Those who had the pleasure of attending the levée at Government House on Friday will know what a splendid occasion it was and how much thought and preparation must have gone into it. I take great pleasure today in not only welcoming His Excellency but also thanking him and Lady McColl for a splendid occasion. [Approbation]

1.2 Greffier of the States – congratulations upon recognition in H.M. The Queen’s Birthday Honours

The Bailiff:

One of the great pleasures of the levee is that His Excellency announces the names of those who have been awarded an honour in the Queen’s Birthday Honours. I am sure Members will wish to join with me in saying how pleased we were that the exceptional and dedicated service of our Greffier who is so highly regarded not only in the Island but outside the Island has been recognised by this really well deserved award of an O.B.E. (Order of the British Empire). [Approbation] Very well, there are no other matters under A.

QUESTIONS

2. Written Questions

2.1 DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING FREE PRESCRIPTIONS:

Question

Following the decision in February 2008 to provide free prescriptions to Islanders, would the Minister advise -

(a) how many prescriptions were issued the 5 years before that date by year;

(b) how many prescriptions have been issued since they became free by year up to the last full year’s figures available?

Answer

The table below shows the number of prescribed items that were dispensed by year, from 2003 to 2013

Year	Number of Items prescribed
2003	1,111,262
2004	1,164,037
2005	1,219,363
2006	1,251,616
2007	1,324,335
2008	1,489,319
2009	1,590,227
2010	1,651,355
2011	1,707,644
2012	1,784,798
2013	1,846,713

In addition to the decision to provide free prescriptions from February 2008, changes were also made in late 2007 to expand the list of drugs available through the Health Insurance Fund, to include drugs previously only available from the hospital pharmacy. This increased the number of drugs prescribed as drugs which were previously provided by specialists at the hospital were able to be prescribed by GPs for repeat prescription.

2.2 DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING PARISH WELFARE PAYMENT IN THE LAST WHOLE YEAR THAT SYSTEM EXISTED:

Question

Would the Chairman advise how much, approximately, was distributed by parishes in welfare ayments in the last whole year that system existed?

Answer

The information is contained in the statement about the Island wide rate 2006 which was made to the States by the Chairman of the Comité des Connétables on 21 June 2006.

In that statement the Chairman reported that the figures received from Parishes showed that £3,323,934 was spent on welfare and £5,492,516 on residential care for the year ending 30 April 2006; so a total of £8,816,450.

2.3 DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING FACILITIES FOR STATES MEMBERS:

Question

Does the Chairman consider that the lack of proper parking facilities for States members is a disgrace and that the discontinuation of food at lunchtime was a retrograde step and, if so, would he advise whether his Committee has any plans to resolve these issues?

Answer

Despite the States decision to cease the use of Snow Hill car park for members I am not aware that there is a lack of proper parking facilities as parking is available in two other public car parks for members when on States business. I am aware that a number of members would like to see the re-instatement of States members’ lunches on States days but I would remind members that they were stopped as a result of a vote in the Assembly.

The Committee has no plans to propose any changes to the parking provision or to introduce lunches at the present time but would welcome members’ views on both of these matters.

2.4 DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE J.T. FIBRE BROADBAND SERVICE:

Question

Would the Minister, as the shareholder representative, advise how many JT customers were on the 2MB service at the end of May 2014, and, of those scheduled to be compulsorily moved to the more expensive 50MB service, how many are on fibre?

Should any still be on copper, would the Minister confirm that they too will also receive 50MB at the higher price, or will they remain on the cheaper 2MB service?

Answer

JT has submitted that the number of JT customers on specific tariffs, or on copper as opposed to fibre service, remains confidential during the course of the CICRA review.

The reason for the information being commercially sensitive is the fact that Jersey’s broadband market is heavily competed for by the seven different network providers (JT Fixed, JT Mobile, Sure Fixed, Sure Mobile, Airtel Mobile, Newtel Fixed and Ytel Mobile) and highly regulated by CICRA, which regularly receives commercially sensitive market data of this nature.

In regard to the second part of the question, as explained in the Minister’s response to the recent oral question from the Deputy on this subject (3 June 2014), the 2MB service is being withdrawn and JT is moving to a more simple tariff structure where the subscriber receives the maximum possible speed of “up to 20 MB” if they are on a copper connection or a guaranteed minimum speed of 50MB if they are on a fibre service.

The following diagram provides an overview of the changes to JT’s retail portfolio:

In making these changes, JT is responding to calls from market and industry commentators to move to an “up to” standard of service for its copper products, such as those available in Guernsey. But it is important to note that copper broadband is a far inferior product to fibre broadband, as many factors such as the length of the copper line or inclement weather conditions (heavy rain, lightning storms) significantly impact copper services (they do not impact fibre network services), all of which means speeds over copper networks can never be guaranteed.

Following the implementation of the updated package, the comparison with Guernsey will look as follows:

* To ensure the fair treatment of those subscribers on a 2MB service, JT is currently running an offer to maintain the 2MB price for a further 18 months, but will provide the increased speeds during that period. For those wishing to remain on a 2MB service, JT will be offering a £17.99 offering over its mobile network.

2.5 DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING A REVIEW BY THE REGULATOR OF J.T.s PROPOSED PRICE INCREASES:

Question

Does the Minister consider that moving Jersey Telecom customers to a higher tariff compulsorily, whether or not they need or want it, amounts to a price increase (in the order of 28 per cent) and, if so, could he advise whether the Regulator is looking into this matter and, if not, why not?

Answer

On 6th June JT formally notified the JCRA of changes to its retail broadband products. The changes mean that customers who are currently on JT’s 2 Mb/s product at £17.99 would be migrated to the new standard product of up to 20Mb/s on copper or up to 50Mb/s on fibre at the higher price of £22.99 per month. For these customers this does represent a price increase of approximately 28 per cent.

JT has offered existing customers on the 2Mb/s service a promotion to fix their monthly rental to £17.99 a month for the next 18 months. However, the regulator has advised customers to carefully consider the implications of signing up to this offer as, after the eighteen month period, the price will automatically revert to £22.99 per month.

It should be noted that while some customers will experience an increase in price, other customers could see a material reduction in the price they pay or a significant increase in the maximum broadband speeds they receive. Therefore, customers should consider the options available to them from JT and from alternative providers and make an informed decision on that basis.

My Department is committed to protecting the interests of Jersey users of telecommunications services. I believe it is important that there is a suitable entry level broadband product so that digital services are accessible and affordable to all.

Broadband pricing is a matter for the regulator which is an independent body that helps ensure consumers receive choice and access to high quality services. The JCRA is currently investigating a series of practices by JT which the regulator believes might damage competition in the broadband market leading to reduced choice and value for money for consumers in the longer term.

In announcing this investigation the JCRA cited the 2Mb/s broadband product as the most urgent area of concern.

The JCRA is likely to require further evidence before it can presume that JT’s behaviour contravenes either regulatory law or competition law. The JCRA is obliged to go through the appropriate process for carrying out its functions as required by law.

2.6 DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING INCOME SUPPORT PAYMENTS:

Question

Would the Minister advise approximately how much his Department has paid out in each of the first five years of Income Support?

Answer

This information is provided in the States accounts that are published annually.

	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
Total	74,055,946	83,296,411	84,873,741	87,332,192	91,194,817	92,070,157

Income Support started on 28th January 2008, therefore figures for 2008 also include benefits paid under predecessor schemes during January.

The benefits replaced in 2008 by Income Support included:

Adult Disablement Allowance (ADA)
Attendance Allowance (AA)
Child Disablement Allowance (CDA)
Childcare Allowance
Educational Maintenance Allowance
Disability Transport Allowance (DTA)
Family Allowance
Health Insurance Exception (HIE)
Home Study Grant
Parish Welfare
Rent Abatement
Rent Rebate
School-Age Discount Scheme
Welfare Milk

The income support law provides weekly support and one off payments to a wide range of local residents and families including care home residents, pensioners, people with disabilities, families with children, low income working families and jobseekers.

The total cost of benefits provided under income support has increased by 24% since its introduction in 2008. The increasing cost reflects the response of the government to the difficult economic conditions experienced during this period and the additional assistance needed to support low income individuals and families. The increase of just under 1% between 2012 and 2013 indicates the positive impact of the back to work scheme as well as the general slow improvement in the wider economy.

2.7 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING DATA PROTECTION SUBJECT ACCESS REQUESTS MADE TO THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE:

Question

Will the Minister set out for members -

(a) the number of subject access requests made to the States of Jersey Police under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 for each year since 2008 together with details of how many were completed within the 40 day period stated in Article 7(11) of the Law, how many are still outstanding and the period of time they have been outstanding;

(b) set out the number of requests seeking for information which have been refused each year in the period prescribed in (a) and the grounds for refusal;

(c) set out the number of requests to rectify inaccurate data held by the Police for each year since 2008 together with details of how long it took for the information to be rectified or, if the information was not rectified, the reasons for not doing so?

Answer

a) The States of Jersey Police have had 7594 subject access requests since 2008.

2008 1028 requests

2009 1232 requests

2010 1338 requests

2011 1174 requests

2012 1149 requests

2013 1211 requests

2014 462 requests to date

The States Police do not keep a central register of the timescales within which these have been answered.

To answer this part of the question would require each request to be checked individually.

There are currently five SAR’s outstanding:

The earliest is from 2012 and is under discussion with the Data Protection Commissioner. One is from December 2013 for which a number of disclosures have been made, however, the request remains live due to ongoing clarifications of what is required by the data subject. Three that are current and within the 40 day limit.

b) The States Police do not centrally keep figures for whether full or partial disclosures are made or the grounds for disclosure/non-disclosure. Those persons affected would have the option of complaining to the Data Protection Commissioner if they were unhappy with the States Police response. The Data Protection Commissioner may then direct the States Police to review the case.

c) The States Police do not keep a central register of requests for inaccurate data to be rectified. With the written permission of the data subject they can check individual files.

Subject access requests to the States Police can pose difficulties and delays may be experienced for a number of valid reasons including:-

1. The difficulty in actually finding the relevant information in a case in which the range of the requests is wide.

2. The exemption which exists in relation to criminal investigations. Although such an investigation may not currently be active, if further information arises then the investigation may need to be re-opened.

3. The need to protect the anonymity of third parties such as witnesses, with a requirement to first seek their consent to disclosure and, in appropriate cases, to redact the information held.

4. Difficulties may also arise in relation to requests to correct information held in circumstances in which the applicant disagrees with information held in the form of a complaint or a witness statement. In such cases the very fact that a complaint has been made or a statement given may be accurate information irrespective of whether the complaint or the witness statement are factually correct.

2.8 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION CARDS UNDER THE NEW CONTROL OF HOUSING AND WORK (JERSEY) LAW 2012:

Question

Will the Chief Minister set out for members the number of people who have applied for registration cards under the new Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 2012, breaking down the numbers into the nationality and country of origin of all those who have applied during the period 1st January 2014 to 31st March 2014?

Answer

The figures below show all those people applying for registration cards between 1st January 2014 and 31st March 2014. This does not mean they are all new to the Island. People need registration cards when they move house or change jobs. When issuing cards we ask for an applicant’s nationality, not country of origin.

The numbers of individuals who have applied for registration cards under the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 2012 between 1st January 2014 and 31st March 2014 inclusive, reported by nationality, are as follows:-

Nationality	Total
British (includes 2,197 Jersey-born)	4,136
Portuguese	903
Polish	519
Romanian	162
Irish	115
French	48
South African	36
Thai	31
Italian	26
Kenyan	24
Indian	23
Bulgarian	21
Latvian	21
Filipino	19
Australian	14
German	14
Hungarian	13
Zimbabwean	12
American	11
Czech Republic	11
Dutch	11
Spanish	10
Canadian	8
New Zealander	8
Swedish	7
Slovak	6
Bangladeshi	5
Chinese	5
Lithuanian	5
Brazilian	4
Finnish	4
Maltese	4
Russian	4
Belgian	3
Malawian	3
Pakistani	3
Sri Lankan	3
Swiss	3
Tunisian	3
Cuban	2
Danish	2
Estonian	2
Grenedian	2
Jamaican	2
Malaysian	2
Norwegian	2
Singaporean	2
Turkish	2
Ukrainian	2
Zambian	2
Argentinian	1
Austrian	1
Bahamian	1
Cypriot	1
Ecuadorean	1
Egyptian	1
Gambian	1
Guyanese	1
Israeli	1
Japanese	1
Mauritian	1
Mexican	1
Moroccan	1
Saint Vincentian	1
Senegalese	1
Slovenian	1
Ugandan	1
Venezuelan	1
	6,298

2.9 THE DEPUTY OF GROUVILLE OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING SICKNESS BENEFIT ENTITLEMENT:

Question

Would the Minister confirm that a person, having contributed 2 quarters of social security contributions, is entitled to claim sickness benefit?

Could he advise whether someone who has subsequently returned to their country of origin is still entitled to claim sickness benefit from the Jersey Social Security system, if they can produce a doctor's certificate?

Is there a time limit on the length of time someone can claim sickness benefit, having contributed for 6 months, if they are no longer resident in the Island?

Answer

There are two separate contribution conditions to claim short-term incapacity allowance (STIA) (often referred to as sickness benefit):

The individual must have paid at least three months of contributions by the end of the quarter but one before the start of the claim.
The individual must have contributions or contribution credits in the quarter but one before the start of the claim. E.g. if the individual is ill in July, contributions from January to March are considered. The value of the benefit paid is reduced if contributions are missing for any of these three months.

STIA only can be paid outside of Jersey, on receipt of a medical certificate, if:

the claim commenced prior to the person leaving Jersey AND
a reciprocal agreement for the payment of STIA is in place with the other country.

STIA can only be paid for a maximum period of a year regardless of whether the person is living abroad or in Jersey. The standard rate of STIA is £191.38 per week. As at 31/12/2013, there were 1,430 STIA claims in payment of which 7 were being paid outside Jersey.

In addition to STIA, which is only available for a maximum of one year, long term incapacity allowance (LTIA) is also available to working age individuals with a long-term loss of faculty. This is paid on a percentage basis, from 5% up to 100% of the standard rate of benefit.

A claim for LTIA is decided by a medical board, made up of medical practitioners (doctors) registered either under the local law for the registration of doctors in Jersey or the similar law in the UK.

The contribution conditions are similar to those of STIA:

The individual must have paid at least six months of contributions by the end of the quarter but one before the start of the claim.
The individual must have contributions or contribution credits in the quarter but one before the start of the claim. E.g. if the individual makes a claim in July, contributions from January to March are considered. The value of the benefit paid is reduced if contributions are missing for any of these three months.

LTIA can be paid outside Jersey for up to 13 weeks, or if there is a reciprocal agreement in place with the other country. There is provision within the reciprocal agreement legislation for the country of residence to arrange a medical board on our behalf when a review is required. The doctor will complete the medical report and when it is returned it is passed to our doctors to award the percentage of LTIA. There is no necessity for the person to return to Jersey for a medical review unless they prefer to be seen by our medical board. As at 31st December 2013, there were 3,815 LTIA claims in payment of which 350 were being paid outside Jersey.

2.1 SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING MINISTERIAL DECISIONS IN 2014:

Question

Given that there are 25 Ministerial Decisions which have not been listed on the gov.je website for 2014, would the Chief Minister provide a list, including titles of these decisions, and the reason for their exemption from publication?

Answer

The Chief Minister’s Department has raised 15 exempt Ministerial Decisions so far in 2014.

They were exempted as scheduled below, based on the Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information booklet (size 20kb) which is available on gov.je.

MINISTERIAL NUMBER	DETAIL	EXEMPTION
2014-0005	Community Provisions (Restrictive Measures - Iran)(Jersey) Order 2012, as amended	Exemption 3.2(a) (xi): Information shall be exempt from disclosure, if such disclosure would, or might be liable to prejudice the competitive position of a third party, if and so long as its disclosure would, by revealing commercial information supplied by a third party, be likely to cause significant damage to the lawful commercial or professional activities of the third party.
2014-0020	Appeal to the Assistant Chief Minister for in principle consent to be granted in respect of the acquisition of a residential property by a company under Article 20 of the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 2012.	Exemption 3.2.1 (a) (i): Information shall be exempt from disclosure, if such disclosure would, or might be liable to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual.
2014-0029	Law drafting instructions concerning an amendment to the Financial Services Commission (Jersey) Law 1998 (that are intended to remove the stated retirement age of Commissioners from the Law)	Exemption 3.2.1(a) (xiv): Information shall be exempt from disclosure, if such disclosure would, or might be liable to constitute a premature release of a draft policy which is in the course of development.
2014-0030	Community Provisions (Restrictive Measures - Iran) (Jersey) Order 2012	Exemption 3.2 (a) (xi)
2014-0041	Acquisition of Apartment, St Helier	Exemption 3.2.1 (a) (i)
2014-0046	Community Provisions (Restrictive Measures - Iran) (Jersey) Order 2012, as amended	Exemption 3.2 (a) (xi)
2014-0048	Law Drafting instructions to amend Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 – Regulations to enable the objectives agreed to by the Council of Ministers (CoM) to be achieved in respect of cost limits and fees	Exemption 3.2.1(a) (xiv)
2014-0049	Law drafting instructions for Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 in respect of articles 13, 17 and 44	Exemption 3.2.1(a) (xiv)
2014-0054	Appeal to the Assistant Chief Minister seeking to be granted early residential status under Regulation 4(2) (a) (`Entitled for Work Only status’) of the Control of Housing and Work Regulations.	Exemption 3.2.1 (a) (i)
2014-0063	Requests for Restructuring Provision funds in support of the Public Sector Reform Programme and transfer of budgets to the Chief Minister’s Department.	Exemption 3.2.1 (a) (xiv)
2014-0066	Appeal to the Assistant Chief Minister seeking to be granted early residential status under Regulation 2(1) (f) of the Control of Housing and Work Regulations on the grounds of hardship.	Exemption 3.2.1 (a) (i)
2014-0067	Budget transfer to Chief Minister’s Department (CMD) from Treasury and Resources (T&R).	Exemption a (vii) (ix) (xiv): Such disclosure would, or might be liable to harm the conduct of national or international affairs or the Island’s relations with other jurisdictions; cause damage to the economic interests of the Island; constitute a premature release of a draft policy which is in the course of development.
2014-0080	Application for `Entitled’ residential status under Regulation 2(1) (f) of the Control of Housing and Work (Residential and Employment Status) (Jersey) Regulations 2013 on the grounds of hardship.	Exemption 3.2.1 (a) (i)
2014-0094	Freedom of Information (Schedule 1) (Jersey) Regulations 201– regulations to be drafted	Exemption 3.2.1(a) (xiv)
2014-0097	Control of Housing and Work Law (CHWL) Applications	Exemption 3.2.1.b: Information shall be exempt from disclosure, if the information concerned was given to the authority concerned in confidence on the understanding that it would be treated by it as confidential, unless the provider of the information agrees to its disclosure.

The Ministerial Decisions exempted as policy in the course of development under Exemption 3.2.1(a) (xiv) become public when the related proposal or draft law is lodged with the States Assembly.

2.11 SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING MINISTERIAL DECISION IN 2014:

Question

Given that there are 13 Ministerial Decisions for 2014 for the Treasury and 6 for Property Holdings which have not been listed on the gov.je website, would the Minister provide a list, including titles of these decisions and the reason for their exemption from publication?

Answer

When a draft Ministerial Decision is prepared in Treasury and Resources it is first loaded onto the Livelink system where it is reviewed for appropriateness by officers at the States Greffe. At this stage it is allocated an MD number. The States Greffe process includes the approval (or otherwise) of a proposal that a decision is considered to be exempt from publication under the Code of Practice on Access to Information held by the States, Committees of the States and Departments of the States. Not every decision that is loaded in this way progresses to full signature by the Minister. This may be, for example, because an alternative course of action may have been identified. Furthermore, a draft decision loaded onto the system may be complex and may take some time to progress to formal signing by the Minister. It may, therefore, appear chronologically after earlier numbers. Numbers which appear to be “missing” may, in fact, be simply pending signature. It is therefore not accurate to assume that any Ministerial Decision numbers listed on the gov.je website equate to signed, exempt decisions.

Ministerial Decisions that have been approved as “exempt” by the States Greffe are exempt from publication for a valid reason. This means that publication of the Decision Summary Title in itself could be undesirable, for example where negotiations relating to specific properties are still ongoing. However, to be helpful, information has been provided below where it has been possible to do so.

The following Ministerial Decisions are ‘missing’ from the sequential listing on the gov.je website. A full listing has been provided as it was not possible to reconcile to the number of decisions mentioned in the Senator’s question. The tables below set out those decisions and where applicable, the reasons for exemption. “Number not used” includes both decisions which did not progress to formal signature and those pending formal signature.

Decision Reference		Date of Decision	Decision Summary Title	Reason/Exempt category
Treasury
MD-TR-2014-0005		Number not used
MD-TR-2014-0009		Number not used
MD-TR-2014-0014		Number not used
MD-TR-2014-0016		17 March 2014	[] Housing Trust Borrowing for [property]	Exempt - Commercial confidentiality
MD-TR-2014-0026		Number not used
MD-TR-2014-0027		25 May 2014	[Internal reallocation of funding]	Exempt - Premature release of policy
MD-TR-2014-0029		Number not used
MD-TR-2014-0030	3 April 2014		Funding for [external] Review	Exempt - Premature release of policy and damage to interests of the Island
MD-TR-2014-0035	28 April 2014		Proposal for PECRS to invest in a new [] Fund	Exempt - Commercial confidentiality
MD-TR-2014-0037	Number not used
MD-TR-2014-0039	Number not used
MD-TR-2014-0042	Number not used
MD-TR-2014-0043	Number not used
MD-TR-2014-0045	25 May 2014		[Fund] Investment Strategy	Exempt - Commercial confidentiality
MD-TR-2014-0046	25 May 2014		[Fund] Investment Manager and Investment Strategy	Exempt - Commercial confidentiality
MD-TR-2014-0047	Number not used
MD-TR-2014-0049	Number not used
MD-TR-2014-0050	Number not used

Property Holdings
MD-PH-2013-0218	19 December 2013		1, Don Terrace, St Helier – Sale	Public – signed in 2013
MD-PH-2013-0221	Number not used
MD-PH-2014-0013	17 February 2014		Authority to Negotiate the Acquisition of [property]	Exempt - Commercial confidentiality
MD-PH-2014-0019	18 February 2014		Marine Lake Project – Lease of West Park Bunker and Licence of Lake Structure	Public – Greffe include on website in 2013 listing
MD-PH-2014-0046	Number not used		Piquet House Proposed sale - confirmation decision	Not progressed due to States decision P16/2014
MD-PH-2014-0092	4 June 2014		Proposed Development of [property]	Exempt - Commercial confidentiality

Some detail has been withheld to protect the exemption criteria.

The number of exempt decisions should be placed in the overall context of the number of decisions processed. The percentage is small and the presumption is always toward publication unless exemption is essential.

Treasury

Year	Exempt (signed)	Number not used	Total numbers used
2012	23	5	121
2013	28	11	120
2014	6	12	51

Property Holdings

Year	Exempt (signed)	Number not used	Total numbers used
2012	9	8	132
2013	6	3	225
2014	2	2	95

2.12 DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING VISITS TO SECONDARY SCHOOLS BY STATES MEMBERS:

Question

Would the Minister provide a list of visits to the Island’s secondary schools and 6th form colleges which have been undertaken since the beginning of the year by sitting States Members to talk to students, including which schools and on what dates the visits took place?

Could the Minister also outline the rules/ guidelines which determine whether a visit by a States Member to a school is appropriate, and what safeguards, if any, exist to ensure that no school is inadvertently biased in allowing some members more opportunities to meet potential young voters than other members?

Answer

The Education, Sport and Culture department does not keep a central record of visits to individual schools. Each school is responsible for organising its own timetable and for inviting guest speakers. This includes States Members. Teachers and head teachers are expected to ensure that students learn about the democratic process and social issues in a neutral environment where both sides of an argument are presented. This is a well-recognised principle among the teaching profession.

While politicians might be invited to talk about the democratic process in Jersey or as part of a debate on a particular issue being studied in the curriculum, they are not given access to younger voters for the purposes of canvassing. It would not be appropriate or democratic to provide captive audiences of young voters in schools.

However, it is recognised that young electors should have convenient opportunities to attend hustings outside curriculum time. Arrangements have been made to support this. During an election period, candidates who want to organise a hustings on school premises are able to do so and guidance to this effect has been send to secondary head teachers. There are also guidelines for candidates. In the interests of impartiality, all the candidates for the position under discussion (Deputy, Senator or Connétable) must be invited to the meeting. This is to ensure that all candidates have equal access to the young voters who wish to attend. The guidance notes are attached below.

Guidance notes to secondary head teachers and the Principal of Highlands College
Subject:	Protocols regarding access by candidates to school pupils over the age of 16 during electoral periods
Issued by:	Minister of Education, Sport and Culture

1 INTRODUCTION

Since 2008, 16 year olds have been eligible to vote in elections to the States of Jersey. As most of this age group is in full-time or part-time education, this presents a number of issues for schools and colleges.

The following advice has been produced to guide schools. It applies at all times but head teachers will need to be particularly aware of it during the “pending period” for each election – which is from the date nominations open (noon on 05 September 2011) to the close of polls on election day on 19 October.

2. PRINCIPLES

These guidelines are intended to assist the democratic process and to ensure that young voters are introduced to it as objectively as possible. The principles which underpin them are to:

help young people understand the political process;
encourage them to use their vote;
ensure fairness and balance;
avoid disruption to education;
prevent young people being placed under any duress.

In applying these principles it is important to distinguish between educating young people about the electoral process and electioneering on behalf of a particular candidate or party.

3. GUIDANCE

3.1 New electors have the right to be informed about the nature of the electoral process. If this information is given within the normal educational context, for example through the Citizenship Curriculum, it should be presented impartially without supporting any particular candidate, group of candidates or political party.

3.2 The Department for Education, Sport and Culture pamphlet ‘Register to Vote’ outlines the registration process and may be made available in schools for all first time voters.

3.3 During the election period schools should not invite or allow any candidates for election to campaign in schools. Pupils who are eligible to vote have the same opportunities as other members of the electorate to attend public hustings in their own time.

3.4 If an individual candidate approaches a school seeking an opportunity to address young voters, head teachers should decline the request. This is to ensure fairness to all candidates, avoid disruption to the curriculum and avert any potential concern about pupils being placed under undue pressure.

3.5 Candidates will not have the right to personally distribute leaflets or campaign on school premises. The school will provide a suitable display area/ noticeboard to display the candidates’ manifesto brochure produced by the Privileges and Procedures Committee. This ensures the same format and amount of information is available about each candidate.

3.6 Teachers will be able to use leaflets and other electoral publicity as an educational resource if they wish provided they do not favour any particular candidate. They must ensure impartiality.

3.7 Voting registration forms can be made available in schools but it is the voters’ responsibility to return their own form to the relevant parish hall.

4. GENERAL

4.1 These guidelines have been produced to ensure fairness and encourage electoral participation. They are unlikely to cover every eventuality. Head teachers may seek additional advice from the Director of Education, Sport and Culture.

4.2 The guidelines will come into force on 01 July 2011 in time for the beginning of the 2011 electoral cycle. They will apply to all elections held after that date.

Public Elections

Meetings on school and youth service premises

Guidance for candidates

School premises:

School premises may be available for hire outside school hours for candidates who wish to arrange meetings with prospective voters.

In the interests of impartiality, all the candidates for the position under discussion must be invited to the meeting. This would mean all senatorial candidates and, in the case of Deputies or Connétables, all the candidates for a particular parish or district.

Youth Service premises:

Youth premises may also be available for hire outside youth session hours for candidates to hold meetings with prospective voters on the same basis.

Youth projects may also arrange meetings themselves if there is a request from young people who attend. If this takes place, the invitation will be issued to all candidates running for the same post (ie. candidates for Deputies or Connétable in the relevant parish, or for election as Senator) so that all candidates are treated equally and fairly.

Candidates interested in hiring out premises are invited to contact the school or youth premises directly to determine availability.

Attendance at political meetings by young voters is entirely voluntary.

Education, Sport & Culture Department

2.13 DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING UNOCCUPIED PROPERTIES IN THE ISLAND:

Question

Given its access to rating information, can the Comité des Connétables advise the number of properties in the Island currently unoccupied and provide the data, indicating which are domestic and commercial dwellings?

Answer

The Rates (Jersey) Law 2005 defines “occupier” as the person entitled to occupy and use the land by virtue of being the owner of the land; or the person to whom the land is let under a lease or tenancy agreement.

There is therefore an “occupier” for every property and none is “unoccupied” under the Rates Law.

2.14 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE DEFINITIONS USED TO ASSESS ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE:

Question

Will the Minister -

(a) set out the definitions of sexual, physical and emotional abuse used by the Children’s Department when assessing allegations of such abuse;

(b) set out the procedures adopted internally by the Department when such abuse is alleged;

(c) explain in full the various steps and bodies that are consulted or involved in deciding whether abuse actually took place;

(d) state what safeguards there are to ensure that the various bodies in (c) are given complete and accurate information regarding the alleged abuses and the procedures that are adopted by the Department to ensure that any factually incorrect information that is forwarded to decision makers is corrected as rapidly as possible?

Answer

(a) All of the agencies involved in responding to allegations of abuse work within the definitions and procedures detailed in the JCPC Multi-Agency Child Protection Procedures (February 2011). Presenting issues at the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) are defined as follows:

Category	Description
Child in Need	Children who are assessed as requiring services in order to ensure their health and development needs are met. What will happen to the child’s health and development without services? This is the question to be considered and the likely effect the services will have on the child’s standard of health and development.
Domestic Abuse	An incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. This can encompass, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse: psychological; physical; sexual; financial; emotional.
Child Protection	Children who are suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. Concerns about abuse and maltreatment. In this situation the Decision maker will consider the need for taking action to immediately protect the child (child protection investigation).
Child Sexual Exploitation	This involves exploitative situations, contexts and relationships where young people receive ‘something’ _e.g. food, accommodation, drugs, alcohol, affection, money etc) as a result of performing, and/or others performing on them, sexual activities. CSE can also occur through the use of technology without the child’s immediate recognition.
Missing Children	A missing child is anyone whose whereabouts are unknown, whatever the circumstances of disappearance. The child will be considered missing until located and his/her wellbeing, or otherwise, established.
Self Harm	The definition of self-harm adopted by the NICE guideline is ‘intentional self-poisoning or injury, irrespective of the apparent purpose of the act’. Self-harm includes poisoning, asphyxiation, cutting, burning and other self-inflicted injuries.
Sexting	This refers to sexual communications with content that includes both pictures and text messages, sent (by under 16 year olds) using mobile phones and other electronic media. “Youth produced sexual images”

The document is published and available on the Safeguarding Board website at jcpc@gov.je.

(b) All enquiries will be received within the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH). This includes Children’s Service, the States of Jersey Police, Education welfare officers and health service representatives. Possible progress from this includes a multi agency discussion, multi agency strategy meeting, joint investigation, allocation to social work services, further assessment, registration under the Child Protection structure, and accommodation by the Minister for a Looked After Child. The Minister has a duty to investigate and accommodate where necessary.

(d) MASH and Social Work teams may work with fragments of information at an initial stage, but further exploration with other agencies will lead to a comprehensive picture being gathered. All enquiries into MASH allow each case to be dealt with by all agencies simultaneously under joint working protocols. This is shared on a confidential basis with those involved with the children as and when needed to ensure that they are safeguarded. Prior to the development of the MASH all agencies worked to joint protocols however, the co-location of teams into the MASH and the development of a single IT system to capture the information since August 2013 has enabled more efficient use of existing resources to respond to enquiries.

2.15 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE INCLUSION OF STATES-FUNDED FOSTER HOMES UNDER THE HISTORIC ABUSE REDRESS SCHEME:

Question

Will the Chief Minister advise Members ‑

(a) whether the Council of Ministers has decided to include under the historic abuse redress scheme claims against abuse that occurred in States funded foster homes;

(b) whether the Council of Ministers has received any further claims for abuse that occurred after the cut off date for compensation under the scheme and whether or not it has allowed these claims to be considered for compensation and, if not, why not?

Answer

(a) The Council of Ministers has recently permitted the known claims involving alleged abuse in States’ foster care to be considered under the Scheme as exceptions.

The Council of Ministers will give further consideration to extending the scheme to cover alleged abuse in States’ foster care at a future meeting.

(b) Four claims were received by the Historic Abuse Redress Scheme after the cut-off date for submission of claims (30th September 2012). The Council of Ministers considered these claims in anonymised format, and the reasons given for their late submission. All four were permitted to be considered under the Scheme, as if they had been received before the deadline of 30th September 2012.

2.16 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE NUMBER OF CASES OF SEXUAL ABUSE REPORTED TO THE CHILDREN’S SERVICE SINCE 1995:

Question

Will the Minister advise members of the number of cases of sexual abuse of children that were reported to the Children’s Service in each and every year since 1995 together with the following information -

(a) whether the alleged offences took place on private property or public property such as States homes, schools, institutions or foster homes funded by the States;

(b) whether all the alleged offences were reported to the States of Jersey Police and, if not, why not;

(d) how many successful prosecutions were carried out in these cases and what penalties were imposed on the perpetrators?

Answer

Information systems used by the children’s service do not enable the capture of the information in the format requested. Historic Individual case files are retained and will contain this information on a case by case basis. Although it would be possible to audit all case files to provide this information, it would be an extensive task requiring significant additional resources.

Since August 2013, all enquiries relating to safeguarding concerns for children are received by the multi agency safeguarding hub (MASH). This includes Children’s Service, the States of Jersey Police, Education welfare officers and health service representatives. In the first eight month of operation, the MASH received 1379 inquiries. These are broken down as follows:

Categories	MASH Records	Percentage
Child in Need	905	66%
Domestic Abuse	190	14%
Child Protection	122	9%
Self Harm	107	8%
Missing Children	26	2%
Sexting	21	<1%
Child Sexual Exploitation	8	<1%
Grand Total	1379

It should be noted that Child Sexual Exploitation accounts for less than 1% of the enquiries received.

(a) Information systems used by the children’s service do not enable the capture of the information in the format requested. Historic Individual case files are retained and will contain this information on a case by case basis. Although it would be possible to audit all case files to provide this information, it would be an extensive task requiring significant additional resources. Wherever alleged offences take place, they are dealt with in the same way.

(b) All enquiries into MASH allow each case to be dealt with by all agencies simultaneously under joint working protocols. As stated above, this includes the States of Jersey Police. Prior to the establishment of the MASH, all alleged offences would be reported to the States of Jersey Police for joint investigation.

(c) Matters relating to prosecution are the responsibility of the Law Officers Department and the States of Jersey Police and should be directed to those Departments. The Children’s service will in each case, arrange for multi agency discussion, multi agency strategy meeting, joint investigation, allocation to social work services, further assessment, registration under the Child Protection structure, and accommodation by the Minister for a Looked After Child if necessary.

Matters relating to prosecution are the responsibility of the Law Officers Department and the States of Jersey Police and should be directed to those Departments

2.17 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE LOSS OF TAX FROM THE ZERO/TEN REGIME:

Question

In response to question 3781 asked on the 13th May 2008 on the loss of tax receipts from International Business Companies (IBCs) and Exempt Companies due to the transition to the zero/ten tax regime the then Minister estimated losses of £11.7m by 2009 from zero rating Exempt Companies and a gradual reduction to a net loss of £16m from the 10% rate applied to IBCs by 2013, but stated that “ it will only be in 2013 that the complete effect of zero/ten will be known”. Is that effect now known and, if so, will he inform members what figure it is, and if it is not known, will he explain why?

Answer

I can confirm that Treasury and Resources are in a position to provide more detailed information than they were able to at the time of Deputy Southern’s earlier question (3871) tabled on 13th May 2008. Accordingly;

Exempt Companies

The revenue receipts from Exempt Company fees for the year of assessment 2008 (the last year of the Exempt Company regime) were £11.0 million. Therefore the reduction of revenue from Exempt Companies following the introduction of zero/ten was in line with the projected estimate of £11.7 million.

International Business Companies

The income tax charged in respect of International Business Companies profits for the income tax years of assessment 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 (the last year of the International Business Company regime) are as follows:-

Year of Assessment Income tax charged (£million)

2008 65.3

2009 25.5

2010 22.5

2011 24.1

As the Deputy will recall, it has been explained on numerous previous occasions that income tax receipts have fallen due to the effects of the financial crisis.

Since 2008 income tax forecasts have been revised downwards successively as the full scale of the crisis has emerged.

It would be wrong to state that the reduction in International Business Company revenue has been solely down to the introduction of zero/ten.

2.18 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING STATUTORY REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS:

Question

Can the Minister explain why, following the closure of Just Glass & Windows with associated redundancies at the beginning of May, there has still been no payment of statutory redundancy pay or insolvency benefit for the workers concerned and state what action will he take to ensure that these ex-employees receive appropriate support in the immediate future? Since the system introduced in 2009 was intended to deliver support promptly following redundancies, does the Minister consider that the scheme is correctly set up and, if not, will he address its faults, if any?

Answer

The payment of statutory redundancy pay is the responsibility of the employer.

Insolvency benefit was introduced on 1st December 2012 under the Social Security (Jersey) Law 1974. For a person to qualify to receive insolvency benefit their former employer must be “bankrupt”. This means that the employer must have gone into administration, liquidation or receivership in Jersey or elsewhere, or entered in Jersey or elsewhere into an arrangement with the employer’s creditors. In the case of Just Glass & Windows Ltd, the Company has ceased trading but none of these things has yet happened.

Where an employer has ceased trading but is not insolvent, the former employees have recourse to the Jersey Employment Tribunal and to the Courts for amounts that are owed to them. Any former employee of Just Glass & Windows Ltd who is suffering from financial hardship and who meets the qualifying conditions for Income Support may put in a claim for this benefit. Social Security Officers have been directed to give immediate attention to any such claims from these former employees as well as to respond immediately to any requests for assistance with job seeking.

Discretion is not available to pay insolvency benefit where there is not an insolvency situation. In other jurisdictions, legal and formal insolvency proceedings must generally be instituted before any payments are considered. In the UK, if the employer is not insolvent and owes money to employees, the Insolvency Service cannot help.

The Minister is satisfied that the scheme is operating effectively and providing the support that was intended in insolvency situations. During 2013, the Department paid out over £1 million in relation to insolvency benefit and the benefit supported 156 individuals who were made redundant due to the insolvency of their employer.

2.19 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDIN THE GATEWAY TO SOCIAL HOUSING:

Question

Would the Chief Minister set out for members details of the new relationship between Andium Homes, the Minister for Housing and the Population Office, which is now in charge of the gateway to social housing and thereby the waiting list, and state who States members should approach over often complex problems involving the allocation of homes?

Answer

The Minister for Housing has responsibility for housing policy, including the Housing Gateway, through which tenants are allocated to social housing providers, which will include Andium Homes.

The customer-facing, day-to-day administration of the Housing Gateway is undertaken by the Population Office on behalf of the Minister for Housing.

Members of the public and States Members are free to contact the Population Office, who will answer queries about the Housing Gateway and allocation of homes. That includes the processing of appeals, which are considered by the Minister for Housing.

3. Oral Questions

3.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Chief Minister regarding the number of Serious Case Reviews initiated or completed in the last 2 years:

Could the Chief Minister inform the Assembly of the number of Serious Case Reviews which have been initiated or completed in the last 2 years, and how many are ongoing at present? Would he state what major changes, if any, have been made as a result of these reviews?

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

Could I ask my Assistant Minister to answer this? He is responsible for safeguarding issues so far as they touch our department.

Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):

I have been advised that in the last 2 years the Independent Safeguarding Chair has decided to undertake 6 Serious Case Reviews, 4 relating to children and 2 to adults. Of those one has been completed. There have been major changes in recent years to improve safeguarding practices across the States services. These changes include the restructuring of children’s social services, the development of multi-agency children protection procedures and a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub. Once all the current reviews are complete the Safeguarding Chair will be able to identify what additional improvements are required.

3.1.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Hopefully the Minister for Health and Social Services will go into more detail during questions without notice. I wonder if the Assistant Chief Minister could tell us what themes have emerged from these reviews because it seems quite extraordinary after all the massive reforms of children’s services over the last several years and previous reports that we are still at this stage. What themes have emerged?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I am afraid it is too early to say if any particular themes have been emerging. There is one Serious Case Review which has been completed, which is similar to some others which may start. It has not been decided whether they warrant being a safeguarding report yet but that will be decided by the Independent Safeguarding Chair and that relates to sexual abuse of children. That is to be decided at a later stage whether they do warrant being a serious case review.

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

Would the Assistant Minister not agree that part of the problem of being able to identify what the problems are is the total inadequacy of the records? If he looks at written answer 16 to my question regarding offences of sexual abuse on children as reported to the Children’s Service, what I see repeatedly written through is information systems used by Children’s Service do not enable the capture of the information in the format requested.

[9:45]

Surely they should have adequate records instead of having to go trawling through all their records to see. Is it not a failure to have proper records so they can see what trends are emerging?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I have not had the benefits of looking at the written question answer as yet but I will obviously be doing that. Certainly it is important - vitally important - that all departments relating to Social Services do have adequate record keeping and it would obviously enhance the services if that was the case. I know that there is a desire within the Health Department to have good record keeping and I think that is one of their aims to achieve that.

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

Has the Assistant Minister been made aware of the preliminary findings of the latest Serious Case Review and if not why not?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I answered a similar question to this at the last sitting with regard to the particular case and I have not been made aware of the findings of that case yet because the Independent Chair is wanting to speak to the people involved - the children involved - before it is disclosed to other people. The answer I gave last time was that as soon as the children have been spoken to the Chair will be deciding at what stage the review outcomes will be made known and obviously made known to me and I will share it as soon as I have it.

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

Given the incredibly significant number of Serious Case Reviews that are being undertaken could the Assistant Minister tell us what the Chief Minister’s Department and indeed the Children’s Policy Group are doing to deal with and address this matter regardless of what the outcomes are? There are obviously considerable issues around the safeguarding of children for the fact that we have 6 reviews taking place.

Senator P.F. Routier:

I can only share the Deputy’s concern with regard to the seriousness of and the number of cases which are coming about. With regard to taking things forward we really need the independent Chair to come to her conclusion and publish her reports before myself or the Health Department are in a position to decide on what is the best way to enhance services. Certainly it is, for me, one of the highest priorities that I have to ensure that the co-ordination of safeguarding procedures are at the best they can possibly be.

3.1.5 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

When can we expect the 6 Serious Case Reviews to be complete?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I am afraid I cannot give an answer to that because speaking to the Independent Chair of the safeguarding review who does these reviews all over the U.K. and obviously in Jersey as well, serious case reviews can take 2 to 4 years to complete and they can be a long, long time because it is a matter of getting all the information together from across departments. I know the urgency that is required and we need to ensure that it is done as expeditiously as possible but the due process needs to take place. They are very, very complex issues to be dealing with.

3.1.6 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Assistant Chief Minister not acknowledge that it is not his role just to be a messenger in these circumstances? It is the role of the people he represents to take action which may have to cut across Ministries. He may have to take action to say: “It is not good enough and we have to shake up the organisation.” Would he not agree that is his role? It is not just to be a messenger.

Senator P.F. Routier:

I could not agree more. Once we have the results from the Serious Case Reviews that action will be taken but unfortunately we do not have the results of the Serious Case Reviews. I have to say the reports yesterday, the review which was published by the ...

The Bailiff:

I am sorry, Senator, I think that is going off the point.

Senator P.F. Routier:

Okay, I wanted to share my concerns.

The Bailiff:

You have given your answer. Very well.

3.2 Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John of the Assistant Chief Minister regarding the number of applications for registration cards under the Control of Housing and Work Law:

Would the Chief Minister state how many residents have applied for a registration card under the Control of Housing and Work Law and would he clarify whether long-standing residents who may have been qualified to live in Jersey for over 30 years are being required to produce 3 different proofs of residency which then need to be checked with the author before a registration card is issued?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

This matter is also delegated to my Assistant Minister but I am aware that the Connétable has a standing instruction with regard to the Economic Development Department. I am not sure whether he has with regard to my department.

The Connétable of St. John:

When the Chief Minister is in the House I would expect him to answer the question.

The Bailiff:

You have notified this outstanding instruction to the Greffier. You will make do with the Assistant Minister?

The Connétable of St. John:

No, the Minister is in the House. I would like him to answer the question.

The Bailiff:

I am afraid it is for the Assistant Minister. You have to do it when you submit the question.

The Connétable of St. John:

The Minister is in the House. The question was put to the Minister. It is up to the Minister to answer the question. You put it to him, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Please do not speak at the same time as me. The Assistant Minister will answer this.

The Connétable of St. John:

I must object.

The Bailiff:

You can deal with your objection by writing a standing instruction now, so that all questions are to be answered by the Chief Minister and then we will not have this problem again.

Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):

Has the question been asked? [Laughter] I will do my best to answer the question. There have been 25,115 registration cards issued between 1st July 2013 and the end of May this year. Nearly 11,000 of those were for permanently “Entitled” people. Before issuing “Entitled” cards the department must be sure of a person’s residential status as an “Entitled” card provides open access to work and housing. This is usually straightforward as the relevant records are held by the Population Office. Where this is not the case an applicant may be required to confirm length of residence by 3 personal references which are then verified by the Population Office.

3.2.1 The Connétable of St. John:

Can the Minister please explain to the many residents out there who are being given the run around? I am aware of people who have been to Social Security, sent from Social Security to the Population Office, who require - they are told when they go down there - a letter of residency. Go down there with a letter of residency and then they are told they need at least 3 letters. All the persons who have signed it must have known them for at least 20 years-plus and one of those letters must be or should be from a neighbour who has known the person for an extended period of time. Can the Minister please explain why in some cases these people are given the run around and other persons, like myself for instance, walk into the Social Security office and get my card within 1½, 2 minutes?

Senator P.F. Routier:

Yes, I can recall a year ago - 1st July - the Connétable went to the department and got his card and was very pleased with the service he had. [Laughter]

The Connétable of St. John:

It has deteriorated since.

Senator P.F. Routier:

He remarked upon it to me but certainly everybody’s circumstances are different. I am sure the Connétable would not want the department to be giving out cards to people who are not qualified. The department needs to carry out proper checks to ensure that the person is qualified especially if they are looking for a permanent card. We know when people have just arrived on the Island they go and get a card and it is very straightforward. They show their identification and because they are not getting any benefit from it they are just having a registered card. It is not entitling them to housing or anything like that. The Connétable will be aware no doubt, when he has looked at the States of Jersey website, that there is a very clear explanation of the information that people need to give because it gives a list of what your circumstances are and the type of information that people need to present at the department.

The Connétable of St. John:

Supplementary off that one.

The Bailiff:

I will come back to you, Connétable.

The Connétable of St. John:

It is my question after all. I am not even allowed to ask the Chief Minister by a ruling from yourself, and now I cannot even put a supplementary on what the Assistant Minister has said to challenge him.

The Bailiff:

Connétable, you know the rules. You know the practice. You have asked one supplementary already. I shall come back to you at the end in accordance with the way that everyone is treated. Deputy Southern.

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

Does the Assistant Minister have any idea when we will have a completed population register showing who and where all 100,000 of us are? Is it one year, 3 years, 4 years, 20 years down the line before we will have an accurate register?

Senator P.F. Routier:

As the Deputy will be aware, the need for a registration card is only required when people are changing jobs or changing accommodation and when people come to the Island. The names and address register is building. The Statistics Unit has advised us that for them to be comfortable with a complete record it may take 3 or 4 years quite easily so that we already know that there are about 50,000 people who are already on the system - within the social security system and tax system - but there are other people that would need to be added to the list as it goes by.

3.2.3 Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade:

As fairly shortly we will be coming up for the long summer holidays, can the Assistant Minister give us an assurance that we will not see a repeat of last year’s problem regarding school leavers not being able to get the required letters and so on required to be able to get their registration card, so they can take jobs if they are fortunate to have a job offer?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I asked that particular question of the department and they assure me that they are working very closely with the Education Department to try and resolve those matters from last year. There are new abilities within the Social Security Department to have direct contact with Education but there is still ... Education’s recordkeeping system is not the same. It does not easily merge in but certainly we are very aware of the problem and the departments are working together.

3.2.4 The Connétable of St. John:

Is the Assistant Minister aware that local people - Jersey-born people, who have never left this Island other than for the odd holiday - can go to Social Security to get their card and they are given an hour and a half of grief to have to prove that they are Jersey people, et cetera? When they are told that they have got all the person’s records on file the answer that a person gets: “Our computers only go back 20 years.” They also have all the files on microfiche. Why are they not using them instead of putting the public to all sorts of additional bother because the officers are too lazy to use the files they have? Please answer that question.

Senator P.F. Routier:

Firstly may I address the issue with regard to the officers being too lazy? They are doing the job that they are being asked to do and they are doing it to the best of their ability and I hope that the Connétable will withdraw that comment about the officers being lazy. [Approbation] The particular issue with regard to people who are needing to look at records from ... well, it is prior to 1991 when records were kept on microfiche. The officers have to literally go and check… and do not have it available to them at the desk where the customer is going in so they have to go to another place to look at that, and they do that. But unfortunately, even when they do look at the microfiche, because of the way the records were kept in those days, they do not distinguish between Class 1 and Class 2 contributors so it does not confirm whether somebody is resident in the Island just by looking at the microfiche details, so that is why there needs to be additional information provided for those people.

3.2.5 The Connétable of St. John:

Firstly, I will withdraw the comment about the officers being lazy. That was my fault for using that expression.

[10:00]

But it is very frustrating for the public that these things are happening. I would like to know what the Minister is putting in place for a review now that this has been in place for some 15 to 18 months. What review is going to take place, please?

Senator P.F. Routier:

The operation of the system came in on 1st July last year, so it has been in operation for just over 11 months. There has been a commitment right from day one to have a review after a year. When we debated the topic months and months ago a commitment was given to have a review of registration cards and the whole of the system, and that will be taking place as soon as we have completed one year.

3.3 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the present roadworks at the Dicq:

Would the Minister confirm that the present roadworks at the Dicq are expected to last 8 weeks and does he not consider that the residents in the east of the Island have already suffered enough as a result of the previous J.E.C. (Jersey Electric Company) cable conduit laying?

Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):

The works now taking place at Grève d’Azette is the final phase of the J.E.C. pulling their cable through on the land side through the recently completed ducting. The works began on 30th May; the current projected finish date being 11th July. T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) are very well aware of the disruption this causes and are working with the Jersey Electricity Company to minimise any disruption. However, this must be weighed against the benefit to the Island of the J.E.C. having a secure electricity supply. Thank you.

3.3.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Regrettably, I think the Minister misses the point of my question. Why was the present trench, which was not ... I mean, the road that ... the cable conduit was laid, the trench was reinstated, the road reopened. Now they are digging up what they had already reinstated to make a trench in order to make the connection for the cable. Could the Minister explain why that trench was not made when the road was closed for a couple of months originally? Why are they doing it now? Because if it had been done originally, surely it would just be a case of pulling the cable through; the road would only be closed for a few days, a week?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

It is a better system we have now as opposed to just burying the cable; the fact that the J.E.C. with the assistance of T.T.S. have built ducting through the system. Any future cables can merely be pulled through and the road will no longer need to be dug up. There will be a few points where connection manholes will need to be made to connect the various sections of cable.

3.3.2 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Continuing the theme of disruption for residents from the east, given the constraints to the Green Street Police Station construction site and the likely significant disruption arising from delivery of building materials such as concrete and steel to the site, what plan is being proposed by T.T.S. if it is necessary to close La Route du Fort for any significant time, bearing in mind the chaos caused recently by the closure of Mount Bingham?

The Bailiff:

I am sorry, Senator. I do not think that arises out of this question. Senator Farnham.

3.3.3 Senator L.J. Farnham:

I am sure this does arise from the question, what I am about to say. I am sure the Minister is aware that the Island ... and as well as the works that are mentioned in the question, there are a lot of works being carried out at the moment and temporary traffic lights around the Island. I wondered if the Minister had any policy in his department relating to carrying out non-essential works on the lead-up to the busy summer period? There was once upon a time an order that no works would be carried out in the main tourism season. I understand that is probably unrealistic in this day and age but it does seem that there is no regard whatsoever for the important economic activity that goes on at this time of year.

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

The utility companies have a right in urgent matters to dig up any road they feel necessary. That is the state of law at the moment. But we will be having a Street Works Law coming in, I believe, late this year, early next year which will formalise everything where everything has to be approved in advance. We do have agreements with utility companies with regard to digging-up freshly laid roads. We have about a 3-year moratorium on that, but in an emergency, mains, electricity, a water main bursting, et cetera, or a major fault, they must go in and dig the road up, which is unfortunate, but we do keep it to an absolute minimum.

3.3.4 Senator L.J. Farnham:

Can I just ask the Minister to be clear? Is there a policy in place at present which is against non-essential works being carried out in the summer season or does that simply just not exist anymore?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

We try and, as I say, minimise. Anything that needs to be done urgently has to be done. There is a trade-off, of course, because obviously we have the schools traffic in the morning so if we can do something in the school holidays it is beneficial but there again, we would run into the tourist season so everything is very, very carefully planned.

3.3.5 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

This time I hope the Minister will answer my question. We know that the work is vital. We know that it is being laid in a conduit so if he would perhaps answer the question as opposed to reading out prepared answers from his department. My question was why was the trench which was being dug to make the connection not made at the time that the conduit was being laid? Why have they reinstated the road only to dig it up again? Why was it not done at the same time?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

They have not dug it to dig it up again. There are several pits being dug which will be the connection points. They will be the joint points. They are not digging-up the whole road. It is part of the process. It will be very hard to ... I mean, it is a major project putting this ducting in and it would be impossible to ... if I may finish? It would be impossible to liaise with the ship bringing the cable in and having an entire crew standing by ready to dig it up.

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Perhaps the Minister could come back at a later date and answer the question why was it not done at the same time?

3.4 Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the investigation into the fire at the former Plémont holiday camp on 4th January 2014:

Following the fire at the former Plémont Holiday Camp on 4th January 2014 when the Jersey Fire and Rescue Service suspected arson, or declared suspected arson, would the Minister state whether the States of Jersey Police has investigated this incident and arson claim in the 5 months since January and, without going into any operational detail, could the Minister give a synopsis of the current status of the investigation?

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

The States of Jersey Police were involved in a joint investigation with the States of Jersey Fire and Rescue Service into the fire at the former Plémont Holiday Camp. Due to extensive structural damage and the presence of highly toxic brown asbestos it was not possible to carry out an internal forensic examination to identify the source of ignition of the fire. Inquiries to date have failed to identify those responsible. While there are no further direct lines of inquiry the investigation remains open pending any further information which would support or negate as to whether this was a deliberate act or not.

3.4.1 Deputy S. Power:

I thank the Minister for that reply. Reading from the Minister’s reply: that would then suggest that if there were to be another fire in another empty or abandoned building in private or public ownership that contained asbestos, or any other material, that that would impede any serious arson investigation. Would the Minister not agree? For instance, if there was a fire ...

The Bailiff:

I think you have posed that question, Deputy.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes. That could be so. My understanding here is that the combination of structural and security and the asbestos, which creates a situation where there are genuine safety issues regarding either fire officers or police officers who might go into those parts. Now the departments have very clear duties to their own staff to protect them from dangers and although, as Members know, firemen will risk their own lives from time to time to go into a live fire situation to rescue a person who is there, they will not normally be called upon to take significant health risks in situations which are not that element of urgency. I would anticipate that when eventually the building is demolished, which may or may not be influenced by a debate to take place fairly shortly, that once it is safe to go in, that there will then be the possibility of some examinations.

3.4.2 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I wonder if the Minister could assure us, in the light of the answer he has just given, that in fact, he is content that, in fact, the fire was not perhaps started by a homeless person in there who may still be there if his department has not investigated?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I do not think the homeless person, if there was such a person, is still there. I think the difficulty is that, of course, there is no suspect in this particular case and therefore, in a sense, although if the Fire and Rescue Service and/or the police were to take risks by going in to attempt a forensic investigation, that would not take us anywhere other than perhaps some idea of cause without there being a suspect.

3.4.3 Deputy S. Power:

My final question is this. Have either the States of Jersey Police or the Jersey Fire and Rescue linked the planning status and public interest in this site with the outbreak of fire or suspected arson?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I would jolly well hope that my officers in both areas do not make decisions based upon political considerations.

3.5 Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding the delivery of insolvency benefit to support those made redundant as a result of insolvency proceedings:

Does the Minister accept that the delivery of insolvency benefit to support those made redundant as a result of insolvency proceedings should be prompt and does he consider that the administration of this benefit is capable of doing so in all cases?

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

I totally agree with the Deputy that the payment of insolvency benefit should be prompt. The purpose of the benefit is to deal with the immediate and unexpected loss of employment and to prevent hardship by providing payments much more quickly than would be the case if the former employees of insolvent employers have to make individual claims as creditors in an insolvency proceeding. I am satisfied that the benefit is achieving that aim. However, in administering the benefit, my officers must be sure that the employer has gone into administration, liquidation or receivership or has entered into an agreement or arrangement with creditors in Jersey or elsewhere. Also certain proofs have to be provided, usually by an insolvency practitioner, to ensure that the former employees are entitled to receive benefit. This can take longer in some cases than in others. The desire to provide prompt financial support does not mean that payments can be made to individuals before the necessary checks have been undertaken to satisfy the conditions set out in the law.

3.5.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

I thank the Minister for that answer but ask him whether he finds it unsatisfactory that a company like Just Glass, which ceased trading some 7 weeks ago, making its employees redundant… those employees have yet to receive any redundancy payment at all.

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I would direct the Deputy to my written answer to this particular question - question 18 - when I made it clear, of course, that statutory redundancy pay is the responsibility of the employer not the States. It is certainly disappointing that the directors of this company appear not to be taking their responsibilities seriously with regard to looking after the interests of their former employees but at the moment my understanding is that attempts are being made to contact the directors - albeit unsuccessful to date - and that the employees have lodged claims through the Employment Tribunal for money they say is owed to them.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

And does he find it satisfactory or unsatisfactory that this is the case?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

The issue is really, is the company insolvent. It is not for the Minister or for the staff at Social Security to make that decision or conclusion. There are processes that have to be made and taken by a company in these circumstances and until those processes commence, the benefit is not payable.

3.5.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Accepting that this particular employer was obviously a scammer and a fraud, has ceased to trade and then skipped the Island, does the Minister intend to alter the law in any way so that those who have ceased trading fraudulently can be caught and redundancy payments can be made promptly for their employees?

[10:15]

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I think it would be wrong for me to comment on the reasons why this company has ceased trading, even though the Deputy has come to his own conclusions obviously. Any suspicion of fraud is not a matter for a department or a Minister to be dealing with. It is a matter for the courts. It is unfortunate, as I said earlier, that the directors of this company are not taking their responsibilities seriously in relation not only to their staff and former employees but also to their creditors, and if anybody is listening to this debate today, perhaps they would search their conscience and contact their accountants or an insolvency practitioner in Jersey to get on with the insolvency proceedings.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

The question was ... Sir, if I may, the question has not been answered. The question was: is he prepared to do anything to change the law to get people like this who just cease trading and skip the Island?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

The law, as the Deputy is well aware, is to provide insolvency benefit. To date we do not know if this company is insolvent. It is not impossible that the company directors could raise money to reopen the doors and commence trading. It is not, as I said before, for the Minister or the officers at Social Security to be making conclusions about whether a company is insolvent or not. We need to have proof provided through either an insolvency practitioner or an application to make the company en désastre through the Viscount’s Department.

3.6 Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the cessation of the prosecution role of the Attorney General and the establishment of a separate prosecution service:

Following his support earlier this year for an end to the dual role of the Bailiff, does the Chief Minister also support an end to the prosecution role of the Attorney General and the establishment of a separate prosecution service?

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

The role of the Attorney General was considered in detail by Lord Carswell in 2010. He concluded that the Attorney General should continue to be responsible for prosecutions and I have no reason to disagree with Lord Carswell on this matter.

3.6.1 Deputy S.Y. Mézec:

Regardless of what Lord Carswell did or did not say, does the Minister think it is appropriate for the chief prosecutor to also be the Government and States legal adviser and does he not see a potential conflict of interest there?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

I think I have made my position quite clear. There is appropriate separation within the office of Attorney General for these matters, and I share the conclusion, as I have said, of the Carswell review.

3.6.2 Deputy S.Y. Mézec:

What does the Chief Minister say to people outside the Island when he explains to them about Jersey’s constitution? Do they do what I had the experience of when I was visiting Cardiff a few weeks ago where they were far more surprised about the roles of the Attorney General than they were about the Bailiff? Does he think people outside the Island looking in see that as a good thing?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

I have to say in all my trips outside of our community and when distinguished visitors visit our community this is an issue which has never been raised with me. I think around the globe and in other small Commonwealth jurisdictions there is far more concern that there might be political involvement in the role of the Attorney General and the prosecution service, something which we do not have within our system. It is those jurisdictions where Attorney Generals are appointed by politicians that the concern arises in my experience.

3.7 Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding travel subsidies or supplements available from Health and Social services for people with medical conditions who can no longer drive:

What travel subsidies or supplements, if any, are available from Health and Social Services to people who have medical conditions that prevent them from driving a car?

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

The department does not provide any travel assistance beyond that for (1) overseas transport in an emergency, which is free of charge; (2) planned overseas transport for treatment, which is means tested; and (3) ambulance and patient transport to and from treatments for both emergency and planned care. The Social Security Department provides a range of financial assistance to individuals who have long-term medical conditions through the means test income support scheme and contributory incapacity benefits.

3.7.1 The Connétable of St. Lawrence:

A supplementary. We have just heard from the Minister that those people who have medical conditions that are not controlled by medication and, therefore, prevent them from driving have no assistance from her department - no financial assistance - for on-Island travel. This question has been raised with me by a young mother in my Parish who has 2 young children under 5 and who finds it very difficult managing day-to-day activities such as taking her children to school, collecting them from school. She works with her husband to manage tasks such as shopping and medical visits, but it is not easy for her. My question to the Minister is: how does the Minister for Health and Social Services expect this lady and others with those medical conditions that are not controlled by medication to travel around the Island undertaking day-to-day tasks with ease and in a timely manner?

The Deputy of Trinity:

I fully appreciate the difficulty that this young lady has and I have been in correspondence with her. We can provide transport for health needs. There are many conditions where people are unable to drive: if you are blind, if you have a stroke, dementia, amputees, et cetera. It is unsustainable for Health and Social Services to be providing financial help to someone who wishes to get around the Island, understanding that it is an important issue. But there is transport there if the person and the carer or whatever needs to come to any hospital outpatient appointments or elective surgery or even in an emergency. The transport is there for them. Regarding the financial needs, that sits with the Social Security Department.

3.7.2 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

I do not want to stray too far from the question, but if we include foreign treatment in this where people have to go to the U.K. is it fair when ...

The Bailiff:

I am sorry, I think Deputy that is ...

Deputy M. Tadier:

I will limit it to local transport, but I think the principles remain the same. Is it fair that transport is means tested to get to the point of health care when health care itself is not means tested? Is that logical and consistent?

The Deputy of Trinity:

That is another issue. Some of it is means tested. If I remember rightly, the threshold is very high. Do not quote me on this but I think it is in the region of £60,000 or £70,000 income. This is for patients travelling overseas. If somebody in Jersey needs to come to an outpatient appointment or surgery or a planned admission and they cannot drive for one reason or another or a member of the family cannot bring them in, transport is available free of charge.

3.8 Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the States of Jersey Police internet investigations into cyber bullying complaints:

Will the Minister give Members an update on the work of the police internet investigators who took up their post on 31st January 2014 and inform Members how many cyber bullying complaints have been received since the beginning of 2014 and how they have been dealt with, including how many prosecutions have been brought against the perpetrators of these acts and the penalties imposed on those convicted of an offence?

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

The States of Jersey Police internet investigator has been actively involved with reports of cyber bullying - currently recorded as harassment - and has also assisted in a wide range of other cyber-dependent and cyber-enabled crimes reported to the organisation - for example, drugs importations, assaults, road traffic offences and sudden deaths, et cetera - and in the development of online intelligence, thereby helping the force to most effectively prioritise their work. This particular role is linked to the continuing force-wide development of all cyber-related matters, a theme that features as a high risk, high harm focus within strategic assessment and one that continues to increasingly impact upon all areas of policing. Since 31st January 2014, the States of Jersey Police have recorded 9 criminal reports of either harassment or bullying over the internet. Of these 9 allegations, 3 of the alleged offenders received words of advice from the police. In 2 others, harassment notices were served. Two offenders were charged and prosecuted with the offence of harassment, one receiving a 12-month binding-over order, the other a 6-month binding-over order and a 2-year restraining order. The other 2 cases are currently under investigation.

3.8.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

A supplementary. Just looking at his previous answer given to Deputy Trevor Pitman on 10th December, I see he has included some of those figures, which happened in the 6 months prior to the investigator coming forward. The Minister has just said that this officer has a range of other duties. Cyber bullying is a particularly horrendous offence. It has led to the death of a number of people in this Island. Does he not feel that it should be highly prioritised given the damage that can be done? What can he tell the States about a prolific offender who has been repeatedly reported to the police who has yet not been brought before trial, a person who brought, with others, a data protection complaint against former Senator Stuart Syvret? That person is going around this Island causing all sorts of mayhem, going to employers, telling them that people have committed all sorts of acts and so on, and yet the police are taking no action. So, 2 questions: should a cyber investigator first of all be giving a much higher priority to cyber bullying and, secondly, what can he tell us about this prolific offender and the lack of action?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

In relation to the alleged prolific offender, I know absolutely nothing. It is not my role as Minister to get involved in operational matters. Indeed, since we now have a Police Authority I am even further removed from operational matters and my role is setting policy and priority. I recognise and have recognised that there is a priority area and hence why this role has been set up, but hence my fairly lengthy answer to demonstrate this is not just a question of employing one person who is going to play a particular role. We are trying to change the culture of the police force so that there is a general awareness. In the last 6 months, a States of Jersey Police cyber policing strategy and action plan has been developed under the chairmanship of the Superintendent of Crime Services. A programme of work subsequently commissioned involves all members of the organisation. Partnership working features heavily in the plan. One area of particular relevance has been the development of appropriate legislation to cater for those instances of grossly offensive or abusive messages that are not captured by current harassment legislation. That work is being led not by Home Affairs but by Economic Development, however supported by the States of Jersey Police and the Law Officers’ Department.

3.8.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

It is all very well the Minister ... in fact, he has answered a question on this before and he has mentioned that Economic Development is leading on this and earlier he expressed dissatisfaction at it. Is the Minister pleased with the progress of the work of the Economic Development Department and how soon does he expect legislation or new policies to be brought forward? In fact, can I ask one other thing ...

The Bailiff:

Well, no ...

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

No, it is in answer to his question. He said that they had come up with a strategy. When is it going to be on their website so we can all see what the strategy is as well?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I have not seen the draft strategy myself and will be interested to look at that and to see that finalised. In relation to the piece of legislation, I have previously expressed disappointment that it was not Home Affairs who were running with this as a priority because the danger is with it being with E.D.D. (Economic Development Department) that it will not get the same high priority as it would have been given by Home Affairs.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I did ask the question was the Minister satisfied with the progress of E.D.D. at the present time.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am unaware of the progress they have made, in fact. They have not been talking to me about it.

3.9 Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding efforts to deal with Japanese Knotweed:

Following the launch by the Environment Department of the app on which to record occurrences of Japanese Knotweed and in light of the considerable effort which has been made by the public to report occurrences of it, what action is the department taking to deal with the problem of this pernicious weed, which can invalidate insurance cover for properties?

[10:30]

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

The Environment Department is continuing to develop its smartphone application and has created a G.I.S. (Geographic Information Systems) layer detailing the location of all reported occurrences. Department officers will be verifying these sites over the next months to gauge the size of the problem. Japanese Knotweed on all property under the department’s administration has for several years been managed and success has been achieved in eradicating it from a number of locations in St. Ouen and St. Brelade. The department also requires developers to deal with knotweed problems on development sites when the problem is known to exist. At the moment, private landowners deal with the problem themselves. However, there are some 5 policy measures that I am considering with department officers in order to further control the problem and would be happy to outline those policy measures if I receive a supplementary question from the Senator.

3.9.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

There are considerable infestations around St. Brelade, at Sandybrook and on the Grande Route de St. Clement, which I pass frequently, and there has been no attempt to deal with these. Why is there not a proper publicised programme to deal with this problem and to assist extermination of it? This has been a problem for 2 or 3 years to my knowledge, and nothing appears to have been done apart from an app.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

The 5 policy measures which I mentioned are, first and foremost, to change the public perception of the plant. At the moment, Itadori, which is the Japanese name of the plant, is an edible plant, although the public do not realise this. The spring shoots are edible and a delicacy in restaurants. It may well be something that our tourism industry wishes to take up seriously. Secondly, the leaves of the plant are used as an animal fodder and again, working with the agricultural industry, there is perhaps a free source of animal food just waiting to be harvested. Along similar lines, free food foraging is something that is on the up and up and indeed ...

The Bailiff:

The question, Minister, was what are you going to do. [Laughter] Rather than the edible qualities of it, it is what you are going to do about eradicating it.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Eat it. [Laughter] Eating the problem is one way to beat it. Of course, it depends on who is eating it and this is why I am outlining the process. It could be eaten by humans. It could be eaten by animals. Another bio-control measure was introduced in the U.K. in 2010 when the first licence was given to an aphid which specialises in eating the Japanese Knotweed, Aphalara Itadori. That is a plant control measure ...

The Bailiff:

I am sorry, Minister, this is far too long. Ministers must answer concisely as there are a lot of questions to be asked, so please answer the question posed concisely.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Okay. Well, there is biological control. There is physical removal. That obviously can only be undertaken when the sites have been readily identified, which is the process that is being undertaken at the moment. There is treatment with injection with a rather noxious herbicide, Glyphosate, which is not necessarily the best environmental method to be pursued. The application of Glyphosate for knotweed eradication has been linked at the moment with increase in autism and other medical ailments, so it is not necessarily the best way forward. The final solution measure is to add this particular plant to the list of injurious weeds and, therefore, by regulation place a burden on the owner of the plants on their own site to eradicate them themselves.

The Bailiff:

Minister, that was an extraordinarily lengthy answer. You must please make them more concise. That is what Standing Orders say.

3.9.2 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

From the Minister’s reply, I get the impression that he is treating this rather in a similar manner to the ragwort problem. Can he assure us that his department is proactive in trying to exterminate this weed by physical means as opposed to perhaps putting it in his sandwiches or whatever he intends doing?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I thought I had done that, but in order to eradicate the problem you have to know where the sites are and the extent of the problem. That work is being undertaken first and foremost before control measures of whatever type are put into place.

3.9.3 Deputy J.H. Young:

The Minister has told us about opportunities to eat this weed and so on and inject it with nasty poisons which will pollute our water supply. What is he going to do to provide householders and homeowners with some advice on practical measures of what they can do if they are unfortunate enough to have this weed on their property?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

The department has already done that. There are a number of department leaflets, management advisory booklets that the department have on their internet site, and Japanese Knotweed is one of them. There are several references to the householder if they do have infestations of this particular plant indicating the kind of measures that are in operation at the moment. There is support advice from Transport and Technical Services and, indeed, from the Department of the Environment.

3.9.4 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

The Minister says he has lots of brochures and people can read them. If he does not publicise it, what is he going to do for the property owner who finds it growing up through the floor of his house, which is what will happen?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

As I mentioned, the plant at the moment is not designated as an injurious weed, although I do agree that because of the vigour of the plant it can pose insurance problems for property holders if, indeed, these plants find themselves growing under the tarmac or under the foundations of buildings. But that really at the moment is a matter for private landowners. Should the reporting exercise report infestations on a level that would point to a change in the law to allow the States to ramp-up its control measures to eradicate the problem, then that is obviously something that I will be looking into doing. At the moment, the work is not complete and until it is we cannot go to the next measures.

3.9.5 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

The work has been going on for 3 years. What is the Minister going to do?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I think I have outlined that.

3.10 Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Social Security regarding changes to the Social security contributions cap to fund maternity leave:

Will the Minister give consideration to lifting or increasing the cap on social security contributions for those earning over £45,336 and £150,000 per annum respectively in order to fund 26 weeks of statutory maternity leave?

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

I just want to clarify with the Deputy that he is referring to the contribution limits currently in place. These were increased in 2014 and what is known as the standard earnings limit is £47,016 and the upper earnings limit is now £155,568. Members will recall that the recently published actuarial review of the Social Security Fund identified that the annual cost of benefits and pensions paid out would exceed the contribution income received into the fund within the next 2 years. The actuary has recommended that action is taken to adjust the social security scheme following the next review, which will take place during 2016. Possible actions include increasing the rate of contributions, increasing the ceiling for contributions, reducing the generosity of pensions or benefits, or drawing-down on the Reserve Fund. The Deputy’s question refers to the funding of 26 weeks of statutory maternity leave. The current maternity allowance provides a standard rate of benefit for 18 weeks. My intention is to introduce family friendly rights into employment legislation from September 2015 and then to monitor the impact of the new rights for the first 12 months and to review the situation in 2016. It is, therefore, sensible to coordinate these 2 reviews and to ensure that any changes proposed following the next actuarial review consider the option of additional funding for maternity allowance.

3.10.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

I based my figures on figures given to me in 2013 so I appreciate the updated figures. The essential question is for the Minister: does he think it is fair that on the one hand if we do not give women - or fathers for that matter - sufficient leave they may feel short-changed and it may have consequences, but on the other hand in order to give generous leave to parents, which some of us feel is desirable, it should not fall as a burden on employers themselves. So the only way to do it really is to fund it centrally from Government. Will the Minister consider bringing forward the review to look at funding it from a progressively based, social security contributed, funded mechanism rather than either short-changing parents themselves or putting an extra burden on employers?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

There were a few questions within that. The burden on employers was the first point. My proposals are that the first 2 weeks of maternity leave are compulsory and that they are paid by the employer at their normal wage rate, offset by the maternity allowance if the employee is eligible for maternity allowance. I agree and the Employment Forum recommended in the second stage of family friendly legislation that we should be moving towards statutory maternity pay in the same way as the U.K. has statutory maternity pay for I think the first 9 weeks of maternity leave. That would be expensive because if we were to model it on the U.K. it would be at 90 per cent of the employee’s wages and that would be a considerable cost to the Social Security Fund, which would inevitably mean a substantial increase in contributions going forward. I do not dispute, and I think the Deputy is aware that I believe the Social Security Fund can be funded in a number of ways. We could remove the standard earnings limit, similar to what Guernsey has done, or we could make higher earners pay more than the upper earnings limit, but all these things would have to be considered on the basis of the next actuarial review.

3.10.2 Deputy J.H. Young:

The Minister has announced effectively I think we are going to have a review of the contributions to the fund. Keeping it in simple terms, could he give us a basic split between what proportion of social security contributions go into pensions and what goes into the other benefits, including the maternity leave, as the Deputy has questioned? What proportion? How does it split out between those 2 important groups, pensions and others?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I am going to give a figure but I would have rather had notice of that question so I could give an accurate figure. My understanding is that pensions account for roughly 70 per cent of the total amount paid out in a year from the social security fund and the rest would be the other benefits, but if the Deputy gives me a minute I will confirm that.

3.10.3 Deputy S.Y. Mézec:

Getting to what I think is the point of Deputy Tadier’s question, does the Minister believe that it is both fair and morally right that high earners should be paying more not just as an amount but as a percentage, too, and does he believe that if the wealthiest in Jersey were paying their fair share we would be able to afford these basic social democratic rights that most people across Europe enjoy, like free visits to the G.P. (General Practitioner) and maternity leave?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

That sounded a bit like a speech. I do not dispute what the Deputy is saying there. The fact is the upper earnings limit is now £155,000 in round figures and, of course, the 2 per cent between the standard earnings limit and the upper earnings limit is only paid by the employer at the moment. There is room for bringing back the proposal for that 2 per cent to be paid by the employee as well. I think previous research has seen that there are not many people who are in the £155,000-plus earned income bracket, so I am not sure that it would produce the large sums of money that the Deputy perhaps is hoping, certainly not enough to start making free G.P. consultations for everybody. In relation to the previous questioner, the figure is 75 per cent of social security expenditure from the fund is for old-age pensions.

[10:45]

3.10.4 Deputy M. Tadier:

I thank the Minister for the answer, which I think was helpful. Given the fact that based on figures from his department currently those earning over £45,000 a year, or whatever the adjusted figure is, are paying proportionately less than most Islanders and given the fact that for every percentage point that we increase the social security above that rate it would yield roughly £7 million if it is done for both employers and employees, I would ask the Minister if he would consider whether that could be something which he sees as both a desirable and progressive route so that even if he is leaving his post that may be a message he wishes to send out to other States Members and the public.

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I repeat we could go the Guernsey route, which is basically for employees to pay contributions up to the upper earnings limit, which I think in Guernsey is slightly lower than our current figure, or we could introduce the 2 per cent on employees between the standard earnings limit and upper limit, or we could introduce an increase in contributions across the board; numerous options. Equity would say that the first option is probably the one that we should heading towards.

3.11 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the retirement age for bus drivers:

Could the Minister inform Members of the age at which bus drivers have to retire and could he also explain at what age bus drivers of school buses have to retire, and if there is a difference explain why?

Deputy K.C. Lewis (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):

Liberty Bus drivers retire from full-time driving at the normal retirement age of 65. This is consistent with the practice of the previous bus operators. Anyone over the age of 65 wishing to continue driving school bus services on a part-time basis may do so providing that they maintain a current public service vehicle badge. This obliges the individual to pass the annual medical examination to ensure their fitness and applies equally to coach drivers. As long as a driver is assessed as fit to drive a P.S.V. (public service vehicle) with a doctor, they will be employable.

The Deputy of Grouville:

I thank the Minister for his reply.

3.12 Deputy S.Y. Mézec of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the handling of offenders with mental illness and drug dependency:

What steps, if any, is the Minister taking in co-operation with his Ministerial colleagues to divert more of the less serious offenders with mental illness and drug dependency into treatment rather than prison?

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

Presently through Home Affairs and through the Building a Safer Society strategy, the Health and Social Services Department Alcohol and Drug Service provide an arrest referral worker, working directly with the police, to identify and support people who have been arrested, who have been identified with either alcohol or drug misuse issues with a view to establishing early intervention with an appropriate therapeutic service. After that, it is really issues which relate to decisions made by a prosecutor or decisions made by a court. When a prosecutor is considering whether charges should be brought the prosecutor will consider whether, in the light of mental illness, it is in the public interest to bring charges. A court which is sentencing an individual should obtain background reports on the offender prior to sentencing to imprisonment and these may include psychological and/or psychiatric reports. They may also include assessments as to suitability for a treatment order in relation to a drug or alcohol addiction.

3.12.1 Deputy S.Y. Mézec:

Does the Minister agree that Jersey has a very poor track record of helping Islanders with mental health issues and does he agree that there is much more the Government, including his department, could be doing to help these people rather than punish them and their families?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I think there are issues in relation to people with mental health in Jersey. One of the most difficult issues - which is once again highlighted in the recent excellent Scrutiny Report - is the lack of secure accommodation. This acts in 2 different ways. Firstly, it means that if a person who is mentally ill is taken to a place of safety, because of their mental illness, and for their protection, the police have powers to do this. In practice they are normally taken to a police cell, which is not ideal and of course that has been highlighted in relation to children, but applies also in relation to adults. Similarly, on sentencing the lack of secure accommodation for people who are mentally ill does lead to situations sometimes where people are sentenced to imprisonment and whereas it might be if there were other more secure options available the court might take a different route. Having said that, I am well aware of the difficulties faced by the Minister for Health and Social Services in this area, the costs of running such a secure unit and the difficulties because of the smallness of scale means you can only have one type with one level of security, whereas of course in the U.K. (United Kingdom) or elsewhere with larger catchment areas there is a whole variety of secure units. So there is an issue. There is an ongoing problem but my colleague has found that difficult to solve.

3.12.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Following on from the Minister’s answer, because the issue of mental health and offenders and prison, and the lack of facilities, has been going on for at least 8 years. In fact I think as long as I have been in the States. I know the Judiciary have mentioned on numerous occasions the failure of the Mental Health Law or the inadequacy of provision, that they are having to send someone to jail because there is nothing else, can the Minister tell us what he and his colleagues in the Council of Ministers have been doing, certainly in the last 3 years, and he was on the previous one, what they have done to try to alleviate this problem, and if not, if they have not tried to do anything what are they going to do about it now?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The issues that I have described have been going on for much longer than that because my predecessor, as Magistrate, had a particular concern which he voiced on numerous occasions. I have had a number of meetings over the years with counterparts in Health to try to alleviate the situation in relation, particularly, to areas where people who are in prison become mentally ill and that mental illness persists. I have to say I think some improvements have been made here in relation to speeding-up assessment times in order to transfer such people to the U.K. where they can stay in a mental hospital during the duration. But it is a difficult problem. I have sought to press my colleague to make this a higher priority. I hope that the pressure now coming in in relation to the young people will demonstrate why it is essential to have such a secure facility. Having said, that, a secure facility is not going to solve all the problems because frankly sometimes people who are mentally ill also represent a serious danger to the public who will continue to commit offences and have to go into the criminal justice system for that reason.

3.12.3 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Could the Minister tell us that with the benefit of professional judgment how many people does he think are in the prison who would be better in mental health facilities?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

There are always some, I suppose is the answer, but that number will vary. There are different categories in this. There is the category I referred to before, which have serious and repetitive mental issues. Although they can be transferred short term to receive treatment in a hospital it is a recurring pattern. There are also a certain number of people who are frankly inadequate in a variety of different ways and part of their inadequacy relates either to alcoholic abuse or mental illness, and who get shuffled between agencies and spend some of their time in a prison. The system has changed over the years. I can remember the days when such people would have been long-term patients in a mental hospital but the whole concept of care in the community and so on has led to a more risk-taking, if I can say, approach, which does work and enhance the life of many.

3.12.4 Deputy S.Y. Mézec:

I think it is quite apparent that the issues we have with mental health in Jersey require absolute urgent attention, so could I ask the Minister if he has any plans to do anything before the end of his term to perhaps maybe secure extra funding for something that could help that or bring forward proposals to change the policy so something can be done for these Islanders who are being failed?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Of course I am a member both of the Children’s Policy Group and the Adult Policy Group and via my membership on those I will seek to raise these issues. I think that these issues need to be looked at quite seriously, not just by one department, i.e. Health and Social Services, but across the board because of the cross-border aspects of them.

3.13 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the number of foot and vehicle passengers using Condor’s Weymouth service in a full year:

Would the Minister advise how many foot and vehicle passengers, on average, use Condor’s Weymouth service in a full year?

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

During the period from 2009 to 2011, the sea route between Jersey and Weymouth carried an average of 100,000 passengers and 35,000 vehicles per annum. During the sudden closure of Weymouth in 2012 for essential repair work to its harbour wall passenger numbers fell to just 2,886 and 1,230 for vehicles. During the period when Weymouth was closed passengers and vehicles migrated to the alternative ports of Portsmouth and Poole. Overall the volumes to and from the U.K. have remained stable demonstrating that whether 2 or 3 ports are offered by the operator passengers with an interest in visiting Jersey will continue to travel from whichever port is available and is effectively marketed.

3.13.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Given those numbers, does the Minister not agree that should the company decide to choose a ferry which can no longer enter that port a considerable number of people will be inconvenienced and therefore does he not believe that the company should in fact be looking to choose ferries that fit the port and not the other way round?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

No, I am afraid I do not agree with the Deputy. I think the statistics make it clear that during the period where we have had the opportunity to see in real time what might happen if Weymouth were not in operation, the numbers drop dramatically and in fact passengers migrated to both Poole and Portsmouth with virtually no loss in terms of passenger numbers. So I think that makes it clear as to what would happen in real time and, as such, I do not necessarily see there is a problem, although I have stated previously that the operator Condor have looked and continue to look at working with Weymouth in order to help them to facilitate the changes that might be necessary to the port facilities. But that is a considerable investment.

3.13.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Therefore the Minister can confirm that whether or not Weymouth remains a port of choice for Condor is utterly irrelevant to the final decision, which he will be taking by which date?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I am not quite sure how the Deputy managed to weave that in. No, what I am saying is that we have had the opportunity to see what happens when Portsmouth is not in operation, it does not seem to affect the Island. There are obviously inconveniences, probably for a number of Islanders who like to go further west, but generally in terms of numbers there is not a great difference. As far as the agreement, I have said the Islands are negotiating with Condor with regard to a longer term agreement. Those negotiations have been to date constructive. We hope to be in a position to make an announcement by the end of this month, providing there are no showstoppers in the interim period.

3.13.3 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Is the Minister not concerned that ... he mentioned Poole and Portsmouth but of course the fast ferries only go to Poole, not to Portsmouth, as far as I know. Is he not concerned that by doing away with Weymouth you end up with just one destination and then if there is an industrial infrastructure problem we have no fast ferry running at all or indeed by having one fast ferry you are replacing 2; if that should break down again, you have no fast ferry service at all. Is this not taking a huge gamble?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I think I hopefully have made it clear that all parties are keen to see Weymouth continue. Nobody wants to see Weymouth close. However there are some practicalities around the cost of changes that will be necessary to the Weymouth Harbour. I can tell the Deputy and Members that, for example, Condor have a large number of staff at Weymouth and around that area so from their point of view, from a practical perspective, they would obviously like that port to remain open. Customer service that has been undertaken, however, do demonstrate that the balance of customers using the services seem to have a preference for Poole and/or Portsmouth. I take his points about risk to service but I think, all things considered, there are 2 options and I think they can adapt to facilitate the requirements in the future.

[11:00]

3.14 The Connétable of St. John of the Minister for Economic Development regarding funding of the Jersey International Motoring Festival:

Following the Jersey International Motoring Festival held during the weekend of 6th June would the Minister state whether an application was made to the Tourism Development Fund for a grant to assist in staging this event and, if so, would he give details of amounts of the grant, and if no grant was given would he give the reasons why?

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

An application in the name of the Jersey International Motoring Festival Limited was received on 10th April 2014 for an event that was to be held less than 8 weeks later running between 5th and 9th June. The application was not straightforward however, as it was for a significant grant sum and covered an extended period, not just for 2014 but also annually through to 2018. As Members would expect, the Tourism Development Panel - an independent panel - undertake rigorous and comprehensive examination of all applications prior to any approvals. The panel continued their analysis of the application for the extended period at its meeting on 12th June. As a result of this, further detailed information is being sought from the applicant. The Motoring Festival has made previous applications to the Tourism Development Fund and was awarded a grant in 2010. They are therefore aware of the process which is applied and the timescales which are necessary.

3.14.1 The Connétable of St. John:

Is the Minister being a bit disingenuous here? Given that the Festival themselves wrote to the Tourism Development Fund in January, and in fact received an email from the Minister on 25th March to the effect that the Board of the Tourism Development Fund was in the process of being replaced. A number of members were being replaced. Would he like to review the answer he has just given, given that there had been a number of contacts between the International Motoring Festival Committee and the department? Would he like to review the answer he has just given?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

No, the answer that I gave was perfectly accurate. I can elaborate on the comments that the Connétable has just made with regard to the Board. Yes, there have been some changes to the Tourism Development Fund Board. That did not affect the operation of the Board. New members have been recruited, some members have retired, that is a natural course of event that happens with organisations. As far as the particular International Motoring Festival Limited is concerned, as I pointed out, they have applied previously to the T.D.F. (Tourism Development Fund) over a number of years. There have been instances where they have not supplied enough detail. Contact, I can say to the Connétable, is not enough. There has got to be far more detail than just contact if the Tourism Development Fund or any public body dealing with public funds is to deal with those funds effectively and go through an appropriate process. The formal application was not received, as I have already pointed out, until 10th April, less than 8 weeks before the event.

3.14.2 The Connétable of St. John:

Given the Minister’s reply, and knowing full well that the problems he had within his Tourism Investment Fund, yet money was able to be found for the rugby club over that period of time, and for Durrells, it seems odd to me that some society who are trying to bring people into this Island and fill our hotels are not being supported by the department. If the Society were to put a retrospective application in would it be considered favourably?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

No, to the last point. That would be against the terms of the fund. It was up to the organisation, which has applied before… it has been successful before in 2010 with regard to grants from the Tourism Development Fund, then that would be perfectly acceptable. They knew the timescales that were necessary. As far as the other points about who does and does not receive grants from the Tourism Development Fund, I think the fund and the panel do an exceptionally good job. In fact in 2013 they had 39 applications for a total of over £1.6 million, which came in. Some really good awards were made as a result of that and I think that is a positive thing. I would also add, I think the Motoring Festival is very positive. I think the Motoring Festival this year, yet again, was a fabulous event. I think it can grow and I think the application that they put in for a significant grant covering from 2014 to 2018 can move the Festival on to another level altogether. I think that is good for Jersey, I think it is good for tourism. I am sure the Connétable will agree with it, and I would very much hope that if the detail is applicable that the Tourism Development Fund may be in a position to approve that and that would be good.

The Connétable of St. John:

Excuse me, Sir, there were lights over that side of the Chamber ready for questions.

The Bailiff:

I see. I am sorry I did not see Deputy Vallois’ question. Never mind, I asked you to do the final question.

3.15 Senator S.C. Ferguson of the H.M. Attorney General regarding the reimbursement of those defrauded by the principals in the Sunstone and De Lec case:

Could the Attorney General explain whether a “Pauline action” could have been brought against the principals in the Sunstone and De Lec case so that the assets might be traced and used to reimburse those who were defrauded and, if so, why was this not done?

Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

Pauline actions are proceedings commenced by a creditor to set aside a prior transaction undertaken by a debtor taken by that debtor in order to defraud his creditors. It is a private law remedy which may be available to a creditor in private law proceedings. The action is not available to a prosecuting authority in a public prosecution. While I am not aware that any of the investors in the Sunstone and De Lec case considered any such relief I would not expect to be told, as whatever private law steps were taken by any of them would be exclusively a matter for them and their own lawyers.

3.15.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Would there be a time limit and would legal aid be applicable in this case?

The Attorney General:

I am afraid I am not sure of the prescription period or limitation period applicable to Pauline actions. There would be, in my view, some form of time limit, even though it relates to a fraud, but that is a matter that I cannot give definitive advice on. As to the availability of legal aid, if there is a case that can be brought within the Island then if the applicants qualify for legal aid there is no reason why they should not receive legal aid to bring it.

The Bailiff:

Senator, I seem to remember sitting on a case; I think it is 10 years.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I thank the Attorney General and I thank you too, Sir.

3.15.2 Deputy J.H. Young:

The Attorney General has answered that it is a private matter and not one that he can get involved in. Could he not tell us: is there not any procedure available where a group of creditors, such as this group, can be assisted by Government to bring a group action in order to seek access to these private assets rather than us have to eventually have to deal with compensation out of taxpayers’ funds? Is there not a procedure available for the public to help through his department or whatever?

The Attorney General:

No. It is possible for a group of individuals if they have the same legal interest to bring what is termed a class action and to group together for the purposes of bringing private law proceedings, but it is not the function of the Law Officers’ Department to assist with private law proceedings. We are to there to deal with a public law function and not to vindicate private law rights on behalf of individuals.

3.16 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding the credibility of the referendum proposed for October 2014:

Given the apparent inability of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) to promote the relevant legislation - perhaps overtaken by the report today - as explained in a written answer on 3rd June 2014, what alternative steps, if any, is the committee taking to ensure the credibility of the referendum proposed for October 2014?

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

Members will note that P.P.C. today have lodged the necessary Draft Referendum Act to enable the referendum agreed in November 2013 to take place in October if the Act is approved by the States in July. P.P.C. has also presented today a report to the States setting out the outcome of our review of the Referendum Law, in response to Deputy Le Hérissier’s proposition that was adopted earlier this year. Our report sets out a number of ways in which referenda could be more effective in the future and recommendation 2 is particularly relevant. P.P.C. recommends that a referendum should, if at all possible, be held on the same day as a general election in Jersey where the electoral turnouts will be at the highest. If as many or nearly as many people vote in the referendum in October as generally participate in the Island-wide elections, the result will have considerable weight and we hope that in this mechanism that will give greater credibility to any referendum ongoing in the future.

3.16.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Given the report of P.P.C., which obviously not everyone has read, could the Chairman elaborate upon why a percentage has not been accepted? He argues that it will simply follow that of the turnout. Why then does he support the States apparently having a threshold for the voting in of constitutional provisions?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

When we looked at the different examples internationally there does tend to be a disparency between. When referendums are held on the same day as general elections they tend not to be a threshold, with the understanding that it is very difficult for elect parliamentarians to dismiss something that is brought in at the same time with the same mandate as they have been elected, for example, which is why P.P.C. suggested that holding a referendum should occur at the same time as general elections. In our repot it does go on to analyse how thresholds could be woven-in if that was deemed desirable should a referendum be held outside of a general election, but P.P.C. is of the opinion that referendums should be held at the same time.

3.16.2 Deputy S.Y. Mézec:

Does the Chairman agree with me that rather than dumbing-down and fuelling cynicism on this referendum that this proposition is excellent and States Members from across the board should be backing this and backing a yes vote so that we can finally end this issue that has plagued Jersey politics for so many years?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Ideally, yes, but Members will have to make their own mind. What I would hope is that - regardless of what individual Members’ opinions are - they would agree that the public should have the right to vote on the Clothier proposals and get this issue sorted because if we do not it will come back to this Assembly time and time again. It is better just to put it to bed one way or the other and get it sorted.

3.16.3 Senator I.J. Gorst:

Could the Chairman explain in his view whether he thinks bullet point 3 means that we will have single seat constituencies or more than one-seat constituencies, and how does he see that interrelationship working?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

With regards to bullet point 3 of the actual referendum question. My committee did discuss when we went out to focus groups about how it should be performed. What came back was the understanding of what single-seat constituency meant out there to the wider public was not well understood, and therefore going back over what was in the Clothier report, and we analysed it again, we saw that in the report while the issue is not specifically addressed, reading the report it does suggest that when Clothier looked at the model which the States currently have, redistributing the seats among the Parishes in the form that we have currently does seem to be it. However, I would draw Members’ attention to the line in our report where we suggest this particular aspect should be dealt with by an independent boundaries commission to look at best international practice and design the seats accordingly because we found that, again going to the focus groups, if we were to drill down - and I appreciate I am not presenting the Referendum Act at the moment - into exactly where the constituency lines are going to be that causes people to focus on what street they are in rather than the general principle, which P.P.C. was minded was more important to settle.

3.16.4 Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:

Following on from what the Chairman has just said: can he confirm whether all members of the Island will have the same number of votes because I cannot see how this referendum question makes that clear?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

No, I cannot confirm that at this time. That would be for the independent boundaries commission to decide that question, should the States adopt this particular way forward, and they may choose not to do so. But I hope that they would.

[11:15]

3.16.5 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Again, I echo maybe what was implicit in Deputy Mézec’s comments. It is a good report in many respects although they laboured mightily to reach the commencement decision – over-mightily. Could the Chairman confirm that irrespective of whether there is a very tight result they will be seeking a referendum based on the principle of a binding vote and a vote which takes place at the same time as the general election on the assumption that there will be a higher turnout? Can he confirm that those 2 principles will be supported in the proposed Referendum Act?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

If I take them in reverse order: yes, for the second one because we have asked for the referendum to be held on the same day as the general election. We would hope that it would be an election issue. We would hope that candidates would be drilled on that particular aspect to give commitments one way or the other, but as the way it is currently formed, as we explained in our report to States Members, will be free to vote as they see with their conscience but we would hope that with the commitments made during an election Members would stick to those. As I am sure many of us will do and continue to do.

3.16.6 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I am a little, as ever, confused. Is the committee going to propose that the referendum through the commencement route that it has outlined, that it be a binding referendum?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

As explained in our report. The only way to do that was to have this Assembly pass legislation with the caveat of it being subject to a commencement date. Unfortunately my committee has not been able to do that in the timeframe that we have, and therefore we are not, at this time, able to pursue that route, although in future my committee has suggested in our report that that is the way forward that we should go. But unfortunately at this time we cannot do that.

3.17 Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Minister for Home affairs regarding the investigation of cases of alleged child abuse and child protection issues by the States of Jersey Police:

Can the Minister assure Members and the public that all cases of alleged child abuse and child protection issues are fully investigated by the States of Jersey Police and that they liaise fully with the various child protection bodies, the Law Officers’ Department and the Judiciary?

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

All cases of alleged child abuse are fully investigated by the States of Jersey Police working whenever appropriate in conjunction with other child protection bodies. Where appropriate, a report is then produced for the consideration of prosecutor from the Law Officers’ Department, which department will decide as to whether there is sufficient evidence or not to bring a prosecution. The States of Jersey Police work closely with the other child protection bodies in relation to child protection issues. There is a very effective system known as M.A.S.H. (Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub) for sharing of information on such matters. The role of the Judiciary is different. It is to judge matters which are within their area of responsibility, and so they are not involved in relation to such matters unless called upon to make a decision.

3.17.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can I ask the Minister why it is then that the States of Jersey Police who investigated a case of concern regarding child protection, and botched it because they did not review the evidence fully, made a report to the child protection agencies which went to the Judiciary who made decisions have refused to date to review that evidence and provide the information to the various chid protection agencies and to the Judiciary? My question is: how can we have confidence in the States of Jersey Police in their investigations when first of all they do not review evidence that was on a video clip, that was approximately 6 hours long? They must have got tired at 5½ hours because they did not watch the last half hour, which showed a sex act between a couple who were unmarried with a young child present and one could argue almost participating. That information was not passed on to the child protection body nor to the court. At the present time, the States Police are refusing to correct that information and pass it on. Will the Minister investigate this and does he think it is acceptable?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Deputy Higgins, over the years, has a habit of asking me general questions, which I answer most assiduously, and then following up with particular allegations in relation to particular matters of which I know absolutely nothing. I would urge him on such occasions to email me with details of the matter. All Members who have done that in relation to various concerns know what my practice is. I will then forward on without comment a copy of the email to the Chief Officer address and it will then be forwarded through, and I will then seek to check that there is a proper response to that. But I cannot deal with such matters on the Assembly floor, particularly when I have absolutely no detail. I have no idea whether what he is saying is correct or not.

3.17.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Point of information, this matter was first raised by former Deputy Pitman to the Minister for Home Affairs and this matter has been going on ever since. What I am saying is, information is being held back by the States of Jersey Police, they have not corrected the records. So both the child protection body and the Judiciary do not have full information. They made information based on the fact there was no evidence of a child protection issue because the police had not investigated properly. I am asking the Minister, will he go back now - I will give him the names and all the rest of it - and correct the situation? It is totally unacceptable.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

If I could be provided with names in relation to a certain case I will pass that on in an appropriate manner to the police, and I will then seek to ensure that they deal with it in an appropriate manner, but I cannot do anything without knowledge of individual names and matters.

3.17.3 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

On a more general point, could the Minister assure the House that when a police investigation has been carried out, and irrespective of whether or not it proceeds to prosecution, do the police write a report identifying any issues they feel, while not within their purview, need to be followed up by other agencies related to that investigation? Do they write such a report and reflect upon what has come up within that investigation?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I tried in my answer to distinguish between the criminal aspects, which goes down a particular route, and the issue of concerns which may be raised in relation to a matter even though it does not lead to a criminal prosecution. That is where there is a sharing of information and a sharing of concerns with other agencies because although there may not be sufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution there may be a need for agencies to take action in some form in order to protect the children involved.

3.17.4 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Can the Minister confirm that such reports are written and he is fully convinced that they are as robust as they should be?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I do not know whether this happens in the form of a formal written report or whether it happens in terms of case conferences and meetings of interested parties because there is a very good system now in place in relation to that which has certain initials which I cannot remember. But for sharing information among officers at that sort of level, that is a much more effective way of doing things than writing formal reports, which can take ages to produce and may delay the information getting there.

3.17.5 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Just following up on the Minister’s last answer. Will the Minister not confirm the information the panel get is only as good as the information they are given? If they are given inaccurate information and that information is not corrected that is totally unacceptable; would the Minister agree with that?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Any agency can only act on information which they get and it is necessary that they get the best available information. I can only agree with that, yes.

3.18 Deputy M. Tadier of the Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel regarding the establishment of a Dog Warden role and the introduction of on-the-spot fines for fouling

Would the Chairman state what action, if any, his panel is taking to ensure the implementation of the recommendation in relation to dog fouling of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Report of 18th July 2011, which in section 3.3 recommended that the Minister for Home Affairs should work with the police and Parishes to establish a Dog Warden role; and consider on-the-spot fines for fouling?

Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade (Chairman, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

I thank the Deputy for his question. It is a very important issue. The panel obviously recognises the emotive concerns and environmental problems caused by irresponsible dog owners, but to specifically answer the question. The current Education and Home Affairs Panel has not taken any action at this time to ensure that the implementation of the recommendation, and does not plan to do so. It is currently focused on issues that it considers to be of higher importance at this time.