That is a very interesting question. The United States of America has comprehensive healthcare policies for underprivileged children who cannot afford to have the insurance and for the elderly and they take those issues on board because there is such a large group of uninsured people in the United States, but they catch the people that are unable to get the insurance that need it. So, we could do a similar thing. We could introduce a healthcare policy for insurance and I think that is going to be part of the poisoned chalice that any of us as candidates will receive. We will need to start taking contributions from Islanders to put towards that fund and I think that that fund needs to make sure that it is catered for in underwriting specific needs of the community so that the elderly are able to access the things that they need and the young are able to access their need and the policies should reflect those things. So, the overall insurance policy would, by design, allow for those that cannot receive insurance to be able to travel with insurance, under that system.

1.2.14 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

If elected, what commitment would the candidate give towards the implementing of a whistle-blowing procedure within the Health and Social Services Department?

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I thank the Deputy for his question. Whistle-blowing and reporting from the floor to politicians is an important mechanism for making sure that things that are problems are addressed. The current Minister or the previous Minister says that there is a whistle-blowing policy ready to table. I would make it my highest priority to ensure that members of the staff of the Health and Social Services Department in Jersey would have no fear to come to a whistle-blowing policy that would be robust, protect their interests and make certain that their futures are not jeopardised for coming forward for the benefit of the community.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much, Deputy, if you would be kind enough to withdraw? I call upon Deputy Southern to address the Assembly.

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

On my way into work today I had 2 passing comments made to me; one by a member of the public who said: “Good luck to you; get on with it” and another by a Member of the States who said: “Why did you choose to stand?” So, why stand? I was forced to stand when I realised that of the candidates already named I did not feel I could vote for any of them and the solution to that is either put “M. Mouse” on the ballot paper and spoil it or stand yourself. So I am here. I am here somewhat trepidatiously - now there is a word - because obviously any newcomer to this post; we are talking about £150 million of spending and we are talking over 3,000 staff, could not possibly claim to know anywhere near enough to do the job today but tomorrow is a different thing. However, Members who have known me over my 7 years in the States will be aware that I have a reputation for doing my homework and for doing my homework well and quickly. In my time on Scrutiny, on Economic Affairs in particular, I do believe I have got a good hold on my brief, as Ministers will know. Even in my brief time at the moment on the Health, Social Services and Housing Scrutiny Panel I am already coming to grips with some of the issues particularly relevant to health, but Members will be aware that my preoccupation for some time has been slightly away from health issues and into the related but separate social security issues and, in particular, income support. So, I do not claim to know everything and I do not claim to know detail. What I can claim to do is to be able to do my homework and master my brief in given time. What else do I know? Well, I know for certain that the Council of Ministers, despite the best intentions of the Chief Minister is far, far from inclusive and I think that it has to be inclusive and it is important because what happens if you do not get an inclusive body of Ministers joined together to create policy, what you tend to get is group-think. A dominant personality or 2 leads and less experienced colleagues around him never challenge and that leads to bad planning and bad thinking. If Members agree with me that that is a danger, and may actually be happening - and I believe it is - then perhaps the best thing they can do is add some spice to the Council of Ministers; somebody who is prepared to think differently, put up alternatives and to challenge and that, I would think, is certainly me. What happens in particular is that Ministers tend to be led by their Chief Executive Officers and certainly there is evidence that that is happening increasingly under Ministerial government. Certainly it would be my intention not to be led by the nose by a Chief Executive Officer, to clearly distinguish between that which is policy and that which is priority, decide it politically and operational issues but I will not be hiding behind operational issues when the buck is passed. It is important that politicians stand up and be counted and be held accountable. In that sense, what I am interested in is not reasons why I cannot do x as a Minister; what I will be asking is: “Show me 3 ways I can achieve x and give me the pros and cons” and that way we can make sound decisions. Once those decisions are made, we will stick that through; we will put that through. So, what will you be voting for if you vote for me? I believe you will be voting for a strong voice to fight the corner of funding for Health and Social Services. With the anticipated revenue drops in the next couple of years, that is going to be a very difficult job. But Health and Social Services spending will not reduce along with revenue; it will continue on its upward spiral. It needs somebody strong there to fight that corner. I believe, after 7 years in the States, I have that strength. What is going wrong has been exemplified by the way in which the Williamson Plan came to the States; not as a plan but as an Implementation Plan with the funding to be discussed but not the issues. Now, whoever made that decision I believe lacked completely in political nous. That was bound to fail. You cannot do that to this House. If there is one thing I have learnt in 7 years; Ministers should not be trying it. This House can hold Ministers to account and we have seen what has happened with that. What was worse is that, under pressure, I believe, from the Minister for Treasury and Resources, the Minister of the moment folded. He watered down the plan - the Implementation Plan - he took out the Laming proposals, which may or may not, but I believe will, be essential in terms of delivering the plan and he also took out one of the best, those small bits of it which was the plan for advocacy and listening to children. Under pressure from Treasury and Resources, he folded. That is not the sort of leadership we need over the next 2 to 3 years. So, what else have I learnt in those 7 years? I have learnt that it is absolutely vital to build a proper team. Listening and respecting the views of others is absolutely vital and certainly on any of my Scrutiny teams I have endeavoured to do that, and I believe I have achieved a remarkable strength on my particular panels by doing exactly that but that does not mean not coming to decisions. I have also learnt how to run effective meetings and that meetings are always about making decisions and the subsequent actions. You can listen for a while so that people feel satisfied that they have had their opinion heard but then you have to get on with making decisions and doing actions. It is not endless waffle. In terms of delivering on those decisions I believe I have managed to do that as well quite effectively. On economic development, in particular with the telecoms report, with income support, delivery, deadlines met, I am aware of doing that. So, what are the jobs to be done? I have mentioned already the funding issue and I have said that I will fight the corner as strongly as I can and that will be vital. In particular one of the main funding issues is the direction - the New Directions - for the way ahead which will require substantial input if it is going to be delivered. It is about prevention rather than cure, and healthy choices. That requires teamwork across departments, it requires reduction or it aims at a reduction of chronic disease such as diabetes and depression, supporting the elderly in their homes; expensive stuff. Williamson also needs to be delivered and that will require not just strength but team-building. I believe I have created excellent relationships with the officers who have worked with me. I can do that again, I believe. They will go the extra mile for me. I have already asked the 2 Assistant Ministers whether they would be content to work with me. I certainly trust them and I would want to keep them in position and, finally, staff. Staff morale in Health and Social Services, I believe is at an all time low. It needs building up. That requires people there to listen. It requires, for example, a whistle-blowing policy, a safe whistle-blowing policy in place and building staff relations is absolutely important.

The Bailiff:

Thank you, Deputy. Your time has expired, thank you. Now the time for questioning.

Deputy S. Pitman:

May I make an observation for question time? There are only 2 Ministers in this room; the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister are out of this room and we are choosing our Minister for Health and Social Services.

Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:

Sorry, Sir, if an observation is being made I think it should at least be correct. There are 4 Ministers present.

Deputy S. Pitman:

I am confused with the Senator’s remark about the need for strength in terms of arguing for health funding. Would he confirm that I asked to spend a full day a number of months ago with the Health Department to understand their health spending pressures? Moreover, would he confirm to the Assembly that the Council of Ministers has discussed on numerous occasions the real reality of needing to increase health funding?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Yes, in fairness to the Minister for Treasury and Resources, because he has had personal experience of the excellent health service, and I know he has a passion for the quality of care that is available and provided, but there is little doubt that Williamson was trimmed.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much, Senator. Now, that concludes the final period of questioning. I ask that all other candidates be invited back into the Assembly. I ask the usher to circulate please the ballot papers to Members. May I have some order for one moment, please, just to remind Members that there are 5 candidates: the Deputy of Trinity, Deputy Le Claire, Deputy Southern, the Deputy of St. Peter and Senator Perchard. I invite the Viscount and usher to collect the ballot papers. I ask the Attorney General and Deputy Viscount whether they would be kind enough to act as scrutineers? [Ballot held]

The Bailiff:

I can announce the result of the ballot for the Minister for Health and Social Services; 24 votes were cast for the Deputy of Trinity, 12 votes for Deputy Southern, 11 votes for Senator Perchard, 5 votes for the Deputy of St. Peter and one vote for Deputy Le Claire. Now, under the Standing Orders, as Members will be aware, Deputy Le Claire falls out of the running. I do not know whether the Deputy of St. Peter would like to consider his position in order to ...

The Deputy of St. Peter:

It is considered, Sir. I will not carry on.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much. I will, therefore, invite Members to continue to a second ballot as between the 3 remaining candidates.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I would just like to thank all the Members that voted for me, Sir. [Laughter] I know I have their confidence.

The Bailiff:

I will, therefore, invite Members to continue to a second ballot as between the 3 remaining candidates. Could I ask the Attorney General and Deputy Viscount again to act as scrutineers? [Second ballot held]

The Bailiff:

I am able to announce the result of the second ballot; 27 votes were cast for the Deputy of Trinity, 16 votes for Deputy Southern, 10 votes for Senator Perchard and I, therefore, declare that the Deputy of Trinity has been elected as the Minister. [Approbation]

The Deputy of Trinity:

Can I say a few words, Sir?

The Bailiff:

Of course.

The Deputy of Trinity:

Just to say thank you and I would like to thank all the other people who joined in this election. I think it was good democracy and it was good that 5 candidates put themselves forward. I will take one step at a time and look forward to working not only with the department but with all political colleagues. [Approbation]

QUESTIONS

2. Written Questions

2.1 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE REDUCTION OF INCOME SUPPORT PAYMENTS IN OCTOBER 2009:

Question

Will the Minister inform members of the extent to which the income of families on transitional protection on Income Support will be reduced in October this year?

Will he advise whether –:

(a) Only 13% of the (approximate) 3,800 households affected will lose less than £30 per week?

(b) Over 2,000 households will lose an average of £70 per week, and

(c) A further 1,000 families will see benefit cuts averaging £200 per week over the period of this phased benefit reduction?

Will the Minister produce figures for the Assembly to indicate how many, and what types of households will be so affected?

Will he also state what measures, if any, he proposes to ensure that hardship does not result from these cuts and what support, if any will be offered to those facing hardship?

Answer

Income Support replaced 14 separate benefits, payable under a wide range of different qualifying conditions and with different degrees of generosity. The Income Support budget was initially set as the total of the budgets making up the predecessor benefits. For individual claimants transferring to Income Support, many received additional benefit from day one but others were entitled to a lower rate of benefit under the new rules. These claimants were given an additional “protected payment” benefit equal to the difference between the total of their previous benefit and their Income Support benefit. A phased reduction of the protected payments over a period of years ensures that households have time to adjust to the new level of benefit.

The increases in component rates for October 2009 have not yet been approved by the States and the figures quoted in this answer will be subject to change depending on the exact level of increase agreed. As with any forecast, the changing circumstances of households in the interim will alter the impact on individual households and cannot be predicted. As explained below, the period of 100% protection is likely to be extended to January 2010, and hopefully to September 2010.

The figures suggested in the question are not accurate.

Based on data extracted at the end of March 2009, there are 2,734 households currently receiving protected payments. This figure excludes 744 individuals in residential care, who will see no reduction in benefit as they are not subject to the phased withdrawal of previous benefits. Of the 2,734 households, it is estimated that only 8% will see a reduction in total benefit of £30 per week or more following the first phased reduction of protected payments. These households will, on average, see a reduction of approximately £45 per week.

The Income Support Transition Order identifies five separate groups of households, and sets a separate timetable for the phased reductions for each household type. Where a household satisfies the conditions for more than one group, it is allocated to the group that is shown higher in the table (E.g. if a pensioner has a severe disability, they would be included in the “Those with moderate to severe disability”, rather than the “Those with a pensioner recipient” group.)

	Total number of households (March 2009)	% Protection after first reduction	% Protection after second reduction	% Protection after third reduction	% Protection after fourth reduction	% protection after fifth reduction
Individuals in residential care	744	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
Households where income exceeds IS entitlement by a factor of 3 or more	133	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Households with the biggest percentage reduction in income	468	80%	60%	40%	20%	0%
Households including someone with moderate to severe disability	289	80%	60%	40%	20%	0%
Households including someone with a low level disability	166	75%	50%	25%	0%	0%
Households including someone with a pensioner recipient	662	75%	50%	25%	0%	0%
All other households	1016	67%	33%	0%	0%	0%

I am pleased to confirm that a bid for additional funding for transitional payments from the Economic Stimulus package has been included within P.55 and my Department will be submitting a detailed request to confirm funding to extend 100% protection for a further 12 months to 30th September 2010. A final decision on the allocation of these funds is due in June.

In the meantime, it is my intention to extend the period of 100% protection to 31st January 2010, in light of the current economic conditions.

The households receiving protected payments are currently receiving benefit at a rate in excess of their entitlement under the Income Support system. In order to ensure that they are able to adjust their household budget to the reduced level of protection after the first reduction is implemented, all households will receive written notice of their revised entitlement several months before the reduction is made. The great majority (85% of those currently receiving a protected payment) will still be receiving a total benefit payment in excess of their Income Support entitlement after this reduction.

2.2 DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE DISCHARGE OF EFFLUENT INTO THE SEA:

Question

On how many occasions, if any, over the last 5 years have licences been issued by the Planning and Environment Department to the Transport and Technical Services Department in respect of discharging effluent into controlled waters?

(a) Would the Minister advise the exact dates and time periods when such discharges occurred?

(b) Were discharges of effluent permitted under the licenses at times when the tide was below the St. Aubin Pier outflow?

(d) During discharges of effluent on these occasions what monitoring, if any, occurred; by whom was this undertaken and what were the results?

(e) Where did this monitoring occur and can the Minister provide these as an appendix?

(f) What, if any, are the long term plans for managing this on-going series of discharges of effluent into our environment?

(g) Is the Minister aware of any scientific evidence that discharges of effluent can harm the environment and/or be of a danger to human health?

(h) What notifications, if any, are required when discharging effluent into a Ramsar site or next to one?

(i) What tests, if any, are undertaken to ensure there is no impact on the Ramsar environment, who conducts the tests and who certifies them?

Answer

Only one licence has been issue to TTS during the last five years. This was a composite discharge permit (No. DP(B) 2007/04/02) for the following pumping stations: Bas Du Marrais, La Frontiere, La Rue Du Port, Le Douet, Les Augerez, Les Fontaines, Les Ormes, Portinfer, and Thistlegrove.

Sections (a) – (i) of the Deputy’s question are not applicable to that particular discharge permit, however they do relate to a different permit issued to TTS in respect of the Bellozanne Sewage Treatment Works. This permit was first issued in 2000 when the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000 came into force. When applied to this permit, the answers are as follows:

(a) The sewage treatment works discharges effluent 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

(b) Yes. The sewage treatment works discharge effluent 24 hours a days, 365 days a year, regardless of tide levels.

(c) The maximum permitted volume of discharge shall not exceed 95,040 m3 / day. The rate of discharge shall not exceed 1100 l/s.

(d) The permit holder (TTS) carry out their own sampling and testing for operational purposes. In our role as regulator the Planning and Environment department take regular samples and this is prescribed under the conditions of the discharge permit. Independent of this discharge permit we also conduct bathing water sampling throughout the bathing water season at Victoria Pool and La Haule and have undertaken a monitoring programme of surface water outfalls which included First Tower Outfall. The results are available on public record and are too numerous (there are over 10 years of bathing water data alone) to include in an appendix to this response. We would however be happy to discuss these results in a meeting with the Deputy.

(e) For the purposes of the Discharge Permit, samples are collected from the Ultra Violet treatment plant prior to discharge into the Bellozanne culvert / stream. General samples are collected from the out fall and receiving waters respectively.

(f) The long term plans for managing sewage treatment on the island will be dealt with by the Liquid Waste strategy from TTS. The regulator will continue to monitor the discharge in accordance with the discharge permit as described above.

(g) Yes. There is considerable scientific evidence that discharges of “effluents” can be harmful to both environment and human health. This is however dependent on the specific composition of the effluent which is regulated by the consent conditions.

(h) No specific notifications are required unless there is going to be a significant impact on the ecology of the site.

(i) The programme of general monitoring carried out by Planning and Environment includes monitoring on bathing waters, shellfish, heavy metals in key indicator species, and outfall monitoring to sea. These samples are collected by Planning and Environment, they are analysed by the States Official Analyst and assessed internally in respect of the use to which they will be put. e.g. Bathing Water quality and grading of shellfish.

Long term changes to the ecology of the Ramsar site will be picked up by the periodic survey of the site’s ecology which the Department commission from time to time. The most recent survey was carried out by Plymouth Marine Laboratories in March 2009 and the results are still being collated.

2.3 DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE ECONOMIC STIMULUS PLAN:

Question

How much in comparative percentage terms against our annual GDP is Jersey committing to its economic stimulus package and has the Minister researched how this percentage compares with other jurisdictions such as the USA, Germany and the United Kingdom?

Answer

Please see pages 15 and 16 of the Treasury and Resources Minister’s Report and Proposition P.55/2009.

2.4 CONNÉTABLE OF GROUVILLE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES CONFISCATION FUND AND THE DRUGS CONFISCATION FUND:

Question

Following the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General in 2007 that the monies from the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund and the Drugs Trafficking Confiscation Fund should become part of the general revenues of the States, can the Minister explain what has happened to the Funds, advise whether any distributions have taken place and, if so, to whom?

Answer

The Treasury and Resources Minister accepted in principle the recommendations in the Comptroller and Auditor General's Confiscation Funds Report to augment them into the States General Revenues.

Work is in progress to identify how best to implement the recommendations, particularly in relation to deciding what Law changes are necessary. The intention is to have augmented the Funds into the States general revenues for the 2010 financial year. However, this will be dependent on the timescales within which the Law changes can be achieved.

In the meantime, the Funds continue to be administered in accordance with the relevant Laws (Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 and Drug Trafficking Miscellaneous Provisions (Jersey) Law 1996).

Since the publication of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report in September 2007, the following grants have been issued from the Funds, in accordance with the Laws.

Drug Trafficking Confiscation Fund

Financial Year	Issued to	Brief description	£
2008	Health & Social Services/Home Affairs	Building a Safer Society – continuation of 5 year projects	527,000
2009	Health & Social Services/Home Affairs	Building a Safer Society – continuation of 5 year projects	534,000
			1,061,000
Nov-07	Charity	2 year project run in partnership with Prison	100,000
Dec-08	Charity	Educational programme	5,000
			105,000
Feb-08	Health & Social Services	Expansion of drug related programme	20,000
Jun-08	Health & Social Services	Drug related programme	12,000
Oct-08	Health & Social Services	Expansion of drug related programme	85,000
			117,000
Nov-07	Customs & Immigration	Software package	304,000
Feb-08	Customs	Equipment	49,000
Feb-08	Police/customs	Equipment	40,000
Feb-08	Police	Equipment	56,000
Feb-08	Police	Equipment	21,000
Jun-08	Home affairs	Equipment	10,000
Oct-08	Police	Information related	13,000
Oct-08	Customs	Equipment	26,800
Oct-08	Prison	Information related	50,000
Dec-08	Prison	Equipment	20,000
			589,800

Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund

Financial Year	Issued to	Brief description	£
2008	Judicial Greffe	Grant	310,000
2008	Law Officers	Grant	745,000
2008	Viscount/Bailiff/Home Affairs/Law Officers/Judicial Greffe	Court & Case costs	2,511,000
			3,566,000
2009 to date	Judicial Greffe	Grant	310,000
			310,000

2.5 DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE DISCHARGE OF EFFLUENT INTO THE SEA:

Question

On how many occasions, if any, over the last 5 years has the Health Protection Team been involved in issues regarding controlled discharges of effluent licensed by the States of Jersey?

What were their actions and what were their findings?

Would the Minister inform the Assembly what is tested in Jersey and whether he is aware if the United Kingdom undertakes the same tests?

Answer

Effluent discharges from licensed operations are regulated by the Environment Department Water Resources team and not Health Protection. Health Protection interventions are restricted to impacts on human health although my team do work with other departments on issues where joint working is desirable.

Health Protection is engaged in a number of routine sampling programmes in line with accredited UK sampling protocols. These include sampling and testing food, water and air for a wide range of parameters.

2.6 THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING MONIES OWED TO STATES DEPARTMENTS BY HARCORT DEVELOPMENTS:

Question

Would the Minister inform the Assembly of the total monies, if any, owed by Harcourt to States departments as of 25th March 2009, broken down by departments, also money owed to States owned companies such as the Waterfront Enterprise Board, giving details of how long the debts have been outstanding?

Would the Minister outline the States credit policy to the Assembly?

Answer

Monies owed by Harcourt to the Transport and Technical Services States amount to £234,000. I am not aware of any other amounts owed to States Departments for goods or services provided by the States.

Harcourt owe the Waterfront Enterprise Board Limited £5,070. Other States owned companies are not owed monies by Harcourt.

The policy for the debts under States administration, excluding Income Tax, Goods and Services Tax and Social Security, is that debts are due within 30 days of the end of the month in which the invoice is raised, i.e. if the invoice was raised in March it would be due on 30th April 2009.

A robust credit control procedure is applied to all debts outstanding beyond their due date. Debts which remain outstanding may ultimately be pursued through legal action.

2.7 THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING SHAREHOLDINGS HELD BY THE JERSEY ELECTRICITY COMPANY:

Question

Would the Minister inform the Assembly what shareholdings, if any, the Jersey Electricity Company has in Jersey Deepfreeze Limited, Foreshore Holdings Limited, the Channel Island Electricity Grid Limited and Newtel Holding Limited, and if more than 50% shareholdings exist in any of these companies, can members be told the names of the Directors and be given copies of the annual reports and accounts of these companies?

Answer

The Jersey Electricity Company’s shareholdings in these companies are as follows:

Jersey Deepfreeze Limited	60 ordinary shares
Foreshore Holdings Limited	50 ordinary shares
Channel Island Electricity Grid Limited	5,000 ordinary shares
Newtel Holding Limited	39,600 ordinary shares and 95,998 preference shares

The only holding exceeding 50% of ordinary share capital is the holding in Jersey Deep Freeze Limited. As a Jersey private company, the annual report and accounts of Jersey Deep Freeze Limited are not publicly available.

2.8 DEPUTY D.J. DE SOUSA OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING SOCIAL HOUSING WAITING LISTS:

Question

How many families are on the social housing waiting list seeking 3 bed homes (both new applicants and existing tenants on the transfer list) and what is the average waiting time for such accommodation to become available?

Would the Minister confirm that approximately 10 families have recently been moved from at least 2 social housing estates, and if so, would he outline what the plans are for these vacant properties?

Answer

As at 31st March 2009, there are 94 applicants on the combined waiting lists for three bedroom accommodation.

The average waiting time for a three bedroom property during the first quarter of 2009 was 131 days (4 months). Overall comparison figures for the UK are not readily available, however, the Peabody Trust published average waiting time figures for its waiting lists in the Greater London area for the year ending 31st March 2008. These statistics show that the waiting time for a 3 bedroom social rented home across all London Borough’s was 3 years and 8 months.

We have around 450 void properties every year and tenants are constantly moving around the stock as their needs change for a variety of reasons. However, it is understood that the Deputy is particularly interested in recent moves from Grasett Park and Oak Tree Gardens; 8 families have moved from those two estates recently. 4 of the vacated homes are to be purchased by States tenants and the other 4 have already been re-let.

2.9 DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE EMPLOYMENT OF STAFF ON THE NEW ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT SITE:

Question

How many of the workers currently employed by the Contractor on the incinerator site have been employed directly from overseas and what steps, if any, were taken to first recruit locally based workers?

Answer

The Engineering Procurement and Construction Contractor for the La Collette Energy from Waste Facility - CSBC (Jersey) Limited - is currently employing up to sixty six workers from overseas directly at the incinerator site.

Six of these workers are employed directly by Spie Batignolles Camerons Limited a Jersey registered company sub-contracted by CSBC (Jersey) Limited to lead the construction management.

Up to forty French and Portuguese workers have also been employed on site from 20th April 2009 working on the construction of the concrete structure that forms the basic shell of the building. The workers will be divided into two areas of specialist: specialist installers of the bespoke designed formwork systems and concrete placement workers. These workers will be solely employed on the construction of the specialist insitu concrete structure that forms the shell of the building comprising the ground floor slab, the waste bunker hall and tipping apron, the accommodation block and the turbine hall together with associated structures required by CNIM to support the process elements of the plant. The less specialised fixing of the reinforcement will be undertaken by a local Jersey company, FDJ Construction Ltd.

Whilst these forty workers will be peak numbers of imported labour requirement for this element of the works, i.e. prior to the arrival of CNIM the process plant engineers on site in the autumn when numbers of specialist foreign workers will increase again, CSBC (Jersey) Limited have endeavoured to ensure that any locally qualified, appropriately experienced labour were given the opportunity to work on the project by the placement of an advertisement in the Jersey Evening Post from 26th to 31st March 2009 inclusive.

It should also be noted that the construction activities associated with excavation, piling and dewatering are being carried out by local Jersey based companies, namely A.A. Langlois Haulage Ltd, Amplus Ltd and Geomarine Ltd and a number of key Jersey based staff have been seconded to the Spie Batignolles Camerons Limited team from Camerons Ltd.

2.10 DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING THE SUBMISSION OF CAMPAIGN EXPENSES BY CANDIDATES FROM THE 2008 DEPUTIES ELECTION:

Question

Will H.M. Attorney General explain what legal action, if any, can be taken against a number of candidates (successful and unsuccessful but all ‘independents’) in the 2008 Deputies elections who, well into 2009, had still not supplied details to the Judicial Greffe, as required by law, of their electoral campaign expenses?

Answer

The Law regulating election expenses is to be found in the Public Elections (Expenditure and Donations) (Jersey) Regulations, 2008 (the “Regulations”), which came into force on 25th July 2008.

Regulation 4 of the Regulations provides that:

“(1) A candidate’s election expenses shall not exceed, in the aggregate –

(a) where the candidate … is a candidate for election as Deputy or Connétable, £1,500; and

(b) 10 pence for each person entitled to vote in the election by virtue of Article 2(1), (2) or (3) of the 2002 Law.

(2) A candidate whose election expenses exceed, without reasonable excuse, the limit imposed by paragraph (1) is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.”

Regulation 6 of the Regulations requires a candidate, no later than 15 working days after the day the Poll is held, to deliver to the Judicial Greffier a written declaration of his or her election expenses and donations of the specified kind received by the candidate. Paragraph (6) of Regulation 6 provides:

“A candidate who fails, without reasonable excuse, to deliver a declaration, or further declaration, in accordance with this Regulation is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.”

Regulation 15 requires the Greffier to make declarations received by him under the Regulations available for inspection, free of charge, at the offices of the Judicial Greffe, during normal working hours.

The legal – as opposed to political - enforcement mechanism for these Regulations lies in the bringing of a criminal prosecution. Such a prosecution will be considered in cases where a file is prepared by the police and passed to the Law Officers’ Department, or alternatively to a Centenier, for a decision as to whether or not to prosecute.

The lodging of this question last week led me to make some enquiries of the Judicial Greffier. I understand there are two candidates from the Deputies’ elections, neither of whom were elected, who have not yet filed a note of their election expenses as the Regulations require. I believe the Greffier is pursuing that matter to the extent he can. As far as I am aware, the Law Officers Department have as yet received no such police files for consideration in relation to the 2008 Deputies’ elections.

2.11 DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION OF BREACHES OF THE PUBLIC ELECTIONS (JERSEY) LAW 2002:

Question

Would H.M. Attorney General clarify whether he, the States of Jersey Police or the Judicial Greffier had responsibility for monitoring and investigating any complaints of alleged breaches of the Public Election (Jersey) Law 2002 during the 2008 elections?

Answer

Unless provided otherwise in statute, the responsibility for investigating breaches of the criminal law is that of the Police. It is the Police that have the responsibility for investigating alleged breaches of the Public Elections law.

To decide whether or not to carry out such an investigation the Police normally need to be in receipt of a complaint. That complaint may be made to them directly by a member of the public or, if the matter has been raised with or comes to the attention of the Judicial Greffier or to the Law Officers, a complaint may be referred by those persons to the Police for investigation.

2.12 DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE EXCHANGE RATES FOR THE NEW ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT:

Question

Would the Minister clarify the exact total figure, as of 1st April 2009, of the additional cost to the Island’s taxpayers resultant from the failure of the previous Minister for Treasury and Resources to ensure that the exchange rates for the part of the incinerator contract to be paid in Euros was fixed before the rate dropped?

Answer

The Comptroller and Auditor General’s report identified the cost of not hedging the foreign currency element of the Energy from Waste Plant - which was NOT a decision made by the previous Treasury and Resources Minister - to be £3.06m.

2.13 DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF THE YOUTH SERVICE:

Question

Would the Minister confirm whether responsibility for the Jersey Youth Service has changed from the Assistant Director: Lifelong Learning to the Assistant Director: Sport and Leisure, and, if so, will he, as a result of this change, give assurances that Jersey will not follow the direction of some UK authorities with youth work losing its informal education focus to that of simple leisure provision?

Answer

Whilst this is an administrative matter for the Department, I can assure the Deputy of St. Helier that Jersey will not follow the direction of some UK authorities and that youth work in Jersey will not lose its informal education focus as a result of the structural changes that have taken place within my Department.

Whilst Assistant Directors within DfESC have clearly defined responsibilities, they also have a collective responsibility for the overall management of the service.

The change of the Principal Youth Officer’s responsibility from the Assistant Director Lifelong Learning and Culture to that of Assistant Director Sport and Leisure is an administrative change to balance workload between Assistant Directors, to ensure that the Youth Service has adequate access to the senior management of the Department, and to enable us to explore the natural synergies which exist between community development work, youth work, sport and leisure.

There has been no change in the philosophy which underpins youth work practice and the Youth Service – supported by the Assistant Director Sport and Leisure will continue to work towards the achievements of its published strategy.

2.14 DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR 1(1)(k) CATEGORY RESIDENTS:

Question

Would the Minister advise the Assembly as to the actual (or projected) income tax return from the Island's 1(1)(k) residents for 2008; further still, how these compare to that of 2005, 2006 and 2007?

Answer

The total tax receipts from the Island’s 1(1)(k) residents for 2005, 2006 and 2007, compiled from the latest Tax Returns and tax assessments at the Income Tax Office, incorporating personal, corporate and trust tax paid by or on behalf of 1(1)(k)’s, are as follows:

2005 - £7.1 million

2006 - £8.1 million

2007 - £8.8 million

It is not possible to give 2008 details at the current time as the 2008 assessing programme for all personal taxpayers, including 1(1)(k)’s, will not be completed until end October, 2009.

2.15 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING ARTICLE 38 OF THE JERSEY TEACHERS DISCIPLINARY AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES:

Question

Given that Article 3.8 of Appendix B of the States of Jersey Teachers’ Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (page 50) specifically precludes employees from taking part in political activities other than their statutory right of voting, will the Minister state how this policy in any way conforms with the spirit of P.17/2006 (‘Political activities by States employees’) or with the human right to full electoral participation?

Answer

The document to which the question refers was a draft which was given to the Teachers’ Unions at a meeting of the Education Consultative Council on 12th March 2009 as policy in the course of development. They were asked to revert to the Education Department by 15th May 2009 but have not done so at this stage.

There was an error on the initial draft document concerning political activities. What it should have contained was a set of words similar to those now contained in the Civil Service Disciplinary Policy and Procedure since the adoption of the new arrangements regarding political activities of States employees. That reads as follows:-

“4.11 Engaging in Political Activities

4.11.1 A politically eligible employee must be careful not to participate in political activities in a manner that might constitute gross misconduct which might render them liable to disciplinary action. Such misconduct is described as follows:-

Commenting on existing States’ Policies in an immoderate manner;
Engaging in personal attacks on members of the States:
Using for political purposes information that the employee was only able to obtain because he/she is a States’ employee.

Even in the case of an employee not seeking election, a similar approach would be applied where an employee takes a public part in a political manner and behaves in a similar manner to that described above.

4.11.2 Politically ineligible employees must not address electors or stand or announce that they propose to stand as a candidate for election to the States, nor can they publicly support the candidature of any person standing for election to the States. They may not take a public part in political activities other than to exercise their statutory right of voting.’’

Under the new Regulations, teachers are deemed to be “politically eligible” and Head Teachers and Deputy Head Teachers and deemed to be “politically ineligible.”

The error, which would have been detected in the normal course of consultation, has been corrected by the Education, Sport and Culture Department.

In my view the policy is proportionate and complies with the spirit of P.17/2006, as well as with the principles of Human Rights. However I will consider and review any representations made as a result of the consultation process.

2.16 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING JERSEY’S RATIFICATION OF UNITED MATIONS’ CONVENTIONS:

Question

Will the Chief Minister inform members what the precise reasons are for the Island’s failure to sign up to and implement the United Nations (UN) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which came into force in June 1987, and in what timescale he proposes to address these reasons for the delay?

Will he further inform members of the Island’s position and intentions regarding the UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child and Disabled persons?

Answer

1. Unfortunately the question is not correct, in that the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was extended to Jersey on 9th December 1992 at the request of the Island Authorities. Jersey prepared its fourth periodic report on implementation to the UN Committee Against Torture in October 2008.

2. In August 2000, the Jersey authorities indicated to the UK that, in principle, they would wish the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to be extended to Jersey, but there were a number of issues that first needed to be resolved. These included introduction of the new Children’s Law 2002, which came into force in 2005, and child employment legislation which is the subject of a consultation paper published by the Minister for Health and Social Services in January 2009. An officer working group is also considering a number of further legislative, practical and resource implications which may need to be addressed before the Convention can be extended to Jersey.

On 20th January 2009, I published a progress report to the States on international conventions and agreements, R.3/2009. In that report I stated that Jersey had been asked to consider whether they wished the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to be extended to the Island.

The States of Jersey has indicated that it will examine the legislative and administrative implications of the Convention and inform the UK whether or not they wish it to be extended to the Island. This remains the present position.

2.17 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE FISCAL POLICY PANEL:

Question

1. The most recent advice from the Fiscal Policy Panel warns against the impact of ‘leakage’ on the economic stimulus plan. Will the Minister

a) detail for members the major ways that leakage occurs in our economy, and

b) what impact this leakage will have on his priorities for action under the economic stimulus plan, and

c) what measures he will take to mitigate such leakage?

2. Does he accept that now is not the time to take money out of the economy through additional taxes or other means and does he accept that the imposition of a wage freeze in the public sector in the 2009 settlement would reduce the quantity of money in the economy by £7.4 million and therefore increase the impact of the recession?

Does he further accept that the depth of the recession would also be made worse by any redundancies in the public sector and that he will take appropriate steps to protect public sector jobs?

3. Will the Minister inform members how the figure of £2 million for the extension of transition protection on Income Support for a further year was arrived at?

Answer

The most recent advice from the FPP (in their 26th March 2009 letter to the Treasury and Resources Minister) is that discretionary fiscal policy is necessary, if the intention is to mitigate the adverse effects of the international crisis on the Jersey economy in the near term.
1. The FPP also point out in that letter that it is “worth bearing in mind that in a small open economy like Jersey there will be a risk that any stimulus put into the economy by the States will quickly leak out of the economy through spending on imports”. Leakage through spending on imports is one of the major ways that leakage can occur in our economy. However, it can also occur through money intended to stimulate the economy ‘leaking’ into savings, not being spent and not adding to demand in the economy.

The Minister will listen to the advice of an independent Evaluation Team made up of key officers before deciding on the projects that will be funded by the money identified for discretionary fiscal stimulus. The Evaluation Team will be required to assess the business case, value for money and economic benefits of each proposal. Leakage will be a key consideration in determining the nature of the economic impact.

The rigorous evaluation process as outlined in part b will help to mitigate the extent of any leakage from the overall stimulus package.

In setting out the plans for the fiscal stimulus package it is clear that it is accepted now is the time to be using the Stabilisation Fund to put additional money and therefore demand into the economy. However, it is not accepted that a wage freeze in the public sector would reduce the quantity of money in the economy. The overall impact of the States finances on demand in the economy is determined by the difference between all expenditure and all income not the policy adopted for public sector pay. It follows that it is not accepted that such an approach would add to the depth of the economic downturn.

It is also not accepted that the depth of the recession would be made worse by any redundancies in the public sector. The external economic environment, the success of the global policy response and our own fiscal stimulus package will be the key to determining the depth and length of the downturn in Jersey.

3. The States have agreed transitional funding as set out in the table below:

	Original 2007 (£ Million)	Extra from BP amendment 2008 (£ million)	Revised Total 2008 (£ million)
2008	9.7		9.7
2009	5.6	2.17	7.77
2010	3.7	1.9	5.6
2011	2.2	0.95	3.15
2012	0.9	0.55	1.45
2013	0.4	0.18	0.58
2014
Total	22.5	5.75	28.25

From the table it can be seen that the drop in funding from 2009 to 2010 is approximately £2M. Maintaining 100% protection for an additional year will therefore add approximately £2M to the 2009/2010 cost. Additional funds would also be required in future years.

It should be noted that since this funding was approved by the States in the Business Plan debate in September 2008, there have been other changes to the Income Support scheme which have an effect on the cost of transitional relief.

A full analysis of these changes and a revised estimate of the cost for each year of the transition is currently being prepared and will be included in the final bid made by Social Security Department to the Economic Stimulus panel.

2.18 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A POLICY FOR CHILDREN IN CARE:

Question

What emphasis, if any, will be placed on listening to and acting on the wishes of the children themselves when developing services for looked-after children in Jersey?

Answer

In terms of individual care, all looked-after children in Jersey have a named, qualified and experienced Social Worker allocated to their case who is responsible under Looked After Children Procedures for visiting, consulting and listening to the individual child on an a regular (minimum six weekly) basis. This is on top of the child’s daily contact with residential staff or foster carers.

Each child then has a comprehensive ‘care plan’ which (where age appropriate) is developed in consultation with the child and which is reviewed and updated through a system of regular six monthly review meetings, which the child is encouraged to attend and to contribute. The ‘Independent Chair’ of these meetings is highly skilled at welcoming the individual child and in assisting them to contribute to these meetings.

When it comes to ‘service development’, the position is as outlined in Recommendation 5 of the Williamson Report: Implementation Plan, where it is identified that there is much that is already being developed that will assist in providing a ‘voice for the child’ and for ‘service users’ in developing services for children and young people in Jersey:

The newly formed Jersey Child Protection Committee - Safeguarding Children Away from Home Sub-Committee is working on the development of a formal ‘Looked after Children Advocate role’ for those in care or who have recently left care.
The JCPC Procedures and Audit sub-group has within its remit the responsibility to design accessible and non-threatening ways for parents and young people to have the opportunity of feeding in their views about the child protection service and process so that the JCPC can take appropriate action to achieve change and improvement.
The JCPC Communications sub-committee is also looking at ways of making the work of the JCPC better known in the community, with one of its aims being to encourage Jersey citizens to contribute to the task of protecting children. A website is being established which will eventually provide links to self-help and voluntary representative groups which provide help to vulnerable children and families.
The Youth Service YESS project, which though a universal advice service for young people, also has an important role to play as a user friendly accessible service with a track record of engaging with young people including those who are vulnerable and disaffected.

All of this sits alongside other already established mechanisms:

Young people from within the care system being involved in meeting and ‘interviewing’ potential candidates for children’s social work vacancies to provide advice and guidance to service managers and HR professionals on those applicants that are considered, by the young people themselves, to be the most appropriate for the posts.
A Fostering Panel: made up of independent members and those drawn from relevant disciplines. The function of this Panel is to advise on the suitability of persons who apply to become Foster Carers; consider their continuing approval following annual review or any complaint, allegation or other significant change in their circumstances; and to advise on any other matter relating to the fostering service.
An Adoption/Permanence Panel: constituted in a similar way to the Fostering Panel. This body advises of the suitability of persons who apply to be adoptive or long term foster carers; considers their continuing approval as above; considers the case of any child referred to it and makes a recommendation as to whether the child should be placed for adoption; and considers proposed placements for such children and make recommendations accordingly.
An Independent Board of Visitors for Greenfields which has been established under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 Regulations.

If full funding for the Williamson Implementation Plan recommendations was to be made available, then an Independent Visitor Service for Looked After Children and an Advocacy Service for children and young people (as outlined in full in Recommendation 5 of the Implementation Plan) would be developed to enhance the existing provisions outlined above.

2.19 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING PARLIAMENTARY PRVILEGE:

Question

Will the Chairman outline for members the extent to which parliamentary privilege extends to the protection of the privacy of members’ correspondence and documentation, whether in hard copy or electronic forms:

(a) relating to the business of the States of Jersey

(b) relating to the representation of individual constituents

and how that compares with the UK and other parliamentary bodies?

Does the Chairman consider that the actions of the States of Jersey Police in their behaviour towards Senator Syvret constitute a breach of such privilege?

Answer

The extent of parliamentary privilege is an extremely complex and wide-ranging issue that parliaments across the world have cause to consider frequently. It is therefore only right at the outset to point out that it would be naïve to suggest that a complete and definitive statement of the position in Jersey could be prepared and presented to members in the one week period since the submission of this question. PPC is nevertheless extremely aware that members are keen to understand more about this issue and had already initiated research into this subject when this question was submitted. The Committee expects to be in a position to provide a more comprehensive statement to members in the coming weeks.

As a general rule parliamentary privilege is only applicable in relation to ‘proceedings in Parliament’, with that protection extending to parliamentary proceedings such as committee work and matters such as reports and propositions presented to parliament. It does not extend to members’ activities outside Parliament unless they are directly related to ‘proceedings in Parliament’ and in this context members do not benefit from any additional legal protection when compared to other members of the community.

The most definitive work in recent years on privilege in the United Kingdom Parliament, even though its conclusions have not yet been implemented, is still considered to be the First Report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege of the House of Lords and the House of Commons that was published on 30th March 1999 [1]. The Joint Committee worked for nearly 2 years on this topic and its Report sets out in great detail the nature of parliamentary privilege and its practical implications. The most relevant sections of that Report as it relates to this question are as follows –

Members’ correspondence

103. One important area of uncertainty is members’ correspondence. There has been long-standing concern about correspondence and other communications undertaken on behalf of constituents by members of the House of Commons. Members of both Houses now engage in many different activities in discharging their parliamentary duties. As well as speaking in debates, participating on committees and asking parliamentary questions, they write letters and make representations to Ministers, government agencies and a wide variety of bodies, both public and private. Constituents of members of the House of Commons expect their members to take up their concerns at local and at national level. In recent years members’ work has been transformed by a very substantial increase in this type of constituency correspondence. Most of these activities are not protected by parliamentary privilege. Article 9 [of the Bill of Rights 1689 which states that “freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament] protects parliamentary proceedings: activities which are recognisably part of the formal collegiate activities of Parliament. Much of the work of a member of Parliament today, although part of his duties as a member of Parliament, does not fall within this description.

104. This issue arose in 1958 in a case concerning a member, Mr George Strauss. He wrote an allegedly defamatory letter to a Minister on a matter he might later have wished to raise in the House, namely, criticism of the purchasing policies of the London Electricity Board. The House resolved by a narrow majority that the letter was not a proceeding in Parliament as it did not relate to anything then before the House.

105. Both the 1967 House of Commons committee on parliamentary privilege and its 1977 committee of privileges, as well as the 1970 joint committee on publication of proceedings in Parliament, considered the House’s decision was right in law. But all agreed that the argument in favour of correspondence with Ministers having the benefit of absolute privilege in defamation actions was so compelling that the law should be changed. The 1977 committee considered it was anomalous for a member’s communications with the parliamentary commissioner for administration to enjoy absolute privilege under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 while his communications with a Minister did not. The 1970 joint committee’s proposed statutory definition of `proceedings’ included:

‘all things said, done or written between members or between members and officers of either House of Parliament or between members and Ministers of the Crown for the purpose of enabling any member or any such officer to carry out his functions as such . . ..’ (our italics).

106. There is force in the view that proceedings in Parliament should include letters to Ministers raising matters which could equally well be pursued by parliamentary question and thus be absolutely privileged. The parliamentary question developed as a device for raising specific matters capable of being answered shortly and without the need for debate. The 1967 committee commented:

‘Many members now use the parliamentary question as a weapon of penultimate resort to give publicity to its subject-matter when, and only when, they cannot obtain satisfaction by correspondence; yet the House has taken the view that such correspondence does not fall within the ambit of `proceedings in Parliament’ . . .. The practical effect of this distinction seems to Your Committee to be indefensible’.

To some extent the distinction has recently been blurred further, now that a question to a Minister may elicit a reply in the form of a letter from the head of the executive agency more directly concerned. Even if not `proceedings’, such replies, when published in the official report, are protected by the absolute privilege afforded by the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840.

107. An extension of absolute privilege to members’ correspondence with Ministers would therefore seem logical. But on closer examination it would create problems of principle. Why distinguish between a member’s letter to a Minister and a member’s letter to a public official or a local authority? Should a constituent’s correspondence accompanying a member’s letter be considered part of a `proceeding’? Should a member’s reply to the constituent have the same privilege? When a matter is raised in debate in the House a member may be subject to challenge from other members. Parliamentary questions should be short and to the point, and are subject to rules of order. Letters can be extensive, and if absolutely privileged under article 9 might be used as a means of publishing with impunity defamatory statements or trade secrets. With modern photocopying facilities and e-mail, many people can easily see copies of letters, sometimes inadvertently. One reason why letters to Ministers have increased appreciably is the rise in the number of constituency cases ill-suited to proceed by way of written questions, because they are too detailed or for some other reason. If parliamentary privilege were extended to members’ correspondence, Parliament would probably become involved in attempting to make rules for correspondence, both constituency correspondence and generally, as it has for questions and other proceedings. The comparison drawn by the 1977 committee is not convincing. Correspondence with the parliamentary commissioner for administration consists mainly of complaints of maladministration by constituents, forwarded by members for investigation by the commissioner under statutory powers. By their nature these complaints may be defamatory, and exposure to defamation actions would unduly obstruct the commissioner’s investigations.

108. It remains the case that the distinction between a member’s letter and a member’s speech or parliamentary question can be somewhat arbitrary. A letter may relate to the same subject matter as an existing proceeding, and may simply be for the member a more convenient or sensible way of pursuing the same objective. It is anomalous that a member who, for example, received information that children were being abused in a named institution, would have the benefit of article 9 if he tabled a question but not if he wrote to the responsible Minister first. But the boundary of privilege has to be drawn somewhere, and the present boundary is clear and defensible. Moreover, although members taking up difficult constituency cases often receive threatening letters from solicitors, cases in court are rare. Professor Bradley summed up the position in evidence:

‘There was a strong case for [absolute privilege] in 1957 at the time of the Strauss case. . . . That strong case is still there. However, we have had the last 40 years in which the qualified privilege of common law seems to have enabled members of both Houses to carry out their functions satisfactorily’.

109. This practical consideration has weighed heavily with the Joint Committee, coupled with the absence of any defensible line between constituency correspondence with a Minister and constituency correspondence with others.

110. There is another consideration. Article 9 provides an altogether exceptional degree of protection, as discussed above. In principle this exceptional protection should remain confined to the core activities of Parliament, unless a pressing need is shown for an extension. There is insufficient evidence of difficulty, at least at present, to justify so substantial an increase in the amount of parliamentary material protected by absolute privilege. Members are not in the position that, lacking the absolute immunity given by article 9, they are bereft of all legal protection. In the ordinary course a member enjoys qualified privilege at law in respect of his constituency correspondence. In evidence the Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, and the Lord President of the Court of Session, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, both stressed the development of qualified privilege at law and the degree of protection it provides nowadays to those acting in an official capacity and without malice. So long as the member handles a complaint in an appropriate way, he is not at risk of being held liable for any defamatory statements in the correspondence. Qualified privilege means a member has a good defence to defamation proceedings so long as he acted without malice, that is, without some dishonest or improper motive.

111. Admittedly, qualified privilege is less effective than the sweeping, absolute protection afforded by article 9, in two respects. Article 9 provides a defence not only to defamation claims but also to any claim that by sending the constituent’s letter to the Minister the member committed an offence under the Official Secrets Acts or a breach of a court order. Secondly, defamation proceedings brought contrary to article 9 will generally be dismissed peremptorily, without any need for a trial, as it will be obvious from the outset that they are bound to fail. With a defence of qualified privilege, if there is sufficient prima facie evidence of malice the case will ordinarily proceed to trial for a verdict by the jury. So a member may be put to the inconvenience and expense of defending an action before he is vindicated.

112. Constituency correspondence has burgeoned over the last 30 years, but since Strauss there have been remarkably few, if any, instances of defamation actions against members who were acting on behalf of their constituents. We recommend that the absolute privilege accorded by article 9 to proceedings in Parliament should not be extended to include communications between members and Ministers.

Members’ drafts and notes

113. Drafts and notes frequently precede speeches and questions, and members often need assistance and advice in preparing them. By necessary extension, immunity accorded to a speech or question must also be available for preparatory drafts and notes, provided these do not circulate more widely than is reasonable for the member to obtain assistance and advice, for instance from a research assistant. It would be absurd to protect a speech but not the necessary preparatory material. The same principle must apply to drafts of evidence given by witnesses. This principle must also apply to drafts of speeches, questions and the like which in the event are not used. A member cannot always catch the Speaker’s eye, or he may change his mind.

114. This approach accords with the view expressed by the select committee of the House of Commons on the Official Secrets Acts (1939). The appointment of this committee arose out of the action taken by a member, Mr Duncan Sandys, in threatening to table a question regarding the inadequacy of London’s anti-aircraft defences. The draft question included information, classified as secret, about the number of available guns and their state of readiness. Mr Sandys sent the draft to the Minister. In its report the committee said there were some:

‘communications between one member and another, or between a member and a Minister, so closely related to some matter pending in, or expected to be brought before the House, that though they do not take place in the chamber or a committee room they form part of the business of the House, as, for example, where a member sends to a Minister the draft of a question he is thinking of putting down or shows it to another member with a view to obtaining advice as to the propriety of putting it down or as to the manner in which it should be framed’.

The House agreed with this conclusion.

The above extract shows that, in the United Kingdom, the protection provided by parliamentary privilege is not considered to extend to matters such as correspondence sent by members and there is no reason to believe that the position in Jersey is any different. PPC does nevertheless intend to research the position relating to documentation such as draft propositions or correspondence from a States member relating directly to a matter being brought to the Assembly to ascertain the point at which parliamentary privilege begins.

PPC notes that some members have referred to the concerns expressed in relation to the recent arrest of Damien Green MP and the search of his office and other premises. The recent report by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee “Policing process of Home Office Leaks Inquiry” (HC 157 published on 16th April 2009) raises concerns firstly in relation to the manner in which the Police were allowed by the Serjeant-at-Arms to access the Palace of Westminster without a search warrant and secondly to the proportionality of the actions of the Home Office and the police in the light of the nature of the ‘leaked’ documents. Questions of parliamentary privilege were said by the Committee to be outside its remit.

During the States sitting of 20th January 2009, the Deputy of St. John asked H.M. Attorney General to advise whether States members had any protection from investigation by the police within the States Building while carrying out their business as Ministers, Scrutiny Panel members or Back-Benchers, and to outline what protection exists and whether a warrant to search Members’ possessions, lockers, desks and computers within the States building could be issued, by whom and on what grounds.

The Attorney General responded as follows -

‘There is no special protection for any Member from investigation by the police, whether within or without the States building, other than through the ordinary parliamentary privileges which might be claimed. A warrant to search Members’ possessions, lockers, desks and computers could be issued under relevant provisions in the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003. Such warrants can only be obtained where there are reasonable grounds for believing a serious offence has been committed, of which there is evidence on the premises, and where the evidence is relevant, not legally privileged, and does not consist of excluded or special procedure material. Under the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence law, warrants can be issued by the Bailiff, the Deputy Bailiff, or in the case of many statutory provisions, by Jurat. It may well be that the Privileges and Procedures Committee, in consultation with the Bailiff will want to consider what guidance ought to be given to Members in relation to parliamentary privilege.’

As set out above PPC has already begun the research as suggested by the Attorney General and expects to be in a position to present a more definitive statement once that work is completed.

The Committee plans to publish this in the form of a comprehensive report covering all aspects of parliamentary privilege and this will include addressing issues that are raised in this question such as the relationship between parliamentary privilege and the arrest of members, the search of their premises (including searches of the States Building) and the seizure of their documents under the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003 and other legislation.

It would not be appropriate for PPC to comment at this stage on the individual case of Senator Syvret as it knows nothing about the circumstances of the police action or the nature of the material seized.

2.20 DEPUTY A.K.F. GREEN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE CONDITION OF LA FOLIE INN:

Question

Given that up until its closure, La Folie Inn on the Old Harbour had been a working public house, albeit run down, will the Minister explain what works, if any, have been undertaken within this listed building and outline -

(a) who carried out this work and on whose authority?

(b) whether planning permission was given for this work?

(d) what the department’s plans, if any, are for this building?

Answer

a) No internal works have been carried out within La Folie Inn since its closure as a public house. A structural report was carried out by a potential developer in 2005 which involved removing some wall panels and flooring.

b) Planning permission was not given for this report to be carried out.

c) Any repairs required will be made good as part of the eventual redevelopment of the site.

d) Referring to my answer to Deputy Power’s written question of 10th March 2009, work is on-going to vacate the entire La Folie site. This will be completed this summer when the workshops are relocated to the newly converted former Harbour Works building at La Collette. La Folie quay is currently being master-planned by Jersey Harbours, WEB and Property Holdings with the intention of maximising the value of the whole site for marine leisure in the long term.

2.21 DEPUTY A.K.F. GREEN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING DESIGN CHANGES TO THE NEW ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT:

Question

Could the Minister -

(a) advise the Assembly what, if any, design changes he, as the Minister for Planning and Environment, made to the original specification to the Energy from Waste plant which was discussed at a meeting on 6th November 2008?

(b) Provide a copy of the minutes of the meeting of 6th November 2008?

Answer

(a) As Minister for Planning and Environment my first formal involvement with the Energy from Waste Plant was in considering an application for outline planning permission – PP/2007/0050- submitted in January 2007. That application sought only to establish the principle of development of the Energy from Waste Plant.

During consideration of that application I was conscious that the scale of the building would have to be such that its impact could only be mitigated by an architectural design of exceptional competence complimented by similarly excellent landscaping proposals. I felt that the originally proposed ‘armadillo like’ steel building would not achieve the necessary high standards and therefore Hopkins Architects were appointed to advise on appropriate architecture.

Hopkins agreed that the existing scheme was unacceptable and suggested a completely revised design whereby the building mass was reduced by externally expressing the roof structure. Hopkins have used this device in other building designs, most notably at Glyndebourne where it helps to reduce the perceived bulk of their multi award winning fly-tower.

TTS retained Hopkins to prepare an outline planning application. I determined the outline application in October 2007, requiring that the details of the scheme be the subject of a further reserved matters application.

I must emphasis that I was not party to the decision by TTS to engage Hopkins as their architects for the preparation of the reserved matters application.

The reserved matters application was prepared by Hopkins and a consent was given. Conditions attached to the consent will ensure the quality of construction and the delivery of the detailed finishes are all of the necessary high standards.

It would appear that if the cost of the building rose it was between the outline application and the reserved matters application. During that period I was not materially involved in progressing the design and therefore cannot be held responsible for any cost increases.

This is a hugely important building as it will have a massive impact on the southern approach. Not only will it have an impact from the perspective of Islanders but it will also be seen by the approximately one million who enter the port. I have been clear throughout my tenure as Minister for Planning and Environment that Jersey deserves outstanding architecture and design. This must apply to all buildings whether public or private and only by adhering to my philosophy will the quality of the built environment of the Island improve to the standards which I consider reflect the unique nature and character of the Island.

I fully accept that the approved proposals are likely to be more costly than the cheapest alternative. However this is always the case with proposed buildings and it is my job as Minister to deliver buildings of architectural competence and to set a high standard.

Furthermore I made it very clear throughout the development of the proposals that Hopkins should endeavour to work within TTS’s budget and indeed was complimented by the former TTS Minister for taking this approach.

(b) I would like to clarify the situation regarding the meeting of 6 November 2008 referred to in the question. That meeting was, I understand, held between TTS and the Treasury and no-one from my Department was involved. I am only aware of the meeting through the disclosures that have been made in respect of the finance issues regarding the EfW project. Consequently I have no notes or minutes.

2.22 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE TESTING OF SEA WATER FROM THE CASTLE QUAYS SITE:

Question

Would the Minister inform the Assembly whether tests have been carried out on the sea-water which has been flooding the excavation pit at the Castle Quays site on the higher tides, and if so, would he give the Assembly full details of the chemical composition of this water, any variations in the test results and the causes of these variations?

Answer

Environmental Protection staff have not carried out tests on sea-water in the Castle Quays site because, to date, there has been no requirement to do so.

Prior to any works commencing on site, and in accordance with Condition 1 of their planning permission, the developer produced a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).. This CEMP, which was submitted to the Department after significant negotiation establishes that whilst it is likely that groundwater will be present in the excavation, these waters will not require controlled discharge.

This is because, as the CEMP states, if groundwater were to seep into the excavation, work would cease in order to allow the water to drain away naturally. In addition, it notes that the construction of the basement floor slab is timed to avoid high tides and that any surface water drainage from the site will be connected, by gravity, into the existing public sewer in Rue de L’Eau.

The CEMP requires that the Principal contactor will ensure that any water that may have come into contact with contaminated materials will be disposed of to the satisfaction of the States of Jersey. The contractor is therefore bound by the terms of the CEMP to be aware of the potential for waters to become polluted and to look out for any such occurrences.

Disposal methods may, in these instances be to Foul sewer, the receipt of which is the responsibility of TTS, or if the waters are capable of cleaning to strict standards imposed by discharge consent conditions, to controlled waters. If therefore, at any point, the developer requires to discharge, he is bound by the terms of the CEMP and The Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000 to consult Environmental Protection and, before any controlled discharges would be allowed, a permit must be applied for and granted. During this process the applicant and the regulator would take samples of the waters as part of the determination process.

2.23 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING SAVINGS FROM ‘SCOPE ADJUSTMENTS’ ON THE NEW ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT:

Question

In view of the fact that in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report “Energy from Waste Plant: Management of Foreign Currency Exchange Risks” of March 2009, the table on page 97 shows that a saving of £1.923 million was made on an item called ‘scope adjustments’, would the Minister inform the Assembly exactly what these adjustments were, how it was decided that they should apply, how they led to the savings quoted, and how they will affect the future performance of the incinerator?

Answer

The scope adjustments approved within the Engineering Procurement and Construction Contract are as follows:

Rationalisation of the Bulky Waste Facility for the removal of a tipping bay
Reduction of 4°C to the air conditioning control temperature differential
Removal of the hot standby Continuous Environmental Management System
Use of existing Jersey Electricity Company chimney liners
Bunker chutes to be included in the bunker wall
Adjustment for an increase in grate size
Sludge system - civil engineering and essential mechanical works
Removal of operational support to the purchaser
Removal of one shredder from Bulky Waste Facility
Additional excavation of rock due to movement of buildings
Refined landscaping allowance
Professional Indemnity insurance increase to £20 million cover
Additional requirement for an Advanced Payment Bond

Following extensive negotiations with the Contractor, it was decided by the Minister for Transport and Technical Services, on the recommendation of the Energy from Waste Project Board (which includes the Technical Adviser), that these adjustments should apply. The scope adjustments were either identified by the Contractor or proposed by the Purchaser following detailed technical review of the implications.

The scope adjustments lead to the savings quoted when these were added to the base contract price at an assumed conversion rate of €1.2729 to the Pound. The precise sums are subject to a confidentiality agreement between the Minister and the Contractor.

Whilst there is some loss of capability from the reductions identified as necessary within the scope adjustments, none will prevent the adequate functioning of the facility against the desired primary operational outcomes or lead to any reduction in the ability of the plant to meet consent requirements.

2.24 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE COST OF TRANSPORTING CONTAMINATED LANDFILL TO LA COLLETTE 2:

Question

Can the Minister give full itemised details of the cost to the States of transferring 133,000 tons of contaminated landfill from the Castle Quays site to La Collette 2 (whether by payments to Dandara to cover costs incurred by them, or by payments to contractors, or by the application of concessionary rates (reduced or zero) for taking this material at La Collette or in any other way) and advise where this cost is to be found within the Transport and Technical Services Department’s budget?

Answer

The Transport and Technical Services Department did not incur costs for transferring the excavated material from the Castle Quay site. As previously stated, to date, 133,132 tonnes of material has been received from the Castle Quay development.

However, the Department incurred costs for receiving this material and these are detailed below:

107,000 tonnes was received free of charge under the Le Pas Holdings agreement, this equates to a ’lost income’ of £1,177,000 based at £11.00 per tonne.

26,132 tonnes were charged for with gate fees that amounted to an income of £330,039

Within these tonnage figures was a component of incinerator ash (10,990 tonnes) which was separated and disposed of within a newly constructed ash pit at La Collette. The cost of receiving and encapsulating the 10,990 tonnes of ash from Castle Quays was calculated at £16.72 per tonne equating to a cost of £183,752

The revenue costs of handling waste on the La Collette site have been calculated based on the La Collette budget divided by the total tonnages received in 2008. This equates to a cost of £4.21 per tonne. Therefore the cost for receiving the remaining 107,000 tonnes of inert waste is £450,470.

In conclusion the cost of receiving 133,132 tonnes of Castle Quay’s waste is calculated as being in the region of £634,222

Departmental Budget.

These costs are to be found within the La Collette Reclamation Site budget (QBSW01).

2.25 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING CNIM INCINERATOR PLANTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM:

Question

Further to a written response to a question on 24th March 2009, would the Minister now provide details of all CNIM incinerator plants built in the UK, give details of when pollution limits at these plants were exceeded, the reasons they occurred, and for those plants where exceedances took place, an explanation of why the department believes that such failings will not apply to the Jersey CNIM plant.

Answer

The Energy from Waste plants built by CNIM in the UK are:

South East London Combined Heat and Power Plant, Lewisham 1994

Staffordshire County Council, Stoke on Trent 1997

Dudley Metropolitan Council, Dudley 1998

Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council, Wolverhampton 1998

Hampshire City Council, Chineham 2002

Hampshire City Council, Marchwood 2004

Hampshire City Council, Portsmouth 2005

Sheffield City Council, Sheffield 2007

Details of if and when pollution limits are exceeded at these plants are held by the Environment Agency who regulate waste to energy facilities in the United Kingdom via the Environmental Permitting scheme.

As was indicated in the previous answer to written question 4635, emission limits for this type of plant are extremely tightly regulated under the European Waste Incineration Directive.

According to the Environment Agency records provided by the Department’s Technical Adviser, none of the four most modern CNIM plants have had any recorded emission breaches.

It is important to recognise that a breach is not evidence of an environmental problem and is not an offence in the United Kingdom. Limits are set at levels well below those likely to cause any environmental concern.

Where a breach is reported, the Environment Agency will investigate to see what has happened and what action is appropriate. If the breach is significant, the Environment Agency will take immediate action such as imposing “Improvement” or “Prohibition Notices”. In the majority of the breaches no action is taken and is only necessary if the breaches become persistent.

Of the four older CNIM plants, it is understood that breaches for Hydrogen Chloride and Carbon Monixde have occurred. In the large majority of breaches, simple actions such as removal of blockages or better control and mixing of waste entering the plant rapidly resolve the issue.

Modern plants are better designed to cope with such issues. The Jersey plant is designed in line with the modern plants such as that in Sheffield incorporating similar gas cleaning and monitoring equipment, and will be operated to the same standards.

Since the end of 2006, the CNIM plant in Sheffield has had no reported breaches of air emissions. To have no reported emission limit breaches in over two years attests to the quality of the plant and the way the plant is operated. Emissions are continuously monitored which enables the operator to take appropriate actions if required during any potential disturbances.

2.26 THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE SALE OF STATES-OWNED PROPERTIES:

Question

Could the Minister inform members how many units to date have now been sold off as agreed in the Social Housing Property Plan 2007-2016 (P.6/2007) and outline what type of units they are, as well as the location of those units?

Answer

The following properties have been sold, through the provision of the deferred payment scheme approved in P6/2007 :-

Property

18 x units at La Cambrette (Le Squez Phase 1A)

23 x units at Le Selliere (Le Marais Phase1)

40 x units at Les Cloches (Le Squez Phase 1B)

108 Clos Des Sables

109A Clos Des Sables

11 Les Hoummets

1 Le Bel Collas

80 Grasett Park

74 Grasett Park

6 Grasett Park

9 Grasett Park

18 Grasett Park

48 Grasett Park

53 Grasett Park

70 Grasett Park

2 Oak tree Gardens

3 Oak tree Gardens

15 Oak tree Gardens

27 Oak Tree Gardens

37 Oak tree Gardens

38 Oak tree Gardens

39 Oak tree Gardens

These sales represent a mix of new build houses, refurbished houses purchased by the current ‘sitting’ tenants and those houses which became void ‘vacant’ due to natural turnover and were then sold to other States tenants who then released their existing homes for re-letting. These processes ensured that no tenants were displaced.

Open Market Sales

The following properties have been sold on the open market since July 2007.

4 Boulevard Avenue

17 Devonshire Place

19 Devonshire Place

39 Midvale Road

Medina, Seale Street

10 & 12 Duhamel Place

2.27 THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE NATIONALITIES OF THOSE CURRENTLY REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED:

Question

Could the Minister advise members of the nationality by percentage of the over 1,000 unemployed persons registered with the department?

Answer

The percentage breakdown of individuals registering as actively seeking work at the end of March 2009 is:

British (including Jersey born)	82%
Portuguese	9%
Other	5%
Polish	2%
Irish	2%

The “Other” category includes at least 14 nationalities.

Currently, nationality is recorded at the time of initial registration with the Department, based on an official photo-ID, such as a passport or national identity card. Historically, nationality was recorded on the basis of a self-declaration by the individual.

2.28 DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE NUMBERS IN RECEIPT OF VARIOUS INCAPACITY AND INVALIDITY BENEFITS:

Question

How many people are currently in receipt of Long Term Incapacity Allowance (LTIA), Short Term Incapacity Allowance (STIA) and Invalidity Allowance, and what are the illnesses/injuries that they suffer? And how many of these recipients are currently receiving an Incapacity Pension?

Would the Minister inform Members as to how many recipients of LTIA, STIA and Invalidity Allowance are currently deemed by the Medical Board as a 100% loss of faculty, and therefore unfit to work?

Could the Minister explain why a person being assessed by the Medical Board is only assessed on the specific body part affected by an illness/injury, and why the Board does not take into account the affect on the whole body of the illness/injury and the likelihood of that person being unable to work, given that many employers will not employ such a person due to there being a potential financial liability?

Answer

As at 7 April 2009, Departmental records indicate the following open claims:

	Number of open claims
Long Term Incapacity Allowance	3,035
Short Term Incapacity Allowance	721
Invalidity Benefit	1,353
Incapacity Pension	9

Incapacity benefits were updated in 2004 and LTIA was introduced by the States to replace two benefits- Invalidity Benefit (paid in respect of long term illnesses) and Disability Benefit (paid in respect of injuries). Individuals claiming LTIA are assessed by a Medical Board and awarded a benefit based on their percentage loss of faculty. Individuals receiving LTIA can receive the benefit and undertake paid employment at the same time.

There are currently 98 individuals claiming LTIA with a 100% award.

STIA is awarded on the basis of a medical certificate signed by a General Practitioner, who certifies that the individual is temporarily incapable of work, and the benefit is paid at the standard rate of £172.83 per week.

Invalidity Benefit is only available to individuals who have been claiming this benefit continuously since before October 2004, when incapacity benefits were updated. This is a long-term benefit paid at the standard rate of £172 83. Individuals receiving Invalidity Benefit are not allowed to work whilst they receive the benefit.

These benefits cover a very wide range of medical conditions. The most common conditions across all three benefits are anxiety/depression and back pain. An analysis of the open claims at 7 April provides the following breakdown:

	Depression/Anxiety/Stress	Back pain/Back injury
Long Term Incapacity Allowance	13%	14%
Short Term Incapacity Allowance	27%	9%
Invalidity Benefit	29%	10%

The Medical Officer of Health’s report for 2008 provides information on the conditions giving rise to the highest amount of benefit paid in 2007.

These are:

Rank	STIA	LTIA
1	Depression	Depression
2	Pain-back	Pain-back
3	Stress	Mental illness
4	Operation	Nervous disorder
5	Upper respiratory tract infection	Heart disease
6	Post-operation	Anxiety
7	Hospitalisation	Arthritis
8	Anxiety	Epilepsy / fits
9	Hospital Treatment	Arthritis
10	Virus infection	Chronic fatigue syndrome

The Social Security Law (Article 16) and the Social Security (Assessment of Long-Term Incapacity) Order set out the assessment principles for the award of benefit. They set out how the Medical Board should assess the loss of faculty that the individual has suffered as a result of the long-term condition.

The ability of the individual to work is specifically excluded from the assessment of the loss of faculty. The assessment is a medical assessment, not a financial one. If the individual is unable to work as result of a long-term medical condition, the Income Support scheme is available to provide financial assistance.

2.29 DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING GLOBAL WARMING ISSUES:

Question

Given the attendance of the Minister at the recent British-Irish Council, would he inform Members what the States of Jersey is doing right and wrong in terms of global warming issues? Would he outline what we should we be doing better and advise what action, if any, he plans to take to ensure this happens?

Answer

1. Background

I thank the Deputy for the timely nature of this question given that the theme of the British Irish Council, Environment (BIC(E)) summit, held on the 17th April, was climate change. The opportunity to work with the other British Irish jurisdictions on this matter was an invaluable chance to exchange experiences and knowledge and in particular receive an update from Professor Mitchell of the UK Met Office, Hadley Centre on the latest climate change scenarios. Attending Ministers were as detailed in the notes at the end of this answer.

2. Awareness of Climate Change

2.1 The production of ‘Turning Point’ – the ECO-ACTIVE guide to the Science and Impacts of Climate Change

A critical area identified by the BIC(E) forum was that of awareness of the issue of Climate Change and I feel we are making good progress here in Jersey on that issue. I refer to the recent production of ‘Turning Point - the ECO-ACTIVE guide to Climate Change’ that all Members will have received their copy of. I hope that you will agree with me that it is a highly accessible summary of the science behind climate change and the effect of greenhouse gas emissions arising from human activity on our global climate.

In addition, ‘Turning Point’ outlines the impacts of climate change on Jersey and highlights the challenges ahead as a result of the predicted climatic shifts for example longer hotter summers and warmer wetter winters. Attendees of the BIC(E) commented that ‘Turning Point’ provided a very comprehensive summary of the subject that will raise awareness and understanding of the issue preparing the way for challenging proposals for mitigation and adaptation.i

Copies of ‘Turning Point’ have been issued to a number of stakeholders and are available from the Planning and Environment Department in hard copy as well as being posted on www.ECO-ACTIVE.je for downloading. In addition we will be distributing copies to all the schools accompanied with a resource pack that highlights how climate change and associated issues can be integrated into the curriculum.

2. Mitigating Climate Change - An Energy Policy for Jersey

Awareness and understanding is the first step in addressing the challenges of climate change. Mitigation, however is encompassed by an Energy Policy and an extensive Green Paper – ‘Fuel for Thought?’ was consulted upon in 2007/2008. The Green Paper and the feedback from the consultation process has been developed into a draft White Paper and the principles of this were endorsed by the Council of Ministers in autumn 2008.

The proposed goal of Jersey's energy policy is to achieve ‘Secure, Affordable, Sustainable Energy’. This recognised that energy is essential to our quality of life, our economy and social equity. The Green Paper put forward a number of options that described the fiscal, legislative and policy measures to achieve this goal. The measures proposed fall into the following categories:

Doing more with less – reducing energy use;
Adopting sustainable energy solutions;
Ensuring a secure and resilient energy supply;
Preparing for the future.

To help make sense of the priority for action, an Energy Hierarchy for Jersey was established. In this hierarchy the first step is to reduce energy demand followed step two which is to use low-carbon fuels. Step three is to use less imported energy and then the hierarchy proposes that the other impacts of energy use are reduced. The lowest action priority in the hierarchy is to negate unavoidable carbon emissions.

The Energy White Paper will be bought forward to the States later this year and will encompass the principles of the green paper and propose a suite of policy options to mitigate Jersey’s contribution to global emissions and achieve ‘secure, affordable and sustainable’ energy for the Island into the long term. The White Paper is a cross-departmental piece of work led by the Energy policy Steering group comprising myself, the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Minister for Economic Development. It will propose challenging carbon-reduction targets in line with European best practice such as a reduction in Jersey’s carbon emissions of at least 80% by 2050 (on a 1990 baseline). The Energy White Paper will also identify the need to bring forward a strategy to measure and cope with the effects of climate change.

3. Progress ahead of the publication of an Energy Policy

Considerable progress has been made on three critical workstreams ahead of the publication of the Energy White Paper: delivering an Energy Efficiency Service; progressing investigations into large-scale renewable energy for Jersey and improving the minimum statutory thermal performance of new buildings.

3.1 An Energy Efficiency Service

Funding for the first phase of an energy efficiency programme in 2009 was agreed by the States in September 2008 (£1M); this has been supported by a voluntary contribution of £500,000 from the Jersey Electricity Company. The programme is aimed at helping low-income and vulnerable householdsii reduce their energy bills and improve the energy efficiency of their homes by providing up to 100% grants for a range of measures including loft and cavity wall insulation.

A full service will be offered incorporating, inspection, supply and fitting through approved contractors. We aim to treat approximately 800 homes over the next 12 months and the benefits are three-fold :

Low-income groups will benefit from a reduction in energy use and thus lower energy bills;
There are environmental benefits since overall energy use (and thus carbon emissions) will be reduced;
There is a stimulus to the local economy by the injection of considerable sums into the building sector e.g. cavity wall and loft installers.

The intention is that the first phase of this initiative will act as a stimulus for recurring funding and more substantial States funded programmes to encourage people to use energy sustainably and to act on climate change.

The Service will be advised by the ‘Jersey Energy Trust’ an independent unpaid body which is being constituted with a remit to monitor the progress of the scheme and provide advice for the development of the project now and in subsequent phases. An external advisor from the UK’s Energy Savings Trust sits on the Jersey Energy Trust and has been able to provide invaluable assistance in the development of the scheme as have the Advisory Group on Environmental Sustainability (AGES)iii

2. Renewable Energy for Jersey

The potential for the exploitation of renewable energy, at a large enough scale to displace fossil fuel imports in the long-term was identified in the Energy Policy Green Paper. In the summer of 2008, I appointed a Tidal Power Steering Group (TPSG), chaired by the Constable of Grouville, to advise how the Island might best exploit tidal stream technology in its territorial waters.

The TPSG kindly reported back in December 2008 with the unanimous conclusion that tidal power could, in the medium term, make a significant and increasing contribution to the energy requirements and security of the Island for the rest of this century. Furthermore, the possibility should be actively pursued by an appropriately qualified and mandated group. The TPSG have recently recommended to me the format of the mandated group with a remit to:

Investigate funding options around the environmental and technical investigations;
Investigate the legislative and commercial framework necessary to attract resource developers;
Liaise with our neighbouring jurisdictions to explore potential collaborations both in harnessing the resource and selling to potential markets.

I am convinced that this is a vast long-term opportunity for Jersey and shall be shortly be convening the first phase of this group. I had the opportunity during the BIC(E) summit to hold extremely productive discussions with Lord Hunt of Kings Heathiv whose portfolio includes tidal power.

I consider opening discussion with the UK and our neighbouring Channel Islands critical to achieving the most advantageous progress. Should the Island develop large scale renewable energy generating capacity, it is likely to wish to export the majority into a larger grid system for two reasons : i) to ensure a smoothed supply (renewable generation is intermittent) and ii) to take advantage of higher tariffs from European jurisdictions which have legal and financial incentives to purchase renewably generated electricity. Any such approach will require careful consideration of the benefits to Islanders but early discussions are essential and the BIC(E) presented a welcome opportunity to begin this process.

3. More challenging building bye-laws

Over 30% of our carbon emissions arise from the built environment locally so the thermal performance of this sector is very important in ensuring minimal energy sue and emissions as well as an improved living environment for the eventual occupier. I have been working to bring forward more challenging updated building bye-laws to ensure that new developments perform to the highest standards and I expect these to be completed and in force by the autumn.

The Deputy also asks if I would outline what we should we be doing better and advise what action, if any, he plans to take to ensure this happens. My answer to this is that I would have liked to have seen the Energy Policy White Paper bought to the States earlier. However, over the last year there has been considerable movement in the global market place in respect of energy prices as well as in the global economy as a whole. We have taken the view that we must account for this rapidly changing scene in the White Paper and so further work has been carried out to ensure it is robust but unfortunately this has caused a delay. Nevertheless, I believe my commitment to progress the three significant workstreams outlined above has meant that we are still making considerable meaningful progress whilst ensuring that we will be bringing forward a challenging policy for debate by the States that proves Jersey takes its global environmental responsibilities seriously.

NOTES

Ministers Attending the BIC(E) event

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister for Sustainable Development and Energy Innovation and Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, UK
Mr Michéal Kitt TD, Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Ireland
Stewart Stevenson MSP, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, Scotland
Jane Davidson AM, Welsh Assembly Government Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing, Wales
Hon John Shimmin, MHK Minister for the Department of Local Government and the Environment, Isle of Man
Deputy Peter Sirett, Minister, Environment Department, Guernsey
Minister Sammy Wilson, MP, MLA Minister of the Environment for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland
Minister Conor Murphy MP, MLA, Minister for Regional Development, Northern Ireland
Senator Freddie Cohen, Minister for Planning and Environment, States of Jersey

i Mitigation involves taking actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to enhance carbon sinks aimed at reducing the extent of climate change. Adaptation involves taking action to plan for and minimise the impacts of climate change.

iiThe Phase 1 target group for this initiative are those home-owners in receipt of either the Cold Weather Payment or that are on the 65+ Health Scheme. Further phases of the scheme are expected will to extend this group. Those in States housing are not included in the scheme since there is a parallel scheme running within the States to upgrade these properties. Ways in which to extend the scheme to tenants living in accommodation owned by private landlords are being explored.

iiiAGES is Co-Chaired by Dr Lee Durrell and Sir Nigel Broomfield

ivMinister for Sustainable Development and Energy Innovation and Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

2.30 DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING OUTBREAKS OF THE NOVOVIRUS IN JERSEY:

Question

On how many occasions, if any, in the last 5 years have there been serious outbreaks of the Norovirus or other vomiting and diarrhoea type bugs in Jersey?

How many serious food poisoning admissions and/or treatments were classified or treated by the Hospital during the last 5 years?

Answer

In the 5 years to the end of 2008:

There were 8 Norovirus outbreaks across all hospital sites.
There have been 2 large confirmed food borne Norovirus outbreaks and an extended outbreak in summer 2005 affecting some 13 hotels, 3 coach tour businesses, the ferry and airport.
There were 22 bacterial food borne outbreaks.
25 patients with food poisoning were admitted to hospital.

2.31 DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE RECRUITMENT OF SECRETARIAL STAFF:

Question

Would the Minister explain how the recent advertisement for a Personal Assistant and Secretary to provide services to himself and the Department’s Senior Management Team is consistent with seeking efficiencies in government?

Answer

The Home Affairs Department has been fortunate to date in having had no need to provide administrative support to previous Ministers, who had different working arrangements. Consequently, although the Department has been able to make running cost savings in the past, it is nevertheless the case that Ministers cannot function efficiently without the appropriate level of administrative support.

The advertised post is part-time and seeks to provide support to the Minister and Assistant Minister who are now based within the department. The new appointee will only provide cover to the wider Department in the absence of the Department’s only other PA / secretary, who currently provides all administrative support.

2.32 DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE OWNESR OF THE PLEMONT HOLIDAY VILLAGE:

Question

Would the Minister outline the negotiations, if any, that have occurred with the owners of the Plemont Holiday Village site given the terms of P152/2008, which required that the outcome of such negotiations be presented to the States to enable members to decide what further action, if any, they might choose to take?

Answer

A meeting took place on 21st January 2009 with representatives of Northern Trust, the company which owns the Plemont Holiday Village site, in order to establish whether or not this company would consider the sale of this property to the Public, and, if so, at what price.

Northern Trust made it clear that whilst, as with any other property in their ownership, they might consider a sale, prior to entering into any negotiation, they intended to proceed with a planning application for either 30 large houses (that number being the officer's recommendation when they previously submitted a scheme for 36) or the scheme they have now submitted for self catering units. Northern Trust also indicated that they considered this site to be a significant investment opportunity, from which they fully appreciated value might only be realised in the long term.

A previous report to the Council of Ministers identified that Northern Trust had acquired the Holiday Village in December 2005 for £4.85m. Current Holding costs, including consultants fees, interest etc have been estimated to be in excess of £6m.

The open market value of the site depends on its current use and the ability to generate an income stream from that use, or any change in use permitted by planning consent. It is difficult to assess the value of the property based on the current building stock without an accurate assessment of the costs of restoration of these buildings to a “fit for purpose” condition. However, it is likely that such costs would be prohibitive, yielding a value significantly below current holding costs. As Northern Trust have already indicated that they would not be prepared to consider a sale which did not produce a return on their original investment, it would be pointless to proceed with a valuation based on current use of the existing buildings.

It is unwise to speculate in an open report as to the price which might be achieved for a purchase by the Public of the Plemont Holiday Village site, as to do so could prejudice the Public’s ability to eventually secure a negotiated acquisition price at best value.

The outcome of the current planning application will establish the likelihood of Northern Trust materialising hope value on this property.

Architects representing Northern Trust have requested a further meeting on the 6th or 7th May in order to progress negotiations, following which it is anticipated that it will be possible to provide States Members with an indication of the likely cost of acquiring the Plemont Holiday Village

2.33 DEPUTY A.K.F. GREEN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE COST OF CHANGES MADE TO THE ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT DESIGN:

Question

Would the Minister provide a detailed breakdown of any extra costs incurred as a result of changes made to the original specification to the Energy from Waste plant by the Minister for Planning and Environment?

Answer

There are no extra costs that can be directly attributed to the Minister for Planning and Environment for changes made to the specification for the Engineering Procurement and Construction Contract for the La Collette Energy from Waste Facility.

However, as indicated in a previous response to written question 4362 from Deputy Tadier, it has been made a Planning condition that the Department employ Hopkins Architects Limited and Townshend Landscape Architects Limited throughout the contract until commissioning in order that the building be designed in accordance with agreed Architectural Design requirements and the landscape design which received planning consent. The full additional cost of this has not yet been confirmed, but has been estimated for budgetary purposes at £260,000.

3. Oral Questions

3.1 The Deputy of St. Mary of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the withholding of information relating to the increased cost of the incinerator when the matter was debated on 9th July 2008:

There is a slight difficulty with this question because it has got garbled in transmission. I know not why and I did ask for it to be rectified but I still see that it is the same question down here. So I hope the T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) have been able to answer question I meant. [Laughter] It is just one figure and because of editing process through the Greffe it has got changed. So I will point that out as I read the question. Would the Minister advise whether information was withheld from Members regarding the fact that the cost of the incinerator had increased by £3.62 million when the matter was debated on 9th July 2008 from the £106.31 million (not as it says in the Order Paper) indicated in Projet 73/2008 and, if so, why was this done and what purpose was served by this action?

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

I think my response should cover the Deputy’s question. I can confirm that no information was withheld from States Members regarding the cost of the La Collette Energy from Waste facility when P.73 of 2008, the Energy from Waste facility funding, was debated on 9th July. The additional architectural costs required to obtain a detained planning consent was the result of design negotiations that took place between my department, the preferred bidder and Hopkins Architects Limited. These negotiations formally commenced in August 2008 and progressed until the point at which the plant had received detailed planning consent and the engineering procurement and construction contract was signed on 14th November 2008.

3.1.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

If I may ask a supplementary; I am fairly astonished by that answer: “No information was withheld in Projet 73” but the fact is that the cost given for the overall project, including de-commissioning of Bellozanne, was £106.31 million. That was the cost when the proposition was lodged 6 weeks before. We learned from the Auditor General’s report that in the intervening 6 weeks the costs had gone up by £3.62 million and I can refer to the exact paragraph if the Minister wishes.

The Bailiff:

Just ask the supplementary question, please, Deputy.

The Deputy of St. Mary:

I was referring to L.T.I.A (long-term invalidity allowance), short-term invalidity allowance and the invalidity allowance. Has he made any discretionary decisions on exceptional circumstances whereby a person has been given 6 months’ back-pay?

Deputy I.J. Gorst:

Maybe it is just me that is getting confused by the movement between the benefits but, as I just answered, the contributory benefits are prescribed and the backdating elements are prescribed by the Social Security Law.

3.2.4 Deputy G.P. Southern:

The Minister may not know that we have on record officers of his department stating clearly that when an application form is requested it goes out with a date stamp and if not returned in a fortnight’s time, a new form is sent out and re-stamped with a fortnight further on, effectively removing all form of backdating from payments for income support. Will he seek advice from his officers that that is in fact the case of what happens?

Deputy I.J. Gorst:

Of course, I am always prepared to seek advice from my officers and I am prepared to do it in this case for the satisfaction of the Deputy.

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

The adjournment is proposed. If Members agree we will adjourn until 2.15 p.m.

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

The Deputy Bailiff:

Before we return to question time I can inform Members that Projet 63, Code of Conduct for elected Members of the States - review, has been lodged by the Deputy of St. John. I understand that replaces a previous one.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I would like to inform Members that I would like to withdraw my proposition for splitting the Minister for Planning and Environment. Having spoken with him ... [Laughter] I knew what I meant. I mean what I meant. Having spoken with the Minister for Planning and Environment this afternoon at lunch, he has assured me a new system is being put into place to address some of the concerns that I have expressed and I feel that, rather than going ahead into a second debate at this stage when Members would like to continue with present arrangements having taken a sounding, it would be better for business and better for the Assembly if I withdraw this at this time to allow these measures to take place and to monitor the outcomes. So I would respectfully request to withdraw that.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Very well. Thank you very much, Deputy. That proposition is withdrawn.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

Well, I only take responsibility in answering questions for the police. I, therefore, cannot account for the actions of the Judicial Greffe, the Solicitor General or anybody else. It does not seem to me that that particular complaint has yet come to the attention of the police and if the complainant wishes it to be investigated, then they should most certainly bring it to the attention of the police.

3.5 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Chief Minister regarding the number of apprenticeships currently offered within the States:

How many apprenticeships, if any, are currently offered within the States? Will the number be increased given the economic climate and if so, when and by how many?

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

Any employers awarded admitted body status into the Public Employees Contributory Retirement Scheme pay all the relevant employee contributions as calculated by the scheme’s actuary. There is no cost to the States. The structure of the scheme provides the admittance of employers other than the States. A number of organisations participate in this way, including 8 of the Parishes, the Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service, the Jersey Heritage Trust and Family Nursing. The States Employment Board are mindful of the potential for various problems that could arise in relation to admitted bodies and adopts a cautious approach when awarding admitted body status. I would add that teachers in the private schools are, of course, admitted to the Teachers Superannuation Fund and, again, the employers pay all their contributions.

3.9.1 The Deputy of St. John:

In recent months has any private school been refused permission to join this particular scheme?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

An application from one school has been turned down, yes.

The Deputy of St. John:

Could the Minister repeat that, please?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, it has, he said.

3.10 Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding increasing the upper limit of income tax:

Following the announcement this week that the U.K. Chancellor will be increasing the upper limit of income tax to 50 per cent and given the urgent need for Jersey to consolidate its tax base in coming years, will the Minister advise the Assembly if he would consider a similar policy for Jersey, albeit at a much lower rate, so that those who can contribute more will be able to do so?

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

I have answered the Deputy and others on a number of occasions on this issue and the answer is from me an emphatic no. I consider the 20 per cent rate of tax in Jersey to be sacrosanct and I believe it to be the foundation of our prosperity. I would remind the Deputy that the recent fiscal strategy approved by this Assembly phased-out tax allowances for high earners, something that I was very interested to see the U.K. Chancellor - perhaps that is something that we agree on - announce in his budget last week. I believe that it would be extremely unwise to change Jersey’s tax system. I believe that we now need a period of stability. I intend to focus my energies on dealing with the downturn, protecting the jobs of Jersey people and improving the efficiency of State’s departments, not tinkering with the tax system.

3.10.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

A supplementary; notwithstanding the discord within the Council of Ministers regarding the sacrosanct nature of the 20 per cent tax level, is the real reason not that, even were the Minister minded to increase the upper tax rate, we have created so many tax avoidance mechanisms in Jersey that we would effectively be hoisted by our own petard?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I think it is very clear that the U.K. Chancellor will want to review the outcome. I understand the U.K. Labour Party view that they want to symbolically put in a 50 per cent rate of tax, but there are some hard questions about the amount which it is going to raise. I repeat to the Deputy, I believe that our low tax system is the foundation of our success and I have no intention of bringing forward to this Assembly proposals to engage in tax policies that other governments have shown, to their cost, wrecks their economies.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Could I ask the Attorney General why the regulations for a search warrant to be issued under the Data Protection Law were not followed in this particular case, if he would care to speculate as to the thinking of the police, and whether that should have taken priority?

The Attorney General:

I am certainly not going to speculate on what the decisions of the police might be. The police are entitled to exercise the powers which are conferred on them by the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence Law and, in my view, that is quite clear.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Are you going to declare an interest, Senator Syvret, in this matter.

3.12.3 Senator S. Syvret:

Yes, Sir, I will declare certainly an indirect interest, yes. It is an example a few other Members in this Assembly could follow. If the Attorney General is asserting, as he did, that the use of Article 29 of P.P.C.E. (Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence) in this context was lawful, does he then accept by extension that similar grounds could be invoked to use Article 29 of P.P.C.E. to basically search any property by simply using the mechanism of arresting a person who steps out the door?

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I must protest at this line of questioning is going on while there is a subject under investigation.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Will the Minister confirm that while employee social security contributions are not disregarded for income tax purposes, employer contributions are allowed to be set against taxation on company profits at the rate of 52 per cent and, if so, will the Minister undertake to address this anomaly?

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

I am not sure that the Deputy understands the system here. I will attempt to explain it. Employees get no tax relief for their social security contributions in their tax assessment, however Article 70A of the Income Tax Law allows as a proper deduction against profits of a trade or profession by a self-employed individual 52 per cent of the total of social security contributions paid by the self-employed person. That equates to the employer’s social security contribution that would be payable if the person was an employee and which an employer obtains tax relief as an expense. The measure was introduced in 1980 on grounds of equity for the self-employed as opposed to companies and professions. There is no anomaly as I can see it, indeed quite the opposite. This measure was warmly welcomed, I am told at the time, and has caused no controversy since it was introduced some 30 years ago.

3.14.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Will the Minister undertake to ensure that Lord Foot who has this statement in the back of his latest report is clarified equally as I just have been?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I do not believe it is Lord Foot, it is Michael Foot, and if he requires, and his officials, any confirmation then I am happy to do so at a meeting that we are having later on today.

3.15 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding Article 26(1) of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961:

We are flying along, I thought I might be having to seek to lift Standing Orders. Would the Chief Minister confirm that Article 26(1) of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961 is not in line with the equivalent United Kingdom law whereby since 1968 an appeal against a conviction must be allowed if the jury’s verdict is in all the circumstances of the case considered unsafe or unsatisfactory and, if so, will he in the interests of human rights bring forward, for approval, an amendment?

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

I am aware that the Jersey Court of Appeal Law is different to that of the U.K.’s equivalent law. I have not seen any case for suggesting that Jersey’s law needs to be changed and I do not assume that the U.K. provision is any better than ours although that may be the case. I will be asking the Law Officers’ Department to review this issue and offer advice in due course. However, given the current work programme of the Law Officers’ Department I do not regard this as a high priority at this time. Once I have received the advice from the Law Officers’ Department I will, of course, be happy to deal with more fully the question the Deputy has raised.

3.15.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

The Chief Minister will recall that one of the reasons for delaying the implementation of the Jersey Human Rights Law for 6 years was to allow for an audit of all the laws which might not be human rights compliant, can the Chief Minister inform me whether in actual fact an audit on this particular law was carried out to ensure that it was human rights compliant when we agreed the Appointed Day Act in 2006?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I cannot specifically confirm or deny whether this particular law was validated for human rights compliance. I have no reason to question that it is, but now that he has raised the point with me I will make that actual firm question to be asked, and clearly if it is not human rights compliant I will come back at an early stage.

3.16 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the arrest of Senator Syvret and the action taken by the States of Jersey Police:

It is good I did not put any money on the horses because obviously the draw was very poor for me, but we are getting in there. Given the concerns expressed regarding the arrest of Senator Syvret, would the Minister advise whether he has asked the States of Jersey Police for a report which addresses the concerns? If he has, is he satisfied with the action taken? If he has not called for a report will he give his reasons for not doing so?

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

This question relates to a current criminal investigation which at this stage is still an operational matter. I have not asked the States of Jersey Police for a full report because this would only be appropriate once the matter is concluded. It is a very important constitutional principle that States of Jersey Police Officers have operational freedom without political interference from the Minister for Home Affairs or from any other politicians. However, the States of Jersey Police are ultimately accountable for the way in which operational matters are handled. I have, however, received a detailed factual statement as to what occurred, part of which I would have shared with this House last Tuesday if the debate had taken place and will share when the debate takes place. I am satisfied that the police had a power of arrest in this case and a power to search under Article 29 of the P.P.C.E. Law and that the operation was carefully planned with the benefit of legal advice from a senior prosecutor.

3.16.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I am pleased to hear that the Minister has now called for a report but I would have hoped that we would not have had to wait for a States appearance or until we particularly debate a particular proposition. I would have thought it might be prudent to maybe, with hindsight, that the Minister will agree that possibly he should really have made a statement soon after the arrest to allay the fears of other States Members and the general public to keep them informed. As I said last week, if it was not for the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) many of us States Members would not have been aware what was going on, so will the Minister possibly be persuaded to make his statement earlier than States Members having to wait until 12th May?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No, my opinion is that this is not a matter in which it is appropriate for me to make a statement for a whole number of reasons. First, because if I make a statement that will give the impression wrongly that I am in charge of what is essentially an operational matter, and that I am not. Secondly, because if I do so it will give the impression that this matter is treated differently from other matters concerning people who are not States Members. No, I am very strongly of the opinion that all people, whether States Members or not, should be treated in the same way by the police. No one is above the law but no one should be treated differently because they hold an important public position. If I had made a statement that would have been singling out the individual and the case for special treatment which, in my opinion, would be wrong.

3.16.2 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I can understand that the Minister comes to that conclusion however, possibly, if I had been a Minister I would have handled it differently. I think the public have a right to know when something splashed all over the front page… and it is in the public interest, I would have thought, to have a statement from the police. All we had… I do recall seeing a letter in the J.E.P. almost condemning the J.E.P. about the statement they themselves had put in the paper and it may have been helpful if the Minister had made the statement. Can I just ask again, and I will make it quite clear, there is no way that I would expect the Minister to advise whether the police should have 10 men down King Street on duty doing the role but I do think the Minister’s role is to ensure the accountability of officers of an operational duty, and possibly again could I try to persuade the Minister to make a statement ahead of the debate on 12th May.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I think I have already answered that question and given my reasons why I do not think that is appropriate.

3.16.3 Senator S. Syvret:

Since the raid I have spent some days, in fact, writing to a variety of my constituents whose often deeply personal private information including some case files relating to child abuse issues were taken by the States of Jersey Police Force. I have had to inform my constituents of that profoundly shocking fact and they are deeply disturbed by it. Will the Minister undertake to have examined the taking of the police and the copying by the police of this information, and take legal advice as to whether it was lawful or in fact whether it was a breach of the rights of my constituents?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am afraid I find the question too complicated to understand it. Could it be simplified?

Senator S. Syvret:

Certainly it can be simplified. Have my constituents had their human rights breached and indeed the Data Protection Law breached in this respect by the police taking substantial quantities of their information and their files and copying it during the raid?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am unable to answer that question.

3.17 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the accountability of the Police:

It is a slightly different take on the same issue. To whom and in what ways are the police accountable?

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

This is almost a good question. [Laughter] The reason why it is not quite a good question is because as the questioner well knows I am involved solely with oversight of the States of Jersey Police and not with oversight of the Honorary Police, and therefore I am going to decline to answer any questions in relation to the Honorary Police who are, of course, ultimately accountable to the Attorney General. They also have some accountability no doubt to their Connétable, so I have probably answered that question anyway without answering it. [Laughter] The answer in relation to the question concerning the States of Jersey Police is quite complicated. Ultimately they are accountable to the people of Jersey but in fact in practice the mechanism is that they are accountable to the people of Jersey by virtue of the senior officer, the Chief Officer of Police, being accountable to the Minister for Home Affairs. The Minister for Home Affairs, in turn, is accountable to the States of Jersey and the States of Jersey Members are, at least theoretically, accountable at election time to the public of the Island. That is the general structure. I have certain statutory duties. I have duty to secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient force. The Chief Officer is responsible to me for the general administration and discipline, training, and organisation of the force. I deal with disciplinary matters relating to the Chief Officer and I have the power to suspend him. Lower ranks of police officers are accountable to the higher ranks. The Chief Office of Police is also responsible for the implementation of policy which is set by myself as part of the Council of Ministers in accordance with the States Strategic Plan and, in particular, there is of course an annual policing plan into which the Minister again has input. Although the States Police have operational freedom, which I have said repeatedly today is an important constitutional principle free of political interference, they are ultimately accountable to the Minister by virtue of the chief officer being made accountable to the Minister, and that would include in relation to the way in which they carried out operational matters.

3.17.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

With everyone being accountable to everybody it all seems fairly tight. But I wonder, if for example we had a situation… and there was one, as the Minister may recall in the north of England, where a Chief Constable was particularly enthusiastic in arresting certain members of the community, as you may recall. Would that be allowed to continue under this incredible system of accountability which he has outlined to us? At what point would he intervene, for example, if he felt the Chief Officer of this force was, for example, becoming over enthusiastic in arresting certain members of a certain section of the community?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I would be entitled to intervene if I thought that a policy decision was not being carried out and, of course, I would be entitled to start asking questions about general policy matters at a fairly early stage. But, of course, there is this tension between the responsibility for policy and overall responsibility on the one hand and operational matters on the other. In the U.K. of course there is a police authority who are effectively the employers of the police officers, so the situation is made even more complicated.

3.17.2 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Could I ask the Minister; how frequently does he meet with the Chief Police Officer to discuss operational matters and how the success of operational matters took place? How often do you meet with the Police Chief Officer?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I do not generally meet to discuss operational matters. I meet to discuss policy matters more so. I have meetings probably once a fortnight, we are now setting up a structure of monthly meetings, but I meet when need occurs and of course I may sometimes pick up the phone to talk to the Acting Chief Officer about a particular matter about which I was concerned. I mean, for instance, in relation to the matter in which the Deputy of St. Martin was asking questions before, when I saw there was an issue in relation to search powers I spoke to the Acting Police Chief to check that the police did have appropriate search powers and to receive assurances from him in that regard. But that was unusual.

3.17.3 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Earlier I asked about a complainant who had attempted to complain to the police, it was sent away to Citizens Advice Bureau; who are the police accountable to for failing in their duty in that type of situation?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I cannot answer that because do not know ... I must apologise to the Deputy, I may have misunderstood him earlier on. I did not realise he was saying that an attempt was made to complain to the police. I failed to understand that. I have to say that the police were wrong if, in relation to a complaint of the nature he was talking about, it were sent away. That could be a failing of an individual officer to understand the situation.

The Deputy Bailiff:

That completes question time but the Bailiff has given leave for one urgent additional oral question which is on the Member’s second supplementary paper and it is a question which Deputy Shona Pitman wishes to ask the Minister for Housing.

4. Urgent oral question to the Minister for Housing

Deputy S. Pitman:

I do ask this question because there are 69 potential first-time buyers who have been asked to find a mortgage within a very short period of time and the risks that are involved in that. Would the Minister advise whether people who have expressed an interest in the purchase of properties under the Homebuy Scheme at La Providence have been told that they must set up a mortgage by 1st May 2009, and if so would he confirm that only one bank has so far expressed an interest in the scheme. If so, advise why the scheme is still going ahead.

Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing):

First of all I would like to thank my Assistant Minister who has done a tremendous amount of work, many, many hours of negotiating, working with officers in bringing this scheme virtually to fruition, so I would like to thank him publicly for all the work he has done. In answer to the Deputy, it is not correct that the 69 people who have expressed an interest in purchasing a Jersey Homebuy home at La Providence have been told they must have mortgages in place by 1st May. All buyers were written to last week to advise them of the prices of the homes, the allocation process and the likely timeline. In practice, while most banks will give in principle advice, mortgages cannot be confirmed until such time as the specific property being bought has been identified, and that cannot happen until the allocation process has commenced and each individual buyer has been allocated a property. The allocation process is set to run from 1st May until 30th May. In regard to the second part of the question, we are well aware that there is one bank that has agreed to loan on several of these properties but we are in an unprecedented time as far as the economy is concerned. It is fair to say that some banks are not lending and those that are are being more prudent in respect of what they lend and who they lend to. My department has been working behind the scenes on this and there have been numerous meetings of lenders and with the Jersey Bankers Association. Further meetings are planned for the next 2 weeks with specific lenders who have indicated a willingness to lend on the Homebuyers Scheme, not predominantly one bank but several others.

4.1 Deputy S. Pitman:

As there are 69 potential buyers and only 46 homes, there is a lottery that will be held on Thursday, I believe, and in the letter that has been sent to these people the department asked for confirmation from a lender of borrowing potential by 1st May. We are talking about 69 families with hopes of owning their own home. Is it not highly risky to ask these people with 5 days’ notice, because they got a letter just on Saturday, to go out and get confirmation of a potential mortgage when all, bar one bank, has expressed that they do not want to be part of the scheme and this one bank has only expressed an interest. Is it not nonsensical and irresponsible on the part of the Minister for Housing that most of these people will find that their bank will not give them a mortgage? Bearing this in mind, why has the department asked these families to do so?

Senator T.J. Le Main:

All these persons that have indicated they would like to purchase Homebuyer have already sought financial advice from lenders on mortgages. They have still all indicated that they are willing to proceed on the prices indicated. There may be, and there probably will be, one or 2 that may drop out for one reason or another. But this is a fair process. It will be drawn as we did years ago with a lot of other developments we did in a fair and transparent manner by the Greffier, and those who are lucky to be in the 46 will then be able to look at the properties and then firm-up their mortgages. It is high time this development ... we have people who have sold properties living with parents desperately waiting for these homes.

4.2 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Could the Minister with regard to the Homebuyers Scheme clarify the position regarding the warranties on these new-build houses? It seems to me that the States are buying a new house and then reselling them from the description we had. The Minister can correct me if I have understood incorrectly, because where does the liability for the warranty fall?

The Deputy Bailiff:

I am not entirely clear that arises out of the question, Senator.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

Perhaps my Assistant Minister could answer that point if that was ... as far as I am concerned ...

The Deputy Bailiff:

Could the Minister tell Members what the latest state of play is with the States loan system within the Island? Is it no longer in play for first-time buyers to have a home?

Senator T.J. Le Main:

I do not know what that has got to do with Homebuyers; it is in play and the maximum to borrow is £120,000.

5. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Economic Development

5.1 The Deputy of St. John:

Can the Minister please give the Members the total value of monies that the States are being asked to put out for the Alternate Insurance Service Limited given that we read in the media that sums of money are going to be given to quite a number of persons who have made bad investments. That being the case, is it his intention to bring this item to the House for debate?

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

The total sum is not clear at this stage, but it will be no more than £600 million. [Laughter] I am glad to see such a reaction, Members are clearly awake. In particular the Minister for Treasury and Resources. The maximum amount that any investor would receive under the scheme, we are following the scheme which is currently operating in the U.K., the Investor Compensation Scheme which allows a maximum of £48,000 per investor. As far as the second and final part of the question the Deputy raised; will the matter come to the House? No, the decision has been made. The decision was taken or the request or information was taken to the Council of Ministers and the request was made to the Minister for Treasury and Resources for the appropriate funding, which he has approved in principle.

The Deputy of St. John:

Could we be told the total exposure to the Island please?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Maximum £600,000.

5.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

The Deputy of St. John has asked the first part of the question I was going to ask; the second part, it may have been partly answered but I would like to explore it a bit further. There is no investor compensation scheme in place in the Island except for recognised funds and I would like to know, although you are following the U.K. Financial Service Compensation Scheme Rules, under what powers has the Minister approved this particular payment?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

The decision was taken to follow the guidelines of the U.K. system and that was exactly the decision taken. That is a scheme that runs in the U.K. and we felt that it was reasonable to use those parameters when deciding on whether or not to support this request for compensation. Is there a second part to the question?

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Would that also extend, when you talk about local businesses, to taxis and buses because there have been extremely long queues when people arrive at the airport and at the harbour which is frankly embarrassing, I believe, and not sending out the right message to the tourists?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Absolutely and I share the frustrations of the Deputy in that matter. Sadly, the taxis are outside of our direct control. As the Deputy is probably aware it falls with Transport and Technical Services. It is a matter that I have mentioned and will have further conversations with that Minister about. It is a difficult area but we do need to deal with it and try and get a far better service. One point I could add is that a new shuttle service from the harbour is about to be introduced, which is a free service I believe, running from the harbour to the central terminus and that is a very positive sign for people arriving on the Island.

6. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Chief Minister

6.1 The Deputy of St. John:

I will go back to my earlier question, if I may. Could the Chief Minister give me the reaction of the Migration Advisory Group and the Minister for Housing with regard to an application for a (j) category U.K. appointment at T.T.S.?

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

I have absolute confidence that the Migration Advisory Group will look at any application for a (j) category licence and field it on its merits. I believe they will do that with this application just as with any other.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Do you wish to ask a follow-up question?

The Deputy of St. John:

Yes, I also asked about what the views were of the Minister for Housing?

Senator T.J. Le Main:

No idea. [Laughter]

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I am not going to speak for the Minister for Housing. He is capable of speaking for himself. My view is that I have confidence in the Migration Advisory Group.

The Deputy of St. John:

At the end of the day the question is to the Chief Minister and he should find out what his fellow Ministers are thinking on this. I would expect the answer to come from the Chief Minister, not to have to put the Minister for Housing on the spot. It is not him that has taken on this role.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

I am quite happy to answer that.

The Deputy Bailiff:

No, no. This question is for the Chief Minister.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

This is a question for the Migration Advisory Group of which the Minister for Housing is one member. It is the Group which comes to a decision and the Minister for Housing would no doubt put his input, I believe, forcefully at the group meeting and discusses it. At the end of the day if I have any doubts as to the ability of that group then I will certainly raise them but I have none.

6.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

With the planning application to remove the caretaker’s office from Cyril Le Marquand House in order to accommodate more civil servants in the Chief Minister’s Department, would the Chief Minister tell us who are these people who need that extra accommodation and whether this is part of his cutback campaign?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

If they were to accommodate more civil servants I would have more sympathy with the question. What we are trying to do is to run the central organisation of the States in a more efficient manner. What I am seeking to achieve is to bring into Cyril Le Marquand House the senior management of the Economic Development Department, who are currently run and operate from a different building, so that we can have that department, the Treasury and the Chief Minister’s Department all under the one roof. I believe that that will lead to improved decision making, swifter decision making and more joined-up thinking. That is the reason why this is being done and it will free up other accommodation elsewhere which we are in no doubt paying rent, which we no longer require.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Can I follow that up? Therefore, will the States have to pay for an item or unit of accommodation for the caretaker now we are removing one unit out of the Island’s housing stock and, secondly, has he got a firm promise that the very dispersed empire of Economic Development will indeed be reduced by that particular building being rented out or being sent back to the private sector?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Firstly, that accommodation has not been occupied by a caretaker for some time now. It has been vacant accommodation serving no useful purpose so it is a good use of empty space. As for the Economic Development Department and any other departments’ use of office space, we will be considering shortly an office development strategy as part of the overall property strategy. The Economic Development Department I know is committed, as I am committed and the Minister for Treasury and Resources is committed to making sure that we make the best use of States property assets including office accommodation. It is my intention, and I am sure their intention, to ensure that that accommodation is rationalised and brought together as soon as the leases permit.

6.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

How seriously does the Chief Minister take the warning from the U.K. Prime Minister that attention will, henceforth, be directed to matters of tax avoidance rather than merely tax evasion by H.M. Treasury and the O.E.C.D. (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) authorities?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I take it very seriously indeed because I think it indicates to me the acknowledgement by the U.K. Prime Minister of the valuable contribution which Jersey has made among the Crown Dependencies generally in promoting the ideas of greater fiscal transparency and greater co-operation among other nations. We believe that the example that Jersey has demonstrated is being used now by Gordon Brown as a spur to maintain and develop that impetus and we are happy to continue to work alongside the U.K. Government in order to achieve that.

Deputy G.P Southern:

Does the Chief Minister accept that the signing of a number of T.I.E.A.s (Tax Information Exchange Agreements) will no longer be sufficient to keep Jersey on the so-called ‘white list’ and when does he propose to engage with the U.K. Government over, what he calls, fiscal transparency?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The signing of agreements is one demonstration of Jersey’s commitment to ongoing global co-operation. By itself that is not necessarily sufficient but it does, I think, indicate that Jersey is showing a lead, is showing a good example, and is in the forefront of developing that particular line of approach. I think as that line of approach gets followed by other countries, as no doubt it will, it will lead to standards around the world generally being raised thanks to the impetus shown by Jersey. Will that be enough in the future? No, of course it will not and that is why we continue to work with the U.K. authorities. The Deputy asked: “When will it start?” I had discussions the week before last with Lord Bach, the U.K. Under-Secretary. Today we are meeting, as the Minister for Treasury and Resources said, with Mr. Michael Foot and the team are looking at that and we are continually working to ensure that Jersey continues to demonstrate the highest standards of probity, the highest standards of co-operation and to transparency.

6.4 Deputy J.A. Hilton:

Last week, after reading the proposition that was lodged by Deputy Le Claire on Family X, I emailed the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers requesting that the funding be found to provide the care that is so desperately needed for these children. There has been a lot of correspondence circulating in the past 3 or 4 days, I want to know if the Chief Minister has had an opportunity to read the correspondence in the papers behind this case and whether he has formed an opinion on the matter and, if so, what is that opinion?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I have read the papers and I have formed an opinion. At this stage it is not a fully informed opinion. I would like to have more background information particularly from the Health Department and from the former Minister for Health and Social Services. Like all such issues there are 2 sides to a story and I want to make sure I get the full picture before I jump to conclusions.

6.5 Deputy M. Tadier:

Does the Chief Minister agree with the Pope’s decision to honour John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network by awarding him the medal of Iustitia et Pax, Justice and Peace? [Laughter]

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Certainly I am happy that the Pope is capable of making up his own mind in choosing to whom he awards and whichever awards he chooses to do so. I am not going to try to influence his decision and certainly I have little comment to add to that particular question.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Am I really to believe that the Pope did not consult the Chief Minister before choosing the award? [Laughter]

6.6 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Given the answer from the Minister for Economic Development, how did the Council of Ministers reach the decision to release funds regarding the Alternate Insurance Services Limited when there is no Jersey statute to do so and what precedent does this set?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The question of the investors in Alternate is one which caused the Council of Ministers considerable discussion but we did have to take a guidance from clear directions in respect of court proceedings in respect of that case which highlighted certain deficiencies which were pointed at the Government to put right. We felt a moral obligation to listen to that legal advice and legal comments from the judge concerned and implemented the position. On that basis we felt that it was the appropriate decision to make to deal with the genuine plight of people who, in this particular instance, were not sophisticated investors but typically what one might call widows and orphans.

Deputy J.M Maçon:

Are there any other questions of the Chief Minister? Very well, we will call a close then to questions of the Chief Minister. There are no matters under J. Under K, Statements of matters on Official Responsibility. Firstly, the Chief Minister will make a statement regarding P.49, child abuse compensation claims: freedom of expression for survivors.

STATEMENTS OF MATTERS ON OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY

7. Statement by the Chief Minister regarding P.49/2009 ‘Child abuse compensation claims: freedom of expression for survivors’

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

I apologise for the length of this statement but in the proposition P.49 the States are asked to agree that in respect of claims being made against the States of Jersey by survivors of child abuse, the States shall not offer, seek or impose any form of confidentiality clause in the negotiations or settlement with claimants and their representatives and to further agree that the States shall not make a request to the court, future redress board or similar body considering compensation claims to impose such a clause as part of any judgment or settlement. The Council of Ministers completely agrees with the sentiments of this proposition and would want to support it. However, while seemingly very attractive there may be circumstances in which it would not be in the best interests of an individual claimant. The Council of Ministers would, therefore, wish to put forward an amendment to ensure that in one respect, and only in this one respect, the option of negotiating confidentiality should remain open. I would, therefore, ask Senator Syvret to allow the proposition to be deferred to allow such an amendment to be brought forward which I hope would then allow all of us to unanimously agree the amended proposition. I have drafted the outline of an amendment which is before the States today and it is just to add the words to the end of the proposition. I quote: “With the exception that there may be circumstances in which commercial terms, including the sum of the settlement and any associated conditions, may be subject to a confidentiality agreement” so that it reads: “The States are asked to decide whether they are of the opinion to agree that in respect of claims being made against the States of Jersey by survivors of child abuse, the States shall not offer, seek or impose any form of confidentiality clause and any negotiations or settlement with claimants and their representatives and to further agree that the States shall not make any request at court, future redress board or similar body considering compensation claims to impose such a clause as part of any judgment or settlement with the exception that there may be circumstances in which commercial terms, including the sum of a settlement and any associated conditions, may be subject to a confidentiality agreement.” Given that the motives of the Council of Ministers seem very similar to those of Senator Syvret, Members are asked to consider sympathetically a request for a short delay in the debating of this proposition. If the proposition is deferred I will undertake to present this or a very similar amendment as soon as is practical once it has been fully considered by the independent legal advisers. I would like to, very briefly, outline the reason for the amendment but first let me be very clear that I and the Council of Ministers believe that any individual should be free to speak openly and honestly about their experiences, always recognising that they must be mindful of the law and the impact on other members of society. We therefore agree that the States should not offer, seek or impose any form of confidentiality clause in any of the investigations or settlements with claimants which would impair their ability to speak of their experiences. However, it is very easy to envisage circumstances in which in order to settle one individual’s valid claim, without prejudicing the interests of other claimants or the public, the size and related terms of the settlement should remain confidential. This amendment would allow such an agreement to be concluded where it was appropriate to do so. Civil claims are at a very early stage and the States legal advisers are in discussions with lawyers, appointed by claimants, concerning these claims. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed and one preliminary issue concerns a legal representation of claimants. It is understood that a number of claimants are being represented by lawyers under conditional fee agreements whereby success fees are payable and those fees will operate to reduce any sum that might be payable to any claimant. As claimants are entitled to legal aid in Jersey it is a concern that the best interests of claimants are not best served by the present arrangements, and this is being raised with the lawyers concerned. In conclusion, I hope that States Members will understand that these are very complex matters. People who establish that they have been subject to abuse must receive the support, respect and understanding that they deserve and the Council of Ministers will do all in its power to ensure these are delivered. However, we have also to be aware of the wider public interest. I believe that with this very simple amendment, that will not infringe the rights of any individuals, we should be able to achieve that difficult balance. In the short time available we have not been able to take all the necessary advice from our independent advisers and I hope the States Members will allow us the opportunity to ensure that we take the very best decision in everyone’s interest. So I hope that Senator Syvret will agree to defer this proposition in order to ensure that the States has the best advice available before we take our decisions. I do not believe that there is any overriding urgency for taking the decision today or probably tomorrow as there are no present restrictions on any claimants’ rights to speak freely about their experiences nor is there any intention to impose any such restriction. I hope that we are able to consider this amicably in the best interests of the individuals concerned and their families.

7.1.1 Senator S. Syvret:

I wondered if the Chief Minister could inform the Assembly whether this amendment is going to approval because I can certainly say that if I tabled an amendment of this nature it would be rejected out of hand because the effects of the amendment is to negative a proposition. Quite clearly it is a wrecking amendment designed to basically destroy the effect of the proposition. I certainly will not be accepting this amendment nor will I be willingly agreeing to the deferment of the proposition.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I do not believe it is a wrecking amendment as the Senator implies. It has approval in principle but, as I have said, it is a draft amendment which has to be subject to legal clearance so I cannot commit at this stage to say that that really has clearance because clearly the Chair cannot finally clear an amendment until they see the final wording of it.

7.1.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

That seems to me to be a very confusing statement that the Chief Minister has just made. The fact is he has not addressed the point made by Senator Syvret that this is a negative of the amendment. Will he please address that before I ask him a further question?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

In my view and I have sought advice on this, it is not a negation of the proposition. It simply amends one part of it dealing with the financial terms. Other than that the claimants are perfectly at liberty to say what they like, see whom they like, when they like within the normal confines of the law.

7.1.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

The final paragraph of his statement says that there are no present restrictions on a claimant’s rights to speak freely about their experiences nor any intention to impose such a restriction except if that impinges on the commercial terms that are accepted. It seems to me that the statement itself is a contradiction in terms, would the Minister not agree?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No, the amendment is not saying or certainly not intending to say that should there be any commercial confidentiality requirement that would restrict the claimants’ ability to speak in general terms about their experiences because I am saying that they can still speak freely about their experiences whether or not there is commercial confidentiality on the actual sum of the settlement. That is not in question. That is why I equally say that this is not a negation of the proposition whether the amendment that I am proposing is accepted or rejected does not affect the individuals’ rights to speak freely about their experiences.

7.1.4 Senator B.E. Shenton:

When I lodged P.1, which was lodged for 2 months, the Council of Ministers made their comment 3 days before the debate. When I lodged the Reg’s Skips proposition the Council of Ministers lodged their comment on the same day of the debate. The Chief Minister is now coming here at the last minute with an amendment to a proposition, may I respectfully suggest that the Council of Ministers get their act together and abide by Standing Orders which is quite clear. I would tend to agree with the other speakers that this is a negative amendment and I reluctantly agree with Senator Syvret that it should not be accepted.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Yes, my question is really one for the Chair and I would ask, on a practical point, what happens now if Senator Syvret does not agree to defer the proposition because this seems to be what the nub is of the problem?

The Deputy Bailiff:

That is a matter entirely for the Assembly. That concludes time for questions to the Chief Minister on that statement.

8. Statement by the Chief Minister regarding public sector pay in 2009/2010

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

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I heard Deputy Trevor Pitman accuse the Deputy of St. John of wanting cover up. I know that perhaps you did not hear that, but I heard that [interruption] ... he used the word “cover ups” in the context of the Deputy of St. John and I think that is inappropriate. Would you care to comment?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Deputy Pitman, what did you say?

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I asked the Deputy as he was saying a question should not be asked and if he liked cover ups. I think it is a perfectly valid question. It was not an accusation.

The Deputy Bailiff:

It clearly carries an inference, does it not?

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I would not make that accusation over my colleague, but I think he is very wrong so I will withdraw it.

The Deputy Bailiff:

That completes questions to the Attorney General.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

May it be helpful to Members: the Chief Minister was asked under what arrangement, under the Public Finances Law, allocation was made to Alternate investors. I can advise Members and I circulated an email of the Ministerial Decision which was made public in respect of the Alternate investor compensation together with all other matters which under Article 15(1) of the Public Finances Law the Minister for Treasury and Resources makes on an annual basis in regard to year end under-spends. If any Member wishes to ask me questions in request of that Ministerial Decision, I am more than happy to do so. I have circulated it to Members but it was under Article 15(1) of the Public Finances Law and relates to under-spends from 2008 which are allocated after seeking advice from the Council of Ministers.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

If I may before we proceed to Public Business, I am informed that this is the appropriate moment to ask permission of the House to seek whether I can add P.60/2009, my proposition on the arrest and detention of Stuart Syvret, to the list of matters for Public Business, since on Thursday it will be eligible to be heard if it is on the list and to be dealt with on Thursday and I seek your advice as to how I may do that.

The Deputy Bailiff:

You may at this stage propose that it be added to this session’s Order of Business. One moment while I consult with … Yes, Deputy, we were just checking but you have to give 2 days’ notice but I understand you did inform the Greffier that this is what you would ...

Deputy G.P. Southern:

I did, Sir, and obviously while it can be dealt with on Thursday if it is on the list I would also seek permission at the appropriate moment under 26(7) to deal with it one day early if we get to it by Wednesday. So I formally propose that with the House’s permission we add P.60/2009 to the list of business.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is that seconded? [Seconded]

The Connétable of St. Mary:

I wonder if I can ask, there is an amendment lodged in the name of the Privileges and Procedures Committee. It was lodged on 27th April. What would happen to the amendment in this case?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Neither of them will have been lodged for the correct time; is that right, Greffier?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

One of them will not be.

The Deputy Bailiff:

If the Assembly agrees to take the proposition on Thursday by which time it will have been lodged, then either the amendment cannot be debated or the Assembly would have to agree that it is so urgent in the interest of Jersey under the Standing Order that it …

Deputy G.P. Southern:

If it is of any help to Members I am minded certainly at this stage and I think I would be accepting that amendment, I think it is a reasonable way forward.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, but it still requires Members to decide whether it was sufficiently urgent that it could be added. So the proposition before the Assembly is to add P.60/2009 to the matters to be considered at this sitting.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Can we have the appel please?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes. The appel is called for on whether to add P.60/2009, which I think is entitled the Arrest and Detention of Senator Syvret, to the list. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting. The Greffier will close the voting. The proposition is adopted: 30 votes pour, 14 votes contre and one abstention. So then it is added to the list.

POUR: 30	CONTRE: 14	ABSTAIN: 1

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS

10. Police Complaints and Discipline: extension to Honorary Officers conducting Parish Hall Inquiries (P.30/2009)

We come to the first item of Public Business which is P.30, Public Complaints and Discipline: Extension to Honorary officers conducting Parish Hall Inquiries, lodged by the Deputy of St. Martin and I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion: (a) to agree that the Police (Complaints and Discipline) (Jersey) Law 1999 should be amended so the definition of complaints is extended to include complaints against Honorary Police officers conducting Parish Hall Inquiries, and (b) to request the Minister for Home Affairs to bring forward for approval the necessary amendment to give effect to the decision.

10.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Before I begin I would like to pick up on a point that Senator Shenton said earlier on this afternoon and it is one that I have made before and it has been made by other back-benchers too, is the fact the unfairness where a back-bencher finds comments on their desk the day of a debate particularly when a proposition has been lodged as long ago as 5th March. [Approbation] I also did make a request of the Connétable. I know my good friend, the Constable of St. Ouen, will agree that I did say I would be more than happy to meet and that is when I lodged it way back in March, so it is rather disappointing I have the comments today. That said, they are nothing new; they are more or less a rubber stamp what the Attorney General said so they do not really affect me but the principle is I would ask that people who are going to lodge comments, they do at least lodge them 3 or 4 days before the debate. It gives the person an opportunity to read them. Right, I will get underway and I think we will be running late. So accountability is one of the most important elements in any modern and mature society. Police accountability is vital because the police have the ability and the power to affect the lives of each and every member of the public including States Members. Because of the extraordinary powers and to ensure that police officers can enjoy the respect of the community it serves and like a number of other professions, police officers are subject to a statutory Complaints Law. Jersey is no different. I was present in this Chamber in 1995 when Members gave approval to the Defence Committee to commission a review of the policing system in Jersey. The review was undertaken by a panel of local residents under the chairmanship of Sir Cecil Clothier. During the course of the review, it heard from a considerable number of witnesses and made visits to a number of establishments including Parish Hall Inquiries. In July 1996, the panel published its report and made a number of very important recommendations. Among the recommendations was: “That a Police Complaints Authority should be adopted and passed into law as soon as possible.” It also recommended that: “The Honorary Police should be subject to a disciplinary regime as strict as that for States Police and a new discipline code applicable for all members of the Honorary Police should be produced.” Just over 2 years later, 22nd September 1998, the States approved P.162/2008, the Draft Police (Complaints and Discipline) (Jersey) Law 1999. The purpose of the law was to establish a Police Complaints Authority and the ability for members of the public to make complaints against States and Honorary Police officers. Part 3 of the law deals with complaints and other matters concerning members of the Honorary Police. In Article 17 a complaint is defined as: “Any complaint about the conduct of a member of the Honorary Police that is submitted to the Connétable of the Parish in which the member serves.” I will repeat. A complaint is defined as: “Any complaint about the conduct of a member of the Honorary Police that is submitted to the Connétable of the Parish in which the member serves.” Therefore, if the law was intended to exclude any particular conduct of the Honorary Police, the law would have been drafted accordingly. For example, if the law was intended to exclude officers from the ambit of the law when conducting Parish Hall Inquiries, it would have said so. Nowhere in the law does it state that complaints about the decision to charge will not be accepted as a complaint. Neither does it state that the position of a Parish Hall Inquiry is essentially a prosecution process and to that extent that it is, it falls outside the scope of the 1999 law. Therefore, unless there is some other law of which I am not aware of, I submit that all Honorary Police officers irrespective of their rank, activity, role or the function they perform are within the ambit of the Police Complaints Law Regulations and Discipline Code. It should be noted that nowhere in the Police Complaints Law or the Regulations is a Parish Hall Inquiry defined. There is certainly no mention that it is essentially a prosecution process which I will refer to later. Sir Cecil Clothier and his panel devoted 4 pages to the Parish Hall Inquiry and made 8 recommendations. So Cecil described a Parish Hall Inquiry as an ancient institution in Jersey but it defies classification in a modern legal framework. Some of those whose evidence to us would assert that that is the charm and virtue of the Parish Hall Inquiry, but as a body we are not so easily charmed and we require evidence of virtue. In Evaluating the Role of the Parish Hall Inquiry published in 2004, Helen Miles and Peter Raynor said that: “A Parish Hall Inquiry is of great antiquity. It offered a very rare, possibly unique, example of a traditional form of non-court based justice operating routinely in a modern context.” I believe it would be helpful for Members to note what the Miles and Raynor report had to say about a Parish Hall Inquiry and I will just quote from page 3 of their report: “For the purpose of this article, it is useful to summarise the characteristics of the Parish Hall Inquiry although this may be familiar to some readers. Any person reported for committing any offence in Jersey will ultimately appear before a Centenier who will decide what action is to be taken in respect of the alleged offence. In all but serious offences, offenders will be invited to attend the Parish Hall of the Parish in which the alleged offence was committed to have their circumstances reviewed by the Centenier of that Parish. A Parish Hall Inquiry refers to the process of preliminary investigation conducted by a Centenier to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution and whether or not it is in the public interest to present the matter before the court. The Parish Hall has no legal definition and is not a court of law. Inquiries are usually held in the evening. Attendance is voluntary and attendees attending at any time request that the case be heard before a Magistrate. If a person warned to attend a Parish Hall Inquiry does not attend, the Centenier may choose to issue a summons requiring a person to appear before the Magistrate unless the evidence or the offence is considered to be so trivial as to waste court time. The purpose of the inquiry is for the Centenier, (1) to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a charge, (2) if so, whether it is in the public interest to prosecute or whether the matter can be dealt with in some other way at the inquiry, and (3) if the matter is to be dealt at the inquiry, the appropriate method of disposal. The term ‘Parish Hall Inquiry’ is a misnomer in that the hearing is held by the Centenier can be convened anywhere within the boundaries of the Parish in which the alleged offence took place. Parish Hall Inquiries may be conducted on the roadside or in parishioners’ homes. Reference to the Parish Halls came only after the construction of the late 19th and early 20th centuries when the alleged offenders would be warned to attend the Parish Hall to see the Centenier. The inquiry is a private hearing and it is a matter for the discretion of the Centenier as to whether an attendee may be accompanied by any person. Results are not published in the widely read local newspaper. The outcome of the inquiry is recorded by the Criminal Justice Unit at the Police Headquarters. This does not constitute a criminal conviction but is regarded as a ‘Parish Hall sanction’. This record may be produced at subsequent inquiries and court appearances within the Island. There is no requirement to declare Parish Hall sanctions on job applications or visa requests. There is no reference to sanctions meted out at Parish Hall inquiry in the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Jersey) Law 2001 because they are not recognised as criminal convictions.” Like Cecil Clothier, Helen Miles and Peter Raynor, I support the concept of the Parish Hall Inquiry. However, if it is to continue to defy classification in a modern legal framework and be held in private it is of paramount importance that those involved in operating it must be accountable in law. Probably the only thing the Attorney General and I are going to agree on is that this debate is not necessary. However, we agree for different purposes. I believe the debate is unnecessary because I believe the Police Complaints Law which I voted for in September 1998 ensure that any complaint about the conduct or competence of a States or Honorary Police officer whether on or off duty is already within the ambit of the Complaints Law. However, because of the Attorney General’s interpretation and ruling there is now uncertainty as to whether Honorary Police officers conducting Parish Hall Inquiries come within the ambit of the 1999 Police Complaints Law. As one will see in paragraph 2 of his comments, the Attorney General says: “The position is that the Parish Hall Inquiry is essentially a prosecution process and to the extent that it is, it falls outside the scope of the 1999 law. However, that is not to say that there will be some occasions when there is a conduct of Parish Hall Inquiry which merits being treated as a disciplinary issue; the essential differences between misconduct which is disciplinary and incompetence, which is a matter which should be addressed by the Attorney General.” I totally disagree with that interpretation. It would be easier to walk away and not bother about the interpretation of law but I believe it is not good government, neither is it appropriate for the Honorary Police or the general public that the Complaints Law now lacks clarity. I would hope that Members by the end of this debate will agree that the law does exactly what it was always intended to do; that if anyone has a complaint about a police officer, whether it is about his conduct or competence including when conducting a Parish Hall Inquiry, the complaint will be investigated in accordance with the law. Members who will have read the report that accompany my proposition will have noted as a result of poor policing and lack of supervision, the motorist was subjected to months of anxiety and inconvenience all because he stood up for what he believed was an injustice. It also proved costly to the taxpayer who has had to pay for the motorist’s costs. Following the motorist’s unlawful arrest and court appearances, quite understandably he lodged complaints against the States Honorary Police, not out of vengeance, but because he wanted to ensure that the officers involved do not inflict their bad practices on other unsuspecting members of the public. Therefore, I believe it is important that Members know the circumstances which led to the complaint being made against the Centenier who carried out the second Parish Hall Inquiry. It is also important to note that in light of the Attorney General’s comments, the complaint was not just about the decision to charge but to a number of other failures either side of the decision to charge. I believe the complaint should have been accepted because as we shall hear, the Centenier’s actions were within the ambit of the Police Complaints Law and it would be wrong for the Attorney General’s decision to remain unchallenged because in my view the present situation is unsatisfactory. I remind Members it is not a requirement for anyone to attend a Parish Hall Inquiry which is held in private. The Parish Hall is not defined in the Complaints Law or the Regulations and neither is conduct or misconduct, competence or incompetence defined. In late 2007 about 2.30 p.m. in St. Clement a motorist was driving his lorry and accompanied by a 15 year-old son. His attention was drawn by hooting and blue flashing lights from an unmarked car to his rear. He stopped his vehicle and was approached by a man in plain clothes who told him that he had a defective rear light. While checking the insurance the man, who eventually said he was a Vingtenier, saw a piece of cloth on the dashboard which was cluttered by other items including documents and tools. The word “police” was on a piece of cloth. It should have been obvious to anyone that it was not an official police sign nor was anyone impersonating police. The good gentleman up on my right is not a man who could be impersonating police. However, the Vingtenier accused the motorist of impersonating police. The motorist told the Vingtenier that he cleared rubbish from houses and various related jobs. His son had found the cloth when clearing property and asked his father if he could keep the sign because he collected police memorabilia. The boy had put the sign on the dashboard to take it home. When the boy tried to confirm his father’s statement, the officer told him to shut up. In the officer’s notes he has recorded a motorist allegedly saying: “It was just the lad messing about. He found it in a pile of rubbish.” Therefore, the officer knew the sign was not the motorist’s but his son’s yet he cautioned the motorist for impersonating a police officer and warned him to attend a Parish Hall Inquiry. A week later, as directed, the motorist who lives in St. Ouen went to St. Clement’s Parish Hall and after waiting considerable time to be seen, on inquiring when he was to be seen he was told that he was not on the list. He showed the note requesting him to attend a Parish Hall Inquiry and as a result the Vingtenier who had ordered him to attend was sent for. The matter was never formally investigated because the Vingtenier tried to persuade the motorist to plead guilty and accept a caution for impersonating police. Quite understandably, the motorist refused to accept a caution for something he was not guilty of. He asked the officer for his details because he wished to take the matter further. The officer reluctantly gave his name and told the motorist that he was going to refer the matter to the States Police. So one wonders why the matter was not dealt with by the Centenier and why there was no Parish Hall Inquiry. Also, why were the States Police being asked to intervene? A couple of days later, the motorist wrote to the Attorney General complaining about the Vingtenier and making it clear that if he was to be charged with impersonating police, he should be charged without further notice. If not, he asked that the cloth with the word “police” that had been taken by the Vingtenier be returned to him. A couple of days later the Attorney General very efficiently acknowledged the letter. He said he was directing the Connétable of the Parish to request a Chief Officer of the States Police to conduct an investigation into the complaint. He also said he had notified the Police Complaints Authority of the complaint. Therefore, everyone in a supervisory position in both the States and Honorary Police were aware of the existence of the complaint and presumably the fact that a motorist wished to either be charged without delay or the sign be returned. Also, as a complaint was made presumably it would be investigated without delay. Unfortunately, that was not the case because a week later the motorist was phoned at his home by a States Police officer informing him that they wished to interview him about impersonating police. The motorist told the officer of the complaint against police and said he had nothing further to add apart from either charging him or dropping the matter. Unfortunately, this was not acceptable to the officer who a few days later arrived at the motorist’s front door and said unless he attended Rouge Bouillon Police Station he would be arrested. The motorist told the officer that he had previously told him there was nothing more to be said and if it was his intention to charge him then they should do so. This explanation was not acceptable to the officer who then arrested the motorist and took him to Rouge Bouillon where the custody sheet records the reason for the arrest: “(1) was to secure evidence, (2) to preserve evidence and (3) to obtain evidence by questioning.” The reason for detention was: “There is insufficient evidence to charge at this time. Detention is required in order to obtain evidence. I am satisfied that the arrest is lawful, necessary and proportionate to the offence being investigated.” That statement is very important as we shall see later. I submit the arrest was unlawful. If a Parish Hall Inquiry is not mandatory, the States Police involvement at the request of the Honorary Police was an extension of the inquiry whereby there is no power of arrest by either the Honorary or States Police. However, the unlawful arrest is not germane to the proposition, but the fact that the States Police was of the view that there was insufficient evidence to charge, which is of paramount important. This is because, as was his right when questioned by the States Police, the motorist exercised his right to remain silent. He had previously twice told the officer he had nothing further to add and the motorist stayed true to his word. Therefore, as no evidence was obtained by the interview, it must follow there was insufficient evidence to charge before the interview and there was insufficient evidence to charge after the interview. After that interview, the motorist, as is his right, lodged a complaint against the police for unlawful arrest and detention. As Members will have read in my report, a month later the same officer disgracefully and vindictively called the motorist’s home at 8.15 a.m. on a Sunday morning waking up the whole family to give him a notice to attend a Parish Hall Inquiry a month later. The motorist attended the Parish Hall Inquiry as warned and was seen by a Centenier. It was as a result of the Centenier’s conduct that eventually led to the motorist making a complaint which the Attorney General has ruled to be outside the ambit of the Police Complaints Law. The Centenier told the motorist that he had been asked to attend so he could try and resolve the ongoing problem. He said he had a report in front of him and he was totally new to the case so he would be listening to both sides. He had certain recommendations but it was entirely up to him how he would deal with the matter. The motorist never learnt of the recommendations or what the other side had to say because no other person or no one else on the other side appeared. Also one is left to wonder whether the recommendations ... whether the matter should be recorded as no further action because anyone with any modicum of good sense would have realised that that should have been the outcome. It should be noted that even though at the outset the motorist had said the sign was his son’s, no one had interviewed his son. It is also apparent the Centenier had not read the supporting papers including the Vingtenier’s notebook which has stated that the sign was the motorist’s son. Also no one had checked to see if the sign was an official police sign. I will remind Members that the States Police have said that there was insufficient evidence to charge so how could the Centenier charge the motorist? Had the Centenier investigated the matter in a diligent way there was no way he could have charged the motorist because in paragraph 2(2) of the Code on the Decision to Prosecute it states that it is the duty of the Centenier to make sure that the right person is charged for the right offence and the facts are given to the court. As the Centenier failed to carry out the proper investigation, if there ever was a case he charged the wrong person and also for the wrong offence. However, before being formally charged the Centenier told the motorist that he could charge him with impersonation but he considered it such a minor offence that if he agreed to be charged with the offence he would give him a Parish Hall caution. The maximum fine for the offence was £20. Members will recall that the Vingtenier had previously tried to persuade the motorist to plead guilty and accept a Parish Hall caution. Now we have a Centenier again attempting the same thing. The Centenier failed to carry out the requirements of the Code on the Decision to Prosecute and then failed to carry out the requirements contained in Code C of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence Law. He also warned the motorist to attend the Magistrate’s Court but did not ensure that the court was advised or submit the papers because when the motorist attended the court his case had to be adjourned as neither the Centenier nor the papers were at the court. I will not continue the catalogue of misconduct other than to say the motorist was found not guilty when the case was eventually heard. The motorist understandably lodged a complaint against the Centenier listing a number of complaints. However, the Attorney General refused to accept the complaint on the grounds that in his view Parish Hall Inquiries are essentially a prosecution process and not a policing matter. Therefore, the complaint was not within the remit of the Complaints Law. On behalf of the motorist, I wrote to the Attorney General questioning his decision. However, the Attorney General maintains his position and says he accepted the complaint against the Vingtenier because at the time the Vingtenier was acting as a police officer and not part of the prosecution. He further stated that his decision was in line with the amendment to Article 21, paragraph 5, approved by the States in 2007. Given that the Attorney General is now justifying his decision to reject the complaint based on the 1988 Attorney General v Devonshire Hotel Limited case one wonders why he did not give that reason for rejecting the complaint. However, in his letter the Attorney General claimed that as a result of the amendment, if he did not think he would prefer any criminal charge or hold any disciplinary hearing in relation to the conduct of the Centenier in question as a prosecutor, the matter could consistently be subject to informal resolution under Article 21. Informal resolution, however, would require him to direct the Connétable to deal with the matter and as it is a prosecution matter and not a disciplinary matter, he did not think it appropriate for the Constable to do so. All this shows that the 1999 law was intended to cover policing matters and not prosecution matters. I must admit I had to read the letter a few times to understand the legal speak. However, I am of the view that there was no chance of the complaint being subject to an informal resolution, the complaint should have been registered and investigated. The Attorney General’s refusal to accept the complaint because he deemed the Parish Hall Inquiry to be essentially a prosecution matter and not a policing matter was, in my opinion and with respect, an error. This is borne out in paragraph 2 of the Attorney General’s comments which I partially refer to: “The Parish Hall Inquiry is essentially a prosecution process and to the extent that it is, it falls outside the scope of the 1999 law. However, that is not to say there will be some occasions when there is conduct at the Parish Hall Inquiry which merits being treated as a disciplinary issue rather than a prosecution issue. The central difference is between misconduct which is disciplinary and incompetence, which is a matter to be addressed by the Attorney General. The 1999 law is structured as it is to give relevant authority to the Attorney General as titular head of the Honorary Police and I suggest that the Attorney General should be left to decide on a case-by-case basis which are matters of competence and which are matters of conduct. If that is the conclusion then no amendment to the 1999 law is necessary.” I remain of the view and with respect to the Attorney General but I believe he was in error when he decided to reject the motorist’s complaint because clearly there was incompetence and his misconduct was also incompetent. Clearly, the public are entitled to make complaints about officers conducting Parish Hall Inquiries and it matters not whether the officer’s conduct was one of incompetence, there should be no exceptions. I do not think it is appropriate for any law to lack clarity and question whether the Complaints Law should be opened to interpretation. The comments where the Attorney General makes reference to the 1998 Attorney General v Devonshire Hotel Limited case, I was surprised to learn of this case because one wonders why no relevance was made when the Attorney General wrote to me or the motorist. I was a strong supporter of the Complaints and Discipline Law and for the independent Police Complaints Authority. I was present, as I said earlier, when we debated and approved the law in 1998. To the best of my knowledge, I do not recall any discussion relating to officers engaged in Parish Hall Inquiries not being within the ambit of the law. That is because I believe that Members were fully aware that any complaint as defined in Article 17 of the law meant exactly that. Neither the President of the Defence Committee nor the Attorney General told Members that because of the Attorney General v Devonshire Hotel Limited decision the law did not extend to complaints at Parish Hall Inquiries. Members should note that the case was in 1988, therefore it was relevant to the Complaints Law when it was debated 10 years later and the Attorney General of the day, Sir, who is now you, would have told Members and if it affected the Complaints Law, the law would have been drafted accordingly. In paragraph 14 of his comments, the Attorney General says: “My own view is that the 1999 law does not extend to complaints against Centeniers in relation to the exercise by them of a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute.” That view is either right or wrong and at some point may or may not be tested in the court of law. The issue for Members now is whether given that is the view that the Crown takes in relation to the 1999 law, is it appropriate to amend the law to provide expressly the complaint about a prosecution decision at Parish Hall inquiry should be treated as a complaint for the purposes of the 1999 law. I am surprised at the Attorney General’s comments because at paragraph 25 he states he reached that view years ago, or some years ago, and that the 1999 law is simply not consistent with treating complaints against the Prosecution Service. He canvassed that view with the chairman of the Police Complaints Authority who shares it. If the Attorney General held that view for so long, one must ask why he has not lodged an amendment to the Complaints Law to remove the Parish Hall Inquiries from the Complaints Law so Members could consider the matter. Not that I want to accuse the Attorney General of pulling a rabbit out of the hat by placing and producing the Devonshire Hotel case at the eleventh hour, but one again must ask why, if it was relevant when the Complaints Law was approved 10 years ago and relevant when writing to both the motorist and me last year, it only come to light as a result of my proposition? I repeat: I am of the view that a complaint as defined in 1999 law means that any complaint about the conduct of a member of the Honorary Police includes the decision to prosecute which is one of the most important roles undertaken by a Centenier. The decision to charge could have devastating effects on the lives of members of the public as experienced by the motorist. The decision to charge should only be made after the Centenier has fully investigated a matter before him. This is even more important when Honorary officers are dealing with Honorary Police cases. It should be noted that in Jersey there is no separation between the investigatory and the prosecution powers. The right to decide who to charge and who to carry out the charging function still remains with the Centeniers and I submit that they cannot switch from being police officers to prosecutors when conducting Parish Hall Inquiries and [Approbation] thus be outside the ambit of the Complaints Law. Such a notion defies logic. One of the reasons for maintaining the Centenier’s role or the sole right to charge is because they are independent to States Police. However, there is no independence when the Honorary Police are dealing with their own cases as experienced by the motorist’s case. It is worth noting that in the Vingtenier’s statement it appears that the raison d’être for pursuing the case was: “… his [the motorist’s] contempt of the system by demanding that I write down my name and number.” In another paragraph, the Vingtenier says: “It was decided as Mr. A had no regard for the honorary system and he was displaying himself to the public that he was a police officer, then I should ask the States Police for assistance.” The motorist was merely seeking details of the officer who was addressing him. If that is contempt of no regard to the Honorary Police and a reason to be charged, then I am sure I am not alone in thinking that the officer was doing the Honorary Police a great disservice. It should be remembered that the motorist had made a complaint against the Centenier’s colleague who at the time of the second Parish Hall Inquiry was now a Centenier. I can understand the Centenier finding himself in a difficult position and may have been seen as unfriendly or unsupportive to his fellow Centenier if he did not charge the motorist. However, he decided to charge and, therefore, should be accountable for his actions. It is apparent that the Centenier was either determined on making the motorist’s life difficult or just incompetent. Whatever his conduct was, I believe it was within the ambit of the law. Surely, if someone is charged with an offence which clearly they are not guilty of and this is established following a trial then they have the right to complain about the person who decided to prosecute. If Centeniers fail to carry out a proper investigation before charging or their motives for so doing are questionable, why should their actions not be investigated in accordance with the law? Why should police officers not be accountable? To charge someone for any offence is a very serious matter. The Attorney General has provided guidelines which will be adhered to by all Centeniers and if they fail to do so, then their failure should be addressed in the law and it was clear in the motorist’s case the Centenier failed to carry out or adhere to the guidelines. Unfortunately, in his comments the Attorney General has not explained the difference between misconduct and incompetence. I believe he is splitting hairs and is doing an injustice to the 1999 Complaints Law which is clear and unequivocal. However, because of his ruling it now lacks clarity. Also it defeats the purpose of the law which was to allow the public to complain against police officers’ conduct even if they are incompetent. As previously mentioned in paragraph 25 of the Attorney General’s comments, he clearly states that he reached the view some years ago that the 1999 law was simply not consistent with treating complaints against prosecution decision as a complaint for the purposes of the law. If the Attorney General was inferring that as drafted the Parish Hall Inquiries do come within the ambit of the law but he does not think they do, that is why he refused to accept the motorist’s complaint. If that is the case, then I will submit there is no need for me to seek to amend the law but for the Attorney General to lodge a proposition to amend the law so that prosecution decisions do not come within the ambit of the Complaints Law. As an aside, I was extremely concerned that a law approved by elected Members of this Chamber can be set aside by an unelected and unaccountable titular of Honorary Police. It is a fact that the Attorney General is an unelected and unaccountable titular head of the Honorary Police and also head of the Prosecution Service. Where is the impartiality and the independence? What would Members’ reaction be if the head of the States Police also decided to flout the law so he could deal with any complaint about the incompetence of one of his officers? Unfortunately, I am now in a dilemma because my proposition is requesting Members to amend the law so the definition of complaints extended to include complaints against the Honorary Police conducting Parish Hall Inquiries. However, it is apparent that the Attorney General and the Committee of Connétables agree that as drafted the law means what it does mean. But they do not agree with the interpretation and the ruling that complaints about officers’ competence should be a matter for the Attorney General and his opinion is not within the law’s ambit, and I am sure I am not the only Member who will be interested to hear the Attorney General’s views on the matter. In particular, it has been of the view that the law was not intended to include matters of incompetence. Why has he not brought an amendment so that elected Members could debate the matter? If the Attorney General is of the view which he and the chairman of the Police Complaints Authority has held for years, that there are occasions when Parish Hall Inquiries are not within the ambit of the Complaints Law then he should bring forward an amendment to make it absolutely clear what part of the Parish Hall Inquiry should be within the ambit of the law and what part should not be. This will allow Members of the House to decide accordingly. Perhaps then we shall have a law which is clear and unequivocal and ensure that people like the motorist are not denied justice. If the Attorney General is minded to lodge an amendment to exclude complaints about the decision to charge, then this debate could be shortened and I could withdraw my proposition. However, I think the House deserves to seek clarity of the law and which, indeed, will the Attorney General agree that possibly an amendment is required but I will leave that for the Attorney General. I make the proposition.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] The adjournment is proposed so the Assembly will adjourn and reconvene at 9.30 a.m. tomorrow morning.