, I think, is a bit of a nonsense. Thank you, Sir.

8.1.11 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I just would like to say how depressing this Assembly can be and we are only in the first sitting of the New Year, the first day. I think my eyesight is failing as well I am so depressed. [Aside] I think it is. I just have to say how sad it is to see excuses made, however light hearted they might be, a proposer mocked for bringing something which just seeks to do what some in this Assembly pay lip service to so often, i.e. becoming more transparent. The proposer should be congratulated on bringing this forward. If he has made a mistake then it is to lay himself open to the opportunity to be accused of attacking the Constables, the Parishes and our tradition. So, what he should have done is go for the whole shebang, because that is where this is needed. The excuses that apparently this is not needed. I have a constituent who wanted to represent himself in our courts and he wanted to be able to understand the arguments being made against him. Could the court help him? No, they could not even provide him with a translation. In fact, initially, after much toing and froing they provided him with the translation of the totally wrong law. How helpful that would have been. So, let us not pretend that this is all easily done and a super Constable or a super law officer pops up and always helps people, because they do not. That is quite clear. I think some of the points that have just been made about: “Surely the Deputy should have thought we can be spending this on more important things like Discrimination Law.” It just makes the Deputy’s point for him, because it all comes down to the same thing. Whenever there is something to do with transparency and assisting people, it drags on in these Assemblies for years, Assembly after Assembly, the Freedom of Information Act, exactly the same. Why are some people so scared of people in our Island, ordinary people knowing their rights? What is the problem? We can knock someone for not being bilingual. I think that is offensive. The reality is, and I do not know if any Members realised it, but the vast majority of people in this Island have English as their first language. How bizarre that we celebrate with increasing emphasis each year a minor skirmish called the Battle of Jersey and then at the same time defeating the horrible French and yet we are going to fight like mad to keep our laws in a language which for most people is largely archaic when it comes to knowing their rights, I am afraid. There are countries in South America where they go to the extremes of putting people’s rights on packets of vegetables you buy in the supermarket. What a great initiative, so that people do all know the laws. Do not mock Deputy Higgins or attack him for bringing this. I do not see it as an attack on the Constables and the Parish system. But he has laid himself open to that and I think that is what is going to cost him the votes and I think that is ludicrous. I would seriously question why we have to find objections to proposals such as the Deputy’s bringing. Yes, it would involve significant sums of money. But if we are hearing that some of these laws are apparently redundant and never used then they should be repealed. They should not be just there to confuse the issue.

[17:30]

What I would suggest to Members is in this year following finally recognising the events of 28th September 1769, Reform Day, I am sure you all have it in your diaries. They are commissioning the statue of me now. Not really. I know it is a shame, as long as they make it slimmer. One of the things that those events led to was the codifying of Jersey’s laws for the first time c.1771. When you look into it, what a shambles it was. It was a motley hotchpotch of whatever they could find lying around the kitchen sink. Surely that just tells us it is time to do the job properly. That is what Deputy Higgins is really saying: “Let us get on with it.” So, Members, vote according to your true feelings, but please do not do so in mocking the Deputy for bringing this, because I think his intentions are absolutely right. Everyone should understand and have the right to understand what laws they are being perhaps charged with. Why should I go to court and then have to engage the services of some ridiculously overpriced Jersey lawyer? It goes right down, does it not, because if we take this analysis of the laws then we would have to look at why we cannot have English lawyers here and we might be able to have a system where ordinary people could have justice. How terrible that would be. What a communistic, red ideal that would be. So, please, give the proposer some respect for what he has done, because even if he has gone about this the wrong way in going for the Parishes first, the ideal he is striving for is an excellent one and he should be commended for it. I will definitely support him. Thank you, Sir.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

I was going to get up and propose the adjournment, Sir. It is 5.30 p.m.

The Bailiff:

It is a matter for Members.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

We are due back tomorrow.

The Bailiff:

At the moment I have no others waiting to speak. Does any other Member wish to speak? No, I think no one else wishes to speak.

8.1.12 Deputy G.P. Southern:

So, I will speak then to wholeheartedly support the words of my colleague, Deputy Pitman, most of the words of Deputy Tadier and certainly the proposition brought by Deputy Higgins. We are told that we cannot possibly start on this. It is going to cost millions of pounds and take forever, cannot do it. Yet, we are told that there is already a sub-committee of Connétables working on very similar things and beavering away in its own rights. We are told that anyway no Centenier ever charges somebody under a French law, it is all in English and the French ones very rarely indeed get used. We have a proposition here that says: “To request the Chief Minister in conjunction with the Comité des Connétables within 6 months to bring to the House a document setting out the legal powers and roles of a set of bodies associated with a Parish. That is not a million pounds worth of work. That is not forever. We have already seen a document which does not cover the powers, but does cover the names and some of the detail that might be required, but not all of the detail. That has already been produced within the last 4 months, 6 months, certainly in the last year. So, that is possible. The equivalent, going a little bit further, contained in (a) is perfectly possible within that timescale and without costing a fortune. That is undoubtedly possible. The second part of the proposition contains no timescale. Whereas normally I want to see a timescale, in this case it contains no timescale probably because the proposer thought this might take some time: So, I will not put a timescale on it, so we can get on with it in our own time or in Chief Minister and Comité des Connétables available time, and slowly, slowly produce what is required for a largely English speaking electorate and residents. That is the reality. Over time we may catch up with what has happened on the Island in that the use of French has by and large disappeared and that - and I will use the words “human rights” - fundamental human right to be able to get a copy, understandable, of the laws by which you are governed, which belongs to everybody, and to understand them will be achieved over time. First, not a million pounds, not an enormous length of time, could be done within 6 months. Part (b) could be done over time. If necessary, if it is going too slowly, perhaps a Back-Bencher would bring a little hurry up motion say: “Can you get on with it? In particular concentrate on this area, because that is an area of importance.” Whatever. These arguments are saying: “This is impossible. It is wasting our time. It is wasting our money.” Simply not true. Not accurately focused on this particular proposition. It could be done. I think it ought to be done; the first half within the 6 months, the second half in our own time, as we see fit, absolutely feasible. There is absolutely no reason why we should be voting against this proposition today.

The Bailiff:

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

8.1.13 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I might say that many of the comments were predictable. I will try and answer some of the questions and respond to what some of the speakers have said. I must state right from the beginning, again, the purpose of my proposition was to ensure that we guarantee the rights of people that they should have access to the law and understand the law. A number of speakers said that I should not have picked on the Constables. It was not a case of picking on the Constables. The thing that really brought home to me the use of the French language and the French laws that we have was that particular piece of legislation we looked at in March 2012. That is why I have addressed the first part of it to the Constables. I do hope it will go beyond that and to other areas of the public sector. I think one thing that has come out in this debate is that we accept that many of the translations are not accurate. There are not complete translations. I think it is fundamental that we get that sorted. If we have laws on the book and if they can be applied then they must be accurate translations of those laws, otherwise we are denying people their rights and we could be causing miscarriages of justice. If I just refer to part (b), if I go back to Constable Gallichan, about re-enactment. Basically, re-enacting is what happens. If you consolidate the law or you codify the law you are bringing together all the different laws together on a particular topic and putting it in one document. That is what consolidation is, it is putting together statute laws. Codification is bringing together case law as well. So all you are doing is setting out in one document what the position is. I would love to see one piece of law that sets out the whole of the parochial system. It seems we could have another one with something else. You start from that, you get rid ... in fact going back to the point that some people said about some of these laws being really obscure and that. Well, if they are obscure and are out of date, repeal them. Simple as that. Let us get rid of the clutter and get down to what the basics are about. Now, Constable Gallichan said that 6 months was not enough time to do all this. I did not ask for that. In the actual proposition, I am asking in part (a), which is the translation of the law to be done within 6 months, it is bringing it all together. So, you are bringing it together, so people know what the different roles of different people are and what their powers are. That can be done through the translation. It is not re-enacting the law. As Deputy Southern mentioned earlier on, I never put a timescale on part (b). Part of the reason was that I do not know - nor does anybody else, I might add - the extent of how much work needs to be done. Only when you have done part (a) and you have looked at the laws and you look at the powers of the different people and translated them you get a measure of what is involved. It could be that 95 per cent of what is there is rubbish and can be repealed quite easily. In which case, the rest of it would not take that long. So, the point of it is: do part (a), even if you do not agree with part (b). Let us get those translations and let people understand what the law is. I do not believe that Senator Bailhache will ever believe that I will come up with a sensible proposition, in the same way that I do not always agree with his propositions. Certainly, I must say that the fudge - I know he is only part of the Electoral Commission, but he is chairman - of having 3 options for the people, I will make this point later, 2 of them are to keep the Constables of the States, is stacking the odds a bit, I think. Anyway that is neither here nor there. He also stated that he thought I would slow down the process of reform. I do not accept that. That is an argument that is in the Council of Ministers’ paper. The point is if the work is being done already, as the Constable of St. Peter said, on regulations and trying to clarify the law, following the Constables (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law, then together with the document they produced in terms of the leaflet to the Parish, we have the first item to do this, you have that leaflet setting out what goes on. I commend Deputy Tadier for asking for that to be produced. The work that has been done by the Constable adds to that and the translations will add to it a bit more. In fact, some of the translations have already been done or will be done. So, with not having a timescale in terms of changing the law, the first part of it though can be done quite easily and I believe within the 6 months. I will just say that I believe it can be done. I also do not accept what Senator Bailhache said that translations would have to be done by the law officers. There is no reason why they could to be farmed out to suitably qualified people who could do it. It could always be checked with the final translations against it, but they do not have to do the actual translation. He criticised me for saying that when we went through the Miscellaneous Provisions Law that some of the amendments were Chef de Police or whatever. I happen to believe that if we are going to amend the law, I would like to know the law we are amending. Maybe a word here or there, but what did the rest of it say. I did not have a clue. I do not think anybody else did. So, if we are going to be changing laws or modifying laws, let us understand what we are amending. So far as linguistic heritage, I have no criticism of the French language. I will be perfectly honest and say I wish I could speak French. If you have heard my attempts at it then you will recognise the ‘Allo ‘Allo TV programme of pronunciation. I wish I could speak the language, but I do not. But I would like to understand the law.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Would the Deputy give way? Just to reassure him that nobody speaks the French that those laws are written in nowadays anyway. So, he need not feel bad about it, because he is in the majority not the minority.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Thank you. What sort of a message are we sending to people if we do not seek to clarify the law and make the law easier to people? I think we are giving the wrong message to the people of this Island. The Constable of St. Helier I think was slightly upset with me for the fact that I repeated what he said to me. However, the point is, I do respect the officers in the Parish of St. Helier. I will be honest and say the person who did tell me that I could not do what I wanted to do because it was not in the law. I do not hold any animosity against them, but it is really a lesson to be learned that officials should not pronounce on something they know nothing about. I have the utmost respect for the staff at St. Helier. I know how hard working they are. He also says the Parishes should be transparent. Yes, they should. Let us translate the law. That is probably the first step towards transparency. The Constable of St. John, it was not a case of rewriting all our laws; it is just the ones in French. First of all, I must come back, the thing I wanted to interject on was the fact that I may have missed something in my speech when I said it, I do not know, I thought I made it quite clear. What I said was: I do not believe that Constables should be in the States as part of their office. I have no objection to Constables ... if, let us say, the reform goes through and the Constables are not in the States, then if a Constable wished to stand for the States and if I was here I would welcome them with open arms. Anyone should be able to stand for the States, but a Constable should not by virtue of just being a Constable. It should be an election like everyone else to this position.

[17:45]

The Constable of St. Peter, again he asked why I started with the Parishes. I have explained why. Simply because the trigger for me was the Constables’ (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law. Okay, it would have probably given myself less grief and possibly some more support if I did not mention this particular area, but I am sorry a lot of the laws in French relate to the Parishes. Deputy Baudains, I agree with you about translation interpretation. It is a very valid point. I was looking at Hong Kong, which has the law in Chinese and English. They have had major problems translating the English into Chinese. So much so that the legislators always look at the English, because no one can understand the Chinese, even the Chinese. Deputy of St. Martin: now the Deputy of St. Martin I found particularly offensive. I found it offensive because it was a new version of “There is always a boat out in the morning.” Now, I have been in this Island for 35 years and I believe I have contributed to the Island [Approbation] like many other people who have come to this Island. I find: “Anyone who does not toe the line or come up with the same view should get on a boat in the morning” is totally unacceptable. [Aside] Not normally, they keep on breaking down, yes.

The Deputy of St. Martin:

Would the Deputy give way?

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

No, I will not give way. You have hurt my feelings enough. [Laughter] Constable Gallichan said where is the groundswell coming from, where is he coming from? Well, there may not be a groundswell at the moment, but when people start realising that their human rights are being affected then they will bring actions against the Parishes or public authorities that are affecting their rights. When they do, it is going to be a costly exercise, because they may be entitled to compensation. It may be a painful thing in terms of the costs in contesting some of these actions. I have not really thought where the money is coming from. I have already indicated it should not really take a great deal of money to do the translations. In terms of codifying or consolidating the law over time, again, yes there will be an expense. However, it can be phased. I do accept there are other pieces of legislation which could be done first which will help with that process. I do not accept that it is going to cost millions and it is going to delay all the legislation. Again, Deputy Southern, I agree with him. The arguments were saying we cannot afford it. We have already seen that the Constables are already working on some of these things anyway with the pack and the other thing. He also mentioned the timescale, which I have just emphasised again. There are some other things that I would like to say. I do hope, no matter the outcome of this - I have a pretty good idea, I think - the Constables will go back to their Parishes and determine whether they have conducted a human rights audit. Because I do not think you have. I do hope that you will do, because it is vitally important you do so. I would also say too that I do find the arguments saying we cannot afford it when we are the sixth wealthiest jurisdiction in the world, that we cannot ensure human rights, does concern me. Finally, I think I will just say I am not the only person who is calling for translation of the laws. I have not had contact with him, but I was listening to the radio yesterday and listening to the President of the Law Society, Advocate Timothy Hanson, who was saying: “Yes, the French laws should be translated into English.” He felt that, again, it was to help people and to ensure that their rights were protected. I am going to sit down in a second, but what I will say is the proposition is in 2 parts: part (a), which is calling for a document to be produced, setting out the legal powers and roles of the various officers and committees in the Parishes within 6 months and part (b) going towards consolidation and so on. The first one, I do not think anybody, if you really believe in transparency, should not support this part of the proposition. If you do not like the second part, do not. But the point is bear in mind the second part is over a period of years, there is no timescale on it. With that I will sit down and call for the appel, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Very well. The appel is called for and the Deputy has asked that paragraphs (a) and (b) be taken separately. So, I invite Members to return to their seats. The first vote, therefore, would be on paragraph (a). The Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 12	CONTRE: 37	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator S.C. Ferguson	Senator P.F. Routier
Connétable of St. Brelade	Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)	Senator A. Breckon
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)	Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)	Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Deputy M. Tadier (B)	Senator F. du H. Le Gresley
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)	Senator I.J. Gorst
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)	Senator L.J. Farnham
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)	Senator P.M. Bailhache
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)	Connétable of St. Helier
Deputy of St. Mary	Connétable of Trinity
Deputy R.J. Rondel (H)	Connétable of Grouville
	Connétable of St. Clement
	Connétable of St. Peter
	Connétable of St. Lawrence
	Connétable of St. Mary
	Connétable of St. John
	Connétable of St. Ouen
	Connétable of St. Martin
	Connétable of St. Saviour
	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 E.J. Noel (L)
	Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
	Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)
	Deputy of St. John
	Deputy J.P.G. Baker (H)
	Deputy J.H. Young (B)
	Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
	Deputy of St. Martin
	Deputy R.G. Bryans (H)
	Deputy of St. Peter

The Bailiff:

Very well. Then we come to paragraph (b). The Greffier will open the voting on paragraph (b).

POUR: 6	CONTRE: 43	ABSTAIN: 0
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)	Senator P.F. Routier
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)	Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Deputy M. Tadier (B)	Senator A. Breckon
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)	Senator S.C. Ferguson
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)	Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Deputy R.J. Rondel (H)	Senator B.I. Le Marquand
	Senator F. du H. Le Gresley
	Senator I.J. Gorst
	Senator L.J. Farnham
	Senator P.M. Bailhache
	Connétable of St. Helier
	Connétable of Trinity
	Connétable of Grouville
	Connétable of St. Clement
	Connétable of St. Peter
	Connétable of St. Lawrence
	Connétable of St. Mary
	Connétable of St. John
	Connétable of St. Ouen
	Connétable of St. Brelade
	Connétable of St. Martin
	Connétable of St. Saviour
	Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
	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 E.J. Noel (L)
	Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
	Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
	Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
	Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)
	Deputy of St. John
	Deputy J.P.G. Baker (H)
	Deputy J.H. Young (B)
	Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
	Deputy of St. Mary
	Deputy of St. Martin
	Deputy R.G. Bryans (H)
	Deputy of St. Peter

Senator P.F. Routier:

I propose the adjournment, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Very well. The adjournment is proposed. Just before we do, can I inform Members that the Minister for Social Security has lodged the Draft Discrimination (Jersey) Law P.6. Very well, so the Assembly will now adjourn and reconvene at 9.30 a.m.

ADJOURNMENT

[17:51]

[1] The question specifically refers to long waits in General medicine affecting 1,094 patients. These waits are actually in speciality medicine, not general medicine.