In view of the Minister’s responsibilities under the Loi (1914) Sur la Voirie to maintain main roads and prevent any encroachment onto them, will the Minister, following a number of landslides onto main roads around the Island (and in particular, onto Mont Felard in St Lawrence when the main road was blocked for some months), have formal discussions with the Minister for Treasury and Resources to progress the idea of enabling loans by the States to landowners to enable them to undertake remedial work to either prevent encroachment onto main roads or to remediate encroachment?

Answer

The Minister for Transport and Technical Services has responsibilities under the Loi Sur La Voirie I also have restrictions which preclude me from acting in the event that a landslide occurs from land in private ownership. In this instance it is the responsibility of the landowner to repair the landslide and not the Highway authority. Under the Loi sur la Voirie (1914) the Connétable also has powers to require the owner to remove the collapse even though it may be entirely due to natural causes.

When land slips occur from private land on the public highway my officers meet with the landowners to encourage them to realise their responsibilities and to persuade them to undertake the works as quickly as possible. This can often be a protracted period due to the potential cost of remedial works that the land owner faces.

The Transport and Technical Department’s (TTS) responsibility is to ensure that the road is safe for the public to use and this can mean road or lane closures for the period from the collapse to the completion of the works to rebuild the slope or wall. In some situations this can result in long delays and inconvenience to the public.

I am happy to commit to discussions with the Minister for Treasury and Resources and revert back to the Connétable with the outcome of those discussions.

2.2 DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE JERSEY ELECTRICITY COMPANY AND RECENT TRENCH WORK:

Question

Would the Minister inform members whether that the JEC will need to re-open some of the company’s recent trench work in order to put the new high voltage cable into the ducting and, if so, advise where those road works will be, when they will take place and for how long, and how his department will mitigate any ensuing traffic disruption?

In the event some of that work will be in the newly re-surfaced Rue à Don, would the Minister explain how that fits in with the moratorium on digging up freshly re-surfaced roads?

Answer

There are three remaining ‘road work’ packets associated with the JEC’s ‘Normandie III’ project to be carried out on roads administered by TTS by its contractor Prysmian Group (and sub-contractor Jayen):-

La Rue a Don - Construction of Joint Bay 5 / 6 and Cable Pulling – 12th March to 12th April: The work is being carried out under Portable Traffic Signals and is located between La Cache des Pres and Paddock End. This section of road was specifically omitted from TTS’ ‘phase 1’ resurfacing of La Rue a Don in 2013 and is not under embargo.

Plat Douet Road - Duct Crossing – 13th to 27th April (Easter School Holidays): The work which will provide a link between recently installed ducts in La Grande Route de St. Clement (Inner Road.) and Green Road will provide the final link in the duct network from Gorey to South Hill. La Grande Route de St. Clement (the Inner Road.) will be closed at its junction with Plat Douet Road between 9am and 9pm daily from Sunday 13th April until Friday 18th April. The road will be then reopened over the Easter Weekend. Plat Douet Road will then be closed between Green Road and La Grande Route de la Cote (the Coast Road) until Sunday 27th April.

La Greve d’Azette - Construction of Joint Bay 1 / 2 and Cable Pulling – 28th April to 14th June: The work is being carried out under Portable Traffic Signals and will be located just to the east of Beach Road with the joint bay being sited off to the side of the road.

None of the above works are sited on newly resurfaced road.

Note: Unrelated to this the JEC have agreed to fund the full lane width resurfacing of the Coast Road from Green Road to South Hill, which will be carried out by TTS once the JEC’s trench line has been deemed stable and unlikely to settle.

2.3 DEPUTY S.S.P.A. POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE FUEL CONSUMPTION OF THE OLD INCINERATOR AND THE ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT:

Question

Would the Minister provide details of the following figures -

1: the overall consumption of fuel oil used in the assistance of combustion by the old three stream incinerator in the years 2001 to de-commissioning, by year;

2: the overall consumption of fuel oil used in the assistance of combustion by the new Energy from Waste plant by year since commencement?

Answer

The old three stream incinerator did not use auxiliary fuel oil to assist with or initiate the combustion of waste. This is because the old plant was not designed to be Waste Incineration Directive (WID) compliant.

The new La Collette plant is WID compliant and part of the criteria for WID is that the plant must not process waste when the furnace temperature is below 850oC. Fuel oil is used to raise the furnace temperature above 850oC so that waste can then be introduced into the furnace in compliance with WID. A small amount of fuel oil is used to supplement combustion if waste with an abnormally low calorific value is fed into the furnace. The supplementary fuel is only used for a short period until the waste returns to a normal calorific value and normal unassisted combustion is stable.

The quantity of fuel oil used is listed below:

Year	Fuel Oil (kg)
2011	582,3201
2012	108,2861
2013	106,2251
2014	8,9032

Much of the fuel oil was used for the commissioning and testing of the plant. It is expected that the fuel oil consumption will drop this year and in future years.

2014 figures for January and February.

2.4 THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EXPENSES FOR STATES MEMBERS:

Question

Following the announcement of changes to the means of providing and funding IT services for States members will the Chairman explain –

(a) why the decision was taken to change the previous method of paying broadband costs as part of phone billing;

(b) how the new funding mechanism will operate and, in particular, whether members will have to prove that they have spent their allowance on IT technology, what happens to expenses for members who have already stated they will not stand again for election and whether part of the sum will be reclaimed if a member loses his or her seat at the election;

(c) whether PPC will liaise with the Information Services Department to put in place appropriate methods to ensure that all equipment used is checked for legacy data clearance when a member leaves office?

Answer

(a) The need to change the broadband billing refund system was effectively forced on the States by the introduction of the new Jersey Telecom billing system. Under the old JT system the company was content to receive payment for the cost of members’ basic 2Mb broadband service separately from other parts of the phone bill paid by the member but when the new billing system was introduced JT made it clear that this would no longer be possible. The States Information Services Department and the PPC were therefore forced to consider an alternative method of paying broadband costs for members as has been done for some 10 years. The new system has the added advantage that members now have the opportunity to decide what broadband package they want in order to carry out their States work and gives them the opportunity to decide whether they want to claim expenses to cover the cost of their broadband provision, or to meet the cost themselves. As part of the change it was also decided to stop the provision of laptops to members and to allow them instead to use a wider range of devices than Information Services could supply and support under the previous arrangements.

(b) The changes have been funded under the existing £31,000 budget for members’ Information Services provision and have led to no increase in cost to the tax payer. This equates to an allowance of £600 per annum per States member. As 2014 is an election year, the allowance has been prorated down to £550. This is because members who are not elected for a further term of office will receive remuneration, including expenses, until the end of November 2014. Those members who are re-elected will be able to claim their December 2014 allowance at that time. Members have all received an Information Services Claim Form that they can submit to the States Greffe. To date, 23 States members have requested an allowance, totalling £12,650. If members continue to receive the basic JT broadband package, this would cost £17.99 per month, equating to £215.88 per annum, which is over one third of the provided allowance. The IS department will also no longer be required to maintain devices which have been purchase privately. Members are not required to prove that the money has been spent on information technology, but in filling out the form they specify the amount they wish to claim, which is stated as being “towards the cost of the provision of hardware, software and broadband services in relation to my work as a States member”. The States Members’ Remuneration Review Body will be asked to consider how the expenses can be reflected within the standard expenses allowance from 2015. This was communicated to members in my letter of 3rd January 2014.

(c) PPC has been informed by Information Services of the already existing protocols regarding legacy data. If a member has a States of Jersey issued laptop then Information Services will work with the member at the end of their term of office to remove information that is personal in nature. The device will then be securely wiped and returned to Information Services. Corporate email will be wiped from any device, whether it is the member’s own, or corporate, at the end of the member’s term of office or on the validated request of the Privileges and Procedures Committee or the Greffier of the States. This process can be completed remotely by Information Services. Other information that might be related to, but is not clearly identified as corporate, will not be dealt with unless the Committee specifically asks Information Services to be involved. Such information may include, but not be limited to, physical letters that have been created in Word, saved, printed and sent by post or emails that have been sent from non-States of Jersey accounts. States members are all subject to Data Protection requirements, which also apply to any paper documentation in the possession of any States member.

2.5 THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING BUDGET UNDERSPENDS AND THE COST OF CANCER DRUGS:

Question

Further to the situation that arose last year when a patient who had been sent from Jersey to Southampton and recommended treatment using the drug cabazitaxel was declined this treatment on return to Jersey because this drug was not made available by the Hospital (even though it might have improved his quality of life before he passed away) will the Minister, in view of the budget underspend recently reported, give serious consideration to setting aside funds to ensure that the treatments recommended by specialists in Southampton can be implemented when patients return to Jersey and, if not, why not?

Answer

The Department’s 2013 under spend and approved use of this under spend is fully documented in the Minister for Treasury and Resources’ decision MD-TR-2014-0011.

This has been considered by Council of Ministers and approved by the Minister for Treasury and Resources as set out in MD-TR-2014-0011. This includes funding for a number of very urgent and largely unavoidable clinical priorities including essential high cost off island placements, a targeted reduction in the waiting time for surgery, and measures to manage hospital capacity pending the development of new hospital facilities.

I have given this issue serious consideration to a whole range of issues including this one. In discussion with clinical colleagues and have concluded that for 2014 the existing policy remains.

As I explained in my answer to my oral question 7790 / 2013; importantly all treatments recommended by specialists from Southampton and other UK specialist centres are individually clinically considered and assessed according to our existing policy.

2.6 THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE MONITORING OF WATER FOR THOSE HOUSEHOLDS NOT ON THE MAINS WATER SUPPLY:

Question

Following the exceptional rainfall over the winter period, what action, if any, was put in place by the department to encourage households not on mains water to have their domestic water supplies tested for bacteria, e coli, etc. and did any advertising take place to warn householders of the potential danger from run off from land or soak-aways getting into their private water supplies?

Does the Health department work with the Environment department to manage potable water supplies to households, in particular where very young children or vulnerable people of all ages are present? Will the Minister work with Minister for Planning and Environment to put funding in place so households can get their drinking water tested free of charge or at least review the charges with a view to reducing the current fees charged for testing?

Has the Minister raised with the Council of Ministers the issue of additional funding to extend mains water supplies to improve health during her term of office and does she support TTS’ moves to extend main drains to the last 13% of the island?

What action has her department taken in response to the St John slurry contamination incident on 24th February?

Answer

In answering this question I also refer the Connétable of St John to the answer I gave to his question 1240/5(7788) of 10 September 2013.

The “mains” supply of potable water is managed by Jersey New Waterworks and water rates are paid for such supply. Where residents choose not to access this supply, or are unable to, other arrangements are made, most commonly a borehole supply. The Environment Department licences abstraction from boreholes. Clearly, properties connected to such supplies are not subject to water rates. Typically such a supply will be fitted with the necessary filters to ensure a wholesome supply, and the maintenance of such equipment is the responsibility of the owner. Similarly, the property owner is responsible for arranging for tests on their own supply. These are carried out by the Public Analyst. Where adverse results are found the supply users are referred to the Public Health Department where advice is available on remedying.

The department encourages everyone not on the mains supply to have regular tests on their water supply. This is to ensure that the water is safe and that any treatment on the supply is functioning well. Advice is available on the States of Jersey website.

Any borehole supply should have sufficient source protection to prevent direct contamination from run-off, even in the wettest of conditions. Wells may be more susceptible to direct contamination, but again suitable source protection should prevent this.

It is possible that the groundwater becomes more polluted than usual during certain climatic conditions, and we would recommend that any private water supply should have treatment fitted capable of dealing with such spikes in pollution.

No advertising took place with regard to private water supplies and potential contamination.

The Health Department does work with the Environment Department with regard to water quality. Advice is given to pregnant women and mothers of small children with regard to water quality, in particularly increased nitrate concentrations.

The charges for testing water supplies are set by the States Official Analyst. It is for the owner of the supply to ensure that a supply is safe, and a test should be part of a maintenance regime for their system. The costs would be part of ensuring their supply was safe. People on private supplies do not pay water rates and this should go some way to offsetting costs of operating a private supply.

I have not raised with the Council of Ministers the issue of additional funding to extend mains water supplies. The department would support as many properties as is practicable being connected to mains drains.

The department has been working with the responsible agency which is taking the lead on the St John incident, and is ready to give advice on health related issues should that be necessary.

2.7 THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING CHARGING FOR MUSIC LESSONS:

Question

Further to the lack of reply to date from the Minister to an e-mail sent on 16th March 2014 would the Minister now respond to the questions raised in that e mail, namely -

1. Why is Jersey following the United Kingdom in deciding to charge for music lessons?

2. If charges are introduced what safeguards will there be for children from families who are in a middle income bracket and who do not qualify for lessons paid for by the States but who cannot afford to pay themselves and, if no safeguards are in place, would the Minister take action to rectify this imbalance?

3. Is the Minister’s department recommending that some music lessons are moved to Saturdays and, if so, why was this decision taken when many students take part in sport activities which are beneficial for their health on Saturdays and will now have to choose between sport and music? Would the Minister agree to change the school curriculum instead to accommodate both?

4. Will the Minister undertake to review the decision to charge for music lessons and carry out a review of the proposed changes?

Answer

The rationale for this change was set out in P36/2013 Jersey Music Service: Introduction of ‘user pays’ charges, which was approved by the States on 30 April 2013. States Members voted 31 to 9 in favour of the proposition, with one abstention. A copy of the proposition is attached for information. I would also refer the Connétable to the Hansard record of the debate and the comments of the Scrutiny Panel that reviewed the proposal.

This matter had also been considered previously as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review and Medium Term Financial Plan so it has been in the public domain for some time.

The introduction of the charges was a difficult decision but it has been the catalyst for the JMS to review and update what it does. This excellent service will be reinvigorated and expanded as a result, while still providing the popular range of ensembles, orchestras and concerts it previously did.

To recap my position, I would like to continue to provide this service free of charge but that is no longer possible. ESC has to focus its expenditure on its core, statutory responsibilities. The lessons provided by the Jersey Music Service are not part of this. They are extra-curricular and, like many other hobbies followed by young people, are optional and followed by those who choose to do so.

The service is still heavily subsidised by the States. To assist middle income families the fees have been kept as low as possible and are generally less than the charges levied by private tutors. Also, there are appropriate safety nets in place that will ensure free or reduced price lessons to support:

Families with more than one child using the service;
Children from families that receive Income Support;
Musically talented children from families with an income of less than £47,000.

The introduction of the user pays charge gives the JMS an opportunity to generate its own income (much as a fee-paying school does) rather than rely on a limited fixed budget. It can use the new income to recruit additional tutors and meet extra demand that it cannot currently cater for. The aim is that this, combined with the safety nets, will result in more children from a wider range of schools having access to the service.

Some – not all – lessons are being scheduled for Saturdays but only because parents have specifically requested to have them outside the school day. Other students will still be able to have them during weekdays as has always been the case. This is another improvement to the existing service, which has responded to customer demand. Lessons are optional and times/days are entirely a matter of parental choice. They can be arranged to best meet the needs of particular students and their parents and the JMS will try to accommodate requests if families raise concerns.

Music and sport will both remain part of the school curriculum that is taught during the school day.

P36 committed to reviewing the charging system after the first three years of operation and this will take place in the summer of 2017. In the meantime, the JMS managers will be monitoring the uptake of the service and reacting to customer requests.

2.8 THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING BENEFIT FRAUD IDENTIFIED OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS:

Question

Would the Minister inform members of the total value of fraud that has been identified by the Social Security department over the period 2009 to 2013 breaking the total down into the categories of fraudulent claims for sickness, unemployment, pensions, income support and others?

How many people were convicted in court in relation to these frauds and what value of funds was recovered over this period?

Answer

The Department introduced a new fraud strategy and increased manpower during the latter part of 2010, enabling a more proactive approach to combatting fraud. In addition the Department receives support from the public who provide anonymous information on potential benefit fraud via the dedicated fraud hotline 0800 735 1111 and webpage www.gov.je/Benefits/BenefitFraud.

All leads relating to potential fraud are investigated and are prioritised based upon the quality of the information provided, the likely risk of the fraud occurring, and the value of any potential overpayment.

Often leads are identified as genuine mistakes from claimants rather than fraud and these can be quickly rectified and repayment arranged. However, in the event that fraud is suspected investigations are conducted in accordance with PPACE (Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003), and RIPL (Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law 2005.

During the years 2009 – 2013, the Fraud Team has identified and taken action to recover amounts as per the table below. There has been an increase in the sums, identified by this Team, of amounts incorrectly or falsely claimed, including fraud, since 2010 when the Department implemented a new approach for fraud detection.

	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
Income Support	£61,847	£190,892	£476,240	£479,630	£398,615
Sickness & Invalidity benefits	£23,741	£144,908	£77,858	£42,878	£63,191
Survivors benefits	£0	£6,729	£53,573	£60,466	£0
Other benefits	£13,093	£0	£0	£863	£2,396
Total per year	£98,682	£342,531	£607,671	£583,841	£464,203*

*The total value detected in 2013 although less than in previous years does not include 5 fraud cases which were referred for prosecution during 2013 with a value of £113,093. None of these cases have been heard to date and we are still awaiting court dates.

The time taken to conclude an investigation varies depending on the nature and complexity of the case. A simple case may be a few hours’ work, but something much more complex, and of a greater monetary value, that could be referred for criminal prosecution can take months from beginning to end.

The Department will, in all cases, endeavour to recover all monies falsely claimed either fraudulently or otherwise. In the first instance repayment is requested in the form of a lump sum. If there is an ongoing claim we can recover from current entitlement or in some cases, based upon each individual’s financial circumstances, by way of an instalment agreement. If they renege on an agreement to repay we may seek a Petty Debts or Royal Court Judgement to safeguard the debt. When a compensation order is granted by the Court, payments are made directly to the Viscount’s Department and we do not receive the funds until the debt is paid in full.

The Department considers prosecution where appropriate, which is both time consuming and costly to the States of Jersey. All cases are reviewed regularly throughout the investigation ensuring that they meet the criteria outlined in the Centeniers’ Guidelines. This ensures that time and effort is spent appropriately, and that the investigation is proportionate to the alleged fraudulent activity. The final decision to prosecute rests with the Attorney General.

Between 2009 & 2013, there were 20 prosecutions where convictions were secured. As mentioned above, there are 5 prosecutions pending court dates.

2.9 DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING THE COLLECTION OF BANNELAIS IN PARISHES:

Question

Would the Chairman advise which of the parishes continue to collect bannelais and, for those that do, do they dispose of it for agricultural or other purposes?

Answer

Bannelais, or road sweepings, are collected by 3 parishes. St Brelade use it for composting; St Peter use it for any purpose for which it is suitable (but report that demand is almost non-existent); and St Helier (which by agreement with the Transport and Technical Services Department now deals with only those roads within the ring road) do not use it for agricultural or other purposes.

Five other parishes (Grouville, St John, St Mary, St Ouën and Trinity) use a contractor and we understand the contractor uses the bannelais for agricultural purposes.

2.10 DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE NUMBER OF STAFF RESIGNATIONS AT H.M.P. LA MOYE OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS:

Question

How many prison staff, by job function, have resigned in each of the last five calendar years and what reasons were cited?

Answer

Staff are not obliged to cite reasons for resigning from their place of employment and when they choose to do so, they are entitled to confidentiality. Consequently, my response is intended to provide the information requested without identifying any particular individual.

The table provides a breakdown of resignations by role each year. The reasons for leaving (although not always expressed in the letter of resignation) were as follows:

Leaving Jersey - 10

New Job - 12

Personal - 12

	Senior Prison Officer	Prison Officer*	Operational Support Grade	Civilian Support Grade**	Civilian Grade***
2009		1	2		1
2010		4		1	2
2011		4	1	1	3
2012	2	1		1	3
2013		3		2	2

* Prison Officer includes Nurses

** Civilian Support Grade includes vocational training instructors, catering officers and engineers

*** Civilian Grade includes teachers, psychologist or psychological assistant, drug and alcohol counsellors and administration support staff.

These figures do not include staff members who have retired having reached pensionable age.

Staff Complement 2013:

Senior Prison Officer	Prison Officer	Operational Support Grade	Civilian Support Grade	Civilian Grade	TOTAL
13	97	0	21	25	156

2.11 DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES:

Question

Will the Minister advise what steps, if any, are being taken to improve provision of, and access to, mental health services in the Island, including the reduction of waiting times to see psychologists and will she also include in her answer details any additional funding and resources that are being made available, including timelines?

Answer

The Health and Social Services Department is now at a transformational time in relation to the provision of psychological therapy on the Island and is in the implementation phase of "Jersey Talking Therapies". This means that there will be increasing numbers of staff who will work directly with individuals that have mild to moderate difficulties such as anxiety and depression to provide psychological therapy at the right place and at the right time into the future.

HSSD has just this week advertised to recruit some 13 staff. Of this 13 new staff, 8 will be Psychological Therapists who will offer up to 20 sessions of therapy and 5 will be Psychological Well Being Practitioners who will offer shorter interventions for individuals lasting up to 8 sessions. It is hoped that all of these staff will be in place within a few months.

This increase in investment in 2014 is just over £700,000 growing to an additional £1.13m investment in services in 2015. To manage and reduce the current wait within the Psychological Assessment and Therapy Service, HSSD is employing a full time locum psychological therapist who is due to start next month. This should reduce the waiting list. This year there will be a comprehensive review of all the mental health services provided. This work will inform a new Island-wide Strategy for Mental Health which will set out the strategic direction for services and facilities in the Island.

In addition, work is underway reviewing the Island mental health legislation.

2.12 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING A BREAKDOWN OF COURT AND CASE EXPENDITURE FIGURES:

Question

Will the Minister ‑

(a) provide a breakdown of the actual expenditure figures given in his answer to a question on 18th march 2014 on court and case costs (1240/5/(8205)) setting out the main expenditure items (budget headings) for the years 2003 and 2013 so that members can fully understand what the money was spent on and trends in expenditure;

(b) explain in detail the changes to legal aid, guardians in children’s cases, reductions in external legal advice referred to in the previous answer?

Answer

(a) The level and breakdown of Court and Case Costs incurred is dependent on type and number of cases and will vary significantly between financial years. Court and Case Costs incurred between 2006 and 2013 under their budgetary headings as they appear in the Annual Financial Report and Accounts are as follow;-

Prior to 2006 Court and Case Costs were recorded and classified in a different way, and whilst it is possible to obtain the information from the accounting system, we would not be able to produce it in the deadline given. Should the Deputy wish to obtain this additional information, more time will be required.

(b) The changes to legal aid referred to in the previous answer relate to a fixed fee procurement process in which lawyers on the Public Law Children’s Panel are invited to submit competitive fixed price bids. This has been in place since 2011 and has achieved a reduction in total expenditure by replacing the previous system in which lawyers were paid at a fixed hourly rate. Payments made to lawyers representing the parents in children’s cases have mirrored the fixed fee payments and this, too, has achieved savings over previous methods of remuneration. Since 2012, significant savings have been achieved through appointing more local Guardians and greater standardisation of fees and expenses for external or non-local Guardians. The significant reductions in expenditure from Court and Case Costs in the years 2011 to 2013 from the amounts expended in 2009 and 2010 demonstrate that far more Children’s and Criminal work has been delivered internally and that other expenditure on external legal advice has been monitored and controlled more effectively.

2.13 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING SERVICES:

Question

Will the Minister set out for members for the period 2003 to 2013 details of ‑

(a) all the construction and engineering courses offered to students leading to a qualification, showing the numbers who started and qualified in each course at the end of the year;

(b) all the computer courses offered to students leading to a formal qualification, showing numbers of students who started and qualified at the end of each year?

Answer

It has not been possible to compile this information within the limited time available. The Department will prepare the answer and forward it to Deputy Higgins as soon as possible and circulate it to States Members.

2.14 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES CONFISCATION FUND:

Question

Will the Minister set out for the period 2003 to 2013 the amount of money received into the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund in each year and detail, using main budgetary headings, how this money was distributed in each year?

Answer

The amount of money received and expenditure incurred between 2003 and 2013 as listed under their budgetary headings within the Annual Financial Report and Accounts were as follows;-

The level of income received and expenditure incurred by the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund is dependent on case activity. For example, in 2011 a large confiscation (£29 million) and subsequent expense (£22.6 million) was incurred which related to an assets sharing agreement following the Bhojwani case.

The Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund is used in accordance with Article 24 of The Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999. Monies in the Fund do not form part of the annual income of the States and are a Special Fund for the purposes of the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005. They have been applied for the following purposes:

(a) (i) in preventing, suppressing or otherwise dealing with criminal conduct,

(ii) in dealing with the consequences of criminal conduct, or

(iii) without prejudice to the generality of clauses (i) and (ii), in facilitating the enforcement of any enactment dealing with criminal conduct;

(b) discharging Jersey’s obligations under asset sharing agreements; and

Applications for use of the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund are submitted to the Treasury by Departments. Before supporting any measure and distributing any funds the Attorney General and other appropriate persons or bodies are consulted. Grants paid during the period 2003 to 2010 and in 2012 mainly related to payments made to Law Officers’ Department, Judicial Greffe, Viscount Department and Bailiff’s Chambers for Court and Case Costs which exceeded base budgets in those years. The higher values relating to Court and Case Costs during the years 2007 to 2009, for example those relating to the complex Michel and Bhojwani cases, are shown below as a table:

Department	Year	Year	Year
	2007 (£’000)	2008 (£’000)	2009 (£’000)
Law Officers’	1,768	1,843	1,864
Viscount	158	86	50
Judicial Greffe	1,580	553	1,235
Bailiff’s Chambers	139	96	187
Home Affairs	612	456	275

In addition to the above, the Fund awarded grants in the sum of £340,000 in 2007 and 2008 to the Jersey Financial Services Commission.

In 2011 and 2013 grants were paid to the Home Affairs Department relating to the Fire and Rescue Service’s ‘No impairment of Service’ Agreement and the Drunk and Incapable Unit and CCTV (£404,000 and £88,000 respectively), and in 2013 to the Judicial Greffe for Domestic Abuse Training.

2.15 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE EXPENDITURE ON ENTERTAINMENT AND CIVIC FUNCTIONS BY THE CHIEF MINISTER AND BAILIFF’S CHAMBERS:

Question

(a) Will the Chief Minister set out for the period 2003 to 2013 how much money was spent in each year on entertainment, civic functions and celebrations -

(i) by the Chief Minister; and

(ii) by the Bailiff’s Chambers?

(b) Will the Chief Minister set out all areas of duplication and difference between the activities of his office and that of the Bailiff in non-judicial and States functions and explain whether he considers that there are any areas that can be reallocated or discontinued in one or other of the offices?

Answer

(a)

(b) The functions of the Bailiff as Civic Head are explained within the Review of the Roles of the Crown Officers presented to the States Assembly by the Chief Minister on 6th December 2010 (R.143/2010). The responsibilities of the office of Chief Minister are outlined in the latest report on Ministerial Responsibilities presented to the States Assembly by the Chief Minister on 18th February 2014 (R.19/2014). As can be seen from these documents, rather than there being areas of duplication, the respective functions and responsibilities of each position are different and complementary to each other.

2.16 DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE WAITUING TIMES FOR MEDICINAL PROCEDURES:

Question

1. Further to the answer given on 19th January 2010 (5026) would the Minister provide an update, for each medical discipline/specialism (for example: cardiology, neurology, orthopaedics etc), of -

a. the number of consultants employed on a full time and part time basis in each area?

b. (i) the number of non-private health insurance people on waiting lists to see a consultant in each area; and

(ii) the average waiting time for these to see the consultant?

c. (i) the number of private health insurance people on waiting lists to see a consultant in each area; and

(ii) the average waiting time for these people to see the consultant?

2. The total number of operations performed in each discipline at the hospital for each year from 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2013 stating -

a. the number of private and non-private operations carried out in each discipline for each year;

b. the cost of performing these operations in each area for each year for non-private health insurance patients and private health insurance patients?

3. The number, disciplines and costs of locums and agency nursing staff employed by the hospital for each year from 1st January 2009 to 31st December 2013?

Answer

I kindly refer Deputy Higgins to the response given to question 5026 in 2010 which was identical to this question. I have therefore attempted to combine the answers for ease of reference.

Answer to Question 1 a - Please see chart 1 below

Chart 1 Number of Consultant Posts

Specialty	2010 Number of consultant posts	2014 Number of consultant posts
A&E	3	5
Anaesthetics	6	7
Community Dental	0.8	0.8
Oral Surgery	1	1
Orthodontics	0.8 +visiting	0.9 + visiting
ENT	2	3
General Surgery Vascular surgery Urology Colorectal surgery Breast surgery	3	1 1.3 (0.3 = regular visiting consultant) 1 1
Trauma and Orthopaedics	3	3
General medicine and specialties	8	10
Obstetrics and Gynaecology	3	4
Ophthalmology	2	3
Paediatrics	3	3
Pathology	4	4
Radiology	4	4
Oncology	0.8	1.8
Psychiatry	4	8
Total	48.4	62.8

Answer to Question 1 b (i) & (ii) - Please see chart 2 below

Chart 2 Waiting List Numbers and Average Wait Times

	2010		2014
Specialty	Numbers on list January 2010	Average wait in weeks	Numbers on list March 2014	Average wait in weeks in 2013
General Surgery (Inc breast, vascular, plastic, colo-rectal)	361	18	379	6
Urology	178	22	453	10
Orthopaedics	382	11	1246	21
Paediatrics	123	14	73	8
Sports Injury	173	28	66	6
ENT	164	4	474	6
Ophthalmology	397	27	554	7
Pain	296	17	600	9
Gynaecology	167	9	291	6
Oral Surgery	147	5	416	14
Orthodontics	146	12	387	28
Community Dental	83	10	488	12
Diabetes	168	23	191	12
General Medicine (inc endocrinology, rheumatology, nephrology, geriatric)	72	7	236	6
Respiratory	57	21	68	5
Gastro-enterology	205	48	270	17
Neurology	269	31	215	13
Cardiology	121	7	94	20
Dermatology	535	34	469	13
Total	4044		6591

Answer to Question 1c (i) & (ii)

HSSD does not hold any information on private waiting lists or times as this is managed by the consultants in their independent private businesses. Almost all private out-patient consultations take place off HSSD premises.

Answer to Question 2 a & b - Please see charts 3 and 4 below

Chart 3 - Number of Procedures by Speciality and Private or Public Patients

The table below sets out the number of procedures, by specialty, for each of the years 2010 to 2013. The available data for 2008 & 2009 was provided in response to the question raised in January 2010.

As reported in 2010 costs at this level of detail have not historically been available. These costs are available for 2013 and are shown in the table below.

Chart 4 - Cost of performing operations by Specialty and Public or Private Patients

Note 1: The costs above include only the direct costs of performing operations.

Note 2: Private patient costs are fully recovered through charges raised.

Answer to Question 3 - Please charts 5 and 6

Chart 5 Medical Agency Costs and Numbers of Locum Doctors Used

Total cost

2010

Total cost

2011

Total cost

2012

Total cost

2013

Annual Cost

£1,635,659

£2,252,920

£1,799,508

£2,081,315

Number of Locum Doctors Used

304

322

261

234

Chart 6 Nursing Agency Costs and Numbers of Locum Nurses Used

Total cost

2010

Total cost

2011

Total cost

2012

Total Cost 2013

Annual Cost

£985,360

£1,038,933

£923,643

£810,788

Number of Agency Nurses Used

Not

available

Not

available

2.17 DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE SEARCH FOR A SUITABLE SITE FOR CONTROLLED SORTING OF WASTE FROM SKIPS:

Question

Will the Minister inform the Assembly whether, since his election as Minister, he has taken any steps towards, or made any progress whatsoever, in identifying a suitable site in public ownership for controlled sorting of waste from skips by private operators, in fulfillment of the decision of the Assembly on 29th September 2010 which approved the proposition entitled “Recycling of waste materials: identification of suitable sites” (P.97/2010) as well as his predecessor’s commitment in answer to a question on 18th January 2011 and, if not, will he explain why he has not given instructions that this requirement is be included in the plans for the proposed new recycling centre on land within the department’s management at La Collette?

Answer

I do not believe that it is the role of TTS to identify publicly-owned land for private uses. It is the responsibility for private waste operators to identify their own land-use requirements and either apply for planning permission in the normal way, or gain wider acceptance of their site requirements through the Island Plan process.

The Transport and Technical Services Department is responsible for the Solid Waste Strategy and good practice is to encourage waste prevention and reuse before recycling or disposal. Construction and demolition sites should avoid mixed waste generation and residual waste should not be mixed at the point of generation, eliminating the creation of mixed loads that require separation before recycling and disposal. Planning require site waste management plans for larger developments which support this approach. With good practice of source separation the need for a mixed load sorting facility would be negated.

To incentivise this good practice the Department charges range from £119.99 up to £188.90 per tonne for mixed loads compared with £4.17 per tonne for recyclable inert waste loads. This policy has been effective with mixed loads received at La Collette falling consistently from 22 in 2008 to 2 in 2013.

The continual decline in mixed loads received indicates that the construction industry is reducing mixed loads by separating the waste at source to avoid mixed load charges and increase recycling. This suggests that the need for a mixed load sorting centre has fallen away.

2.18 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING O.E.C.D COMMON REPORTING STANDARDS:

Question

Does the Chief Minister accept that in signing up to the OECD Common Reporting Standard (CRS), rather than simply “committing ourselves to early adoption of the highest standards in tax transparency” and “inviting others to join us” Jersey has been reluctantly forced by the UK and US authorities into automatic tax information exchange, otherwise known as “a level playing field” which the Island has hitherto refused to recognise?

Does the Chief Minister further accept that, whilst the agreement refers to tax evasion, the Common Reporting Standard in fact covers a broad scope of financial assets and institutions and account holders, including individuals and corporate entities such as shell companies, which will limit the scope for “tax avoidance” activities, in which the Island specialises as well as “evasion” activities?

Answer

Jersey has not been reluctantly forced by the UK or the US authorities into automatic exchange of information (AEOI). Jersey has been waiting for evidence of the existence of a level playing field in the global application of a common standard.

Jersey had no difficulty in entering into an agreement with the USA on a FATCA intergovernmental agreement (IGA) because this is an agreement that has global application. This is why Jersey was one of the first countries to enter into an IGA with the USA.

The Common Reporting Standard (CRS) issued by the OECD and endorsed by G20 Finance Ministers has also been welcomed by Jersey because of its global application. We are one of the 44 countries that are in the "early adopters group" which issued a joint statement of commitment two weeks ago.

The CRS follows the IGAs in focussing on tax evasion. To quote from the CRS: "Cooperation between tax administrations is critical in the fight against tax evasion and in protecting the integrity of tax systems. A key aspect of that cooperation is exchange of information".

In June 2013 OECD Ministers called on "all jurisdictions to move towards automatic exchange of information and to improve the availability, the quality and the accuracy of information on beneficial ownership, in order to effectively act against tax fraud and evasion". Jersey is fully supportive of these initiatives and has been recognised for the action it has taken.

It is expected that, with automatic exchange of information, jurisdictions will have information that will prompt requests for further information, using the exchange of information on request provisions in the TIEAs, the DTAs and the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, of which Jersey will be a party.

Jersey will continue to respond positively to such requests, which may well relate to "abusive" tax planning schemes. If so, this information will also be helpful to us in seeking to ensure Jersey is not involved in such schemes. The assistance of HMRC has already been sought in their identification.

2.19 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE ACTIONS OF P.F.I. COMPANIES TO AVOID PAYING U.K. CORPORATION TAX:

Question

Notwithstanding his response to a question on 18th March 2014 on tax schemes (8190), what action, if any, will the Chief Minister take on the actions of PFI companies such as Alder Hey (Special Purpose Vehicle) Ltd to avoid paying UK corporation tax via the payment of high interest rates on loans from its Jersey-based owners Henderson Infrastructure?

Is the Chief Minister content that Jersey should be used as a base for company structures such as these which allow a company to move its profits around to avoid legitimate tax elsewhere and is this regarded by the Jersey authorities as “abusive” tax planning or merely normal commercial practice?

Answer

Jersey will continue to have regard for the international action being taken on matters such as that referred to in the question.

Jersey has expressed its support for the comprehensive Action Plan being progressed by the OECD to address base erosion and profit shifting. One of the Actions is the development of rules to prevent base erosion through the use of interest expense.

Until these rules are known it would be premature and inappropriate to comment on any particular business practice.

2.20 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF STAFF WITH PRIOR AGREEMENT:

Question

Can the Chief Minister assure members that no transfer of Harbours, Airport or Housing staff will take place to new employers prior to agreement being reached between employee representatives and the SEB over the transfer of terms and conditions and, if not, why not?

Does the Chief Minister accept that the TOPSE Good Practice Guide, as currently drafted, falls well short of the standards set by statutory TUPE in the UK in granting automatic transfer of many terms and conditions, and in parts amounts to little more than a “carte blanche” to do what it wants?

Is any “Code of Good Practice” that is merely an internal document capable of being amended at any time and, if so, does the Chief Minister recognise that it cannot offer equal protection to provisions contained in statutory terms?

Answer

The Incorporation of Ports of Jersey and the creation of a wholly owned States Housing Company is continuing in line with previously published timetables. Throughout the process, full consultation with the relevant trade unions has been actively pursued.

Management of both organisations are confident that staff are fully conversant with the transfer arrangements and there is continuing dialogue with their workforce representatives. There is no reason why the Transfer of Public Sector Employees (TOPSE) protocol, designed collaboratively with the Trade Unions, will not be effective.

The development of the TOPSE protocol by the Trade Unions (Prospect and Unite), Ports and Housing Management and Employment relations has created the framework which will be consulted upon with other recognised Trade unions in the SOJ, as part of the continuing programme of workforce modernisation. It is anticipated that the protocol will underwrite any transfer of staff and associated service to a third party.

The protocol provides a clear direction for how such transfers will work in the public service and delivers confidence that Public service employees will be treated fairly, transparently and be consulted with in such cases.

2.21 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE IMPLICATUIONS FOR JERSEY’S TAX REGIME FOLLOWING THE U.K.’s CHANGES TO THE TAXATION OF PENSIONS:

Question

What implications, if any, are there for the Jersey tax regime following the UK Chancellor’s changes to the tax treatment of pensions in the most recent UK Budget?

Answer

There are no direct implications for the Jersey tax regime of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s proposed change to allow UK pension savers, once they reach the minimum pension age, unlimited access to their pension fund from April 2015, subject to paying income tax at their marginal rate on whatever amount is withdrawn in excess of the 25% tax free lump sum.

On 8 October 2013 a consultation was launched regarding proposed changes to Jersey’s tax rules applying to pensions and pension schemes

(see: http://www.gov.je/Government/Consultations/Pages/TaxRulesPensions.aspx). One of the main aims of the proposed changes already proposed was to increase flexibility for pension savers, particularly in the context of approved occupational pension schemes where, under the existing rules individuals are required to make a choice between employment and retirement, barring them from the option of “flexible retirement” where they mix employment income and pension income in a way that suits their particular lifestyle.

The Tax Policy Unit and the Taxes Office have completed their review of the responses received to the consultation and a Report summarising those responses and outlining the key policy decisions arising from the consultation process will be lodged with the States after Easter.

2.22 DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE NUMBER OF PREMISES NOT CONNECTED TO THE PUBLC SEWER NETWORK:

Question

Will the Minister inform the Assembly of the number of premises throughout the Island which are not connected to the public sewer network and rely on private drainage systems, will he also inform the Assembly of the number of such systems which are in localities where it is known there is a high risk of ground water contamination polluting drinking water supplies?

Would the Minister further provide an estimate of the capital investment which would be required to connect properties in those areas to the public sewer network and state whether he intends the proposed liquid waste strategy to make provision for the need to eliminate such risk to drinking water and whether, in consultation with the Minister for Treasury and Resources, he will be considering the option of introducing a sewerage charge as an equitable means of funding the investment required to do so at some time in the future?

Answer

The number of premises throughout the Island not connected to the public sewer network is approximately 7,000.

In requesting the number of these premises in localities where it is known there is a high risk of ground water contamination polluting drinking water supplies it is assumed that this refers to the potential for private septic tanks and soakaways to pollute private boreholes/wells or the public water supply.

This is difficult to quantify as the potential risk will depend on groundwater levels, age, condition and maintenance of the private drainage system and the proximity of boreholes/wells or public water supplies (predominantly streams) to those drainage systems. TTS manage this risk by monitoring the demand for tankers to empty these systems and liaising with Environmental Protection who are more likely to receive complaints of this nature as part of their role regulating the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000. It should be pointed out that private drainage systems and private boreholes/wells have an inherent risk and it is the responsibility of the owner to limit this by correct maintenance of their private drainage systems and by installing treatment for their private water supply. The public water supply is fully treated and therefore the risk of contamination is far lower.

The Public water supply is protected through the designation of Water Pollution Safeguard Areas under the Island Plan. There are approximately 2250 premises with septic tanks or soakaways in these areas. As mentioned, the potential for pollution from these could be negligible. However, the Capital investment required to connect these 2250 premises to the public sewer network would be of the order of £70m.

The Waste Water Strategy provides a prioritised and sustainable plan for rehabilitating and improving the sewerage network over a 20 year period. In the latter half of the strategy period, the strategy proposes recommencement of the foul sewer extension programme.

At that time, prioritisation of areas to be connected will include an assessment of tanker demand and by implication, will prioritise those properties most likely to cause pollution. A property’s location in relation to Water Pollution Safeguard Areas will also be a consideration and therefore, a number of the properties in Water Pollution Safeguard Areas are likely to be connected.

However, it should be noted that pollution of drinking waters can be from a number of sources, not just sewage, and preventing localised pollution of drinking waters is probably best achieved by extensions to the mains drinking water network.

Currently, there are no plans to introduce a sewerage charge to fund infrastructure improvements.

Additional Information

Whilst there are approximately 2,250 premises within Water Pollution Safeguard Areas that are not connected to the public sewer network, there are approximately 7,000 premises that are. This equates to approximately 76% of properties in those areas.

2.23 DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE STEWARDSHIP OF No. 1 OXFORD ROAD, ST. HELIER:

Question

Will the Minister provide an chronology and account of the Property Holdings stewardship of the workshop and office building, 1 Oxford Road, St Helier, which in 1996 was left to the Island by the will of late Mr Harold Le Seelleur; and inform the Assembly of the Minister’s proposals to ensure the will’s intentions “for the benefit of the aged, infirm and needy residents of the Island’ are realized?

Answer

The Oxford Road building, together with a number of residential properties, was left to the Public by the late Mr Le Seelleur. Stewardship of those assets rests with the Minister for Health and Social Services and until March 2013 the responsibility for the property lay with that Minister and Department.

Members may be aware that there have been two attempts in the recent past to dispose of the Oxford Road workshop, both of which were rejected by the States Assembly.

In April 2003 the (then) Health and Social Services Committee brought forward a proposition to dispose of the property (P52/2003) refers. This was defeated by 29 votes to 15.

The property was included for disposal in the Annual Business Plan 2007: Property Plan (P34/2007). The second amendment to that proposition, tabled by Senator B. E. Shenton, seeking to remove the Oxford Road property from the schedule of proposed disposal, was supported by 25 votes to 19 with one abstention.

In March 2013 , the Health Minister signed a Ministerial decision (MD-HSS-2013-0011) requesting Jersey Property Holdings to, inter alia, carry out a review of the H E Le Seelleur properties and bring forward proposals for their future use.

Since that decision a number of actions have taken place:

A ‘decent homes’ survey of the residential properties has been undertaken, which has identified improvements to the properties that are required to bring them up to decent homes standards as well as other works that should be undertaken in the immediate, medium and longer term.
Investment advice has been secured with regard to the portfolio’s composition.
A property and investment strategy based on the advice received has been drafted and discussed with the Health Minister.

Some urgent works funded from JPH revenue budget have been completed and others are in progress to address structural and health and safety issues at the Oxford Road property. These works include:

decontamination of building floors and pest control within the building;
support propping of the first floor and to roof areas;
removal of asbestos based flue; and
roof repairs to maintain a wind and watertight structure.

These works are being undertaken in full consultation with the Principal Historic Environmental Officer.

The draft strategy recommends the disposal of some of the properties within the portfolio, including the Oxford Road building. The draft strategy further recommends the reinvestment of funds from the disposals to both address the identified deficiencies in the properties and to provide an increase in the fund’s cash available for investment in alternative asset classes.

It is anticipated that the draft strategy will be considered by the Health Minister within the next month and, subject to its approval, the process to dispose of the Oxford Road workshop will commence. Such a disposal would not be subject to Standing Order 168, as this applies to States assets only. The Le Seelleur properties are held by the States in trust.

The implementation of the strategy will also enable funds of £1 million to be released in the current year to support the refurbishment of The Limes residential home, as approved within the Medium Term Financial Plan.

Any other proposed use of funds outside the agreed maintenance and investment in the property portfolio must comply with the late Mr. Le Seelleur’s wishes and will require the approval of the Health Minister.

2.24 DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES NOT SERVED BY MAINS WATER:

Question

Will the Minister inform the Assembly of the number of homes in the Island which are not served by mains water and rely on private boreholes, and the number which are either known to have suffered recent bacteriological contamination of drinking water or are sited in localities which are believed are prone to contamination at times of high water table, and what action his department is able to take to prevent such contamination and his policy intentions towards drinking water supplies for any affected properties?

Answer

The total number of households served by water supplies from private wells or boreholes that were either registered or licenced under the Water Resources (Jersey) Law 2007 was 3388 as at the end of 2013. The total number of people using these water supplies was about 9400 (approximately 10% of the Island’s population).

Bacterial contamination of private water supplies can derive from a range of land use activities including private sewerage systems (septic tanks and soakaways), agriculture, areas used for dog walking and areas where flocks of ducks and geese congregate and road runoff. There is an inherent risk associated with using a shallow and unregulated water supply, particularly if the householder does not have any treatment installed or does not get the water tested regularly.

Environmental Protection officers from the Department of the Environment investigate all reported pollution incidents that affect private water supplies under the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000. The major source of bacteriological contamination of private drinking water supplies is through the spreading of organic waste (slurry). Since 2009, officers have attended a total of five private water supplies that were contaminated by slurry.

The spreading of organic waste to land is a good way to re-use the nutrient in it, however, because of the Island’s high population density and the large number of receptors such as private water supplies it has to be carried out with utmost and informed care.

The Department of the Environment uses a mixture of regulation, incentives and education in order to reduce the risks of water pollution occurring.

Another control that the Department has implemented as part of the Diffuse Pollution Project is to make the receipt of the Single Area Payment subsidy contingent on farmers meeting certain standards and levels of environmental performance (known as cross compliance). This includes compliance with this Water Code, along with other measures to limit or prevent pollution, such as the production of a farm manure and waste management plan, a pollution incident contingency plan, a pesticide recording system and a soil protection review.

There are many benefits of the registration and licensing of water sources, as required under the Water Resources (Jersey) Law 2007 Law. One such is the Farm Risk Map [1] which was developed by the Department and made available to farmers online. The map assists farmers to properly assess the risk of spreading agricultural slurry on specific fields. The map also highlights a 50 metre radius zone around each water source within which slurry should not be spread, and these are marked in red. A ‘traffic light system’ for individual fields is also incorporated to indicate the risk of pollution associated with spreading slurry. Certain fields close to water sources are marked orange to denote caution. Slurry application is permitted is such fields as long as it is not spread within 50m of a borehole or well, and other conditions (the type of crop cover, weather forecast etc.) suggest that the risk is likely to be low.

Prior to the implementation of the Water Resources Law the location of private water supplies was largely unknown. Thus the Law and the location map provides much better protection for owners and provides a useful tool for departmental officers when attending pollution incidents.

The Department has assisted farmers with the installation of slurry storage tanks on all Island dairy farms. The storage enables the farmer to better time and target the spreading of slurry. Slurry is currently stored over the winter period so that there is no need to spread it on fields in times of high winter rainfall/run-off and when the nutrients cannot be taken up by plant growth.

Notwithstanding, any reports of private water supply that are polluted received by officers (through the pollution hotline 24/7 number tel: 709535) will be fully investigated with enforcement action being taken according to the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000 and Environmental Protection’s Enforcement Policy as agreed with the Attorney General. In such instances, the Department will inform Health Protection who can advise householders of health aspects of contaminated drinking water. The re-installation of a clean water supply will normally be undertaken through the household’s insurance and it is important that households with private water supplies check the provisions of their policy.

3. Oral Questions

3.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the staff turnover at the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority:

Would the Minister enumerate the number of Executive Directors that have headed the J.C.R.A. (Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority) since September 2010 and indicate, in the light of the impending departure of the current Executive Director, whether he thinks the turnover is excessive and whether, combined with other staff turnover, this is impacting upon the output of the J.C.R.A.?

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

The Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority is led by a Board, which is independent of the States of Jersey. The Economic Development Department has a service level agreement with the J.C.R.A. in respect of the Competition Law grant and advice on competition policy. The J.C.R.A. has been going through a period of significant change, both in terms of the regulatory landscape and the creation of a pan-Channel Islands structure for the Jersey and Guernsey authorities. I agree with the Deputy that it would have been preferable to have people in key posts for longer periods of time, however the particular circumstances have not allowed that to happen. Since 2010 there have been 4 Chief Executives, however there are also 2 other Executive Directors that have been in post for a number of years. The C.I.C.R.A. (Channel Islands Competition Regulatory Authority) Board have announced that the current Deputy Chief Executive would assume the role of Chief Executive on an interim basis therefore ensuring some continuity. If the Deputy believes the Authority’s output is compromised it would be helpful if he could be more precise so I could discuss any issues with the Authority during my regular meetings with the Chairman that might need to be addressed.

3.1.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Has the Minister in his regular meetings covered the fact that there are apparently only 3 staff members left: 2 in Guernsey, one in Jersey, with 2 back-up administrative staff? Secondly, is he able to tell the House why the report, which was tendered in April 2012, on wholesale rates for the new fibre optic scheme has not been published and when it will be published?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

With regard to staffing, there are in fact 9 members of staff of C.I.C.R.A: 5 located locally and 4 in Guernsey, just to clarify the position in terms of numbers of staffing for the Deputy. With regard to the report that the Deputy referred to, it is of course a report for C.I.C.R.A. to publish. I understand it is an intention to publish it. I will get back to the Deputy with regard to a timeline, which I am not familiar with at the moment.

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

The Minister in his first answer was running through the activities that they have been doing over the last 4 years. Will the Minister please look at his answer, the first part of it he talked about the work the Commission has been doing over the last few years. Can you elaborate on the nature of that work?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I am not sure I caught entirely all of the question, I am afraid there was some coughing in my right ear, so I might not have got it all.

The Bailiff:

I think the Member asked about the nature of the work that the J.C.R.A. have been doing.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

In fact I did not in my opening talk about the work that the Competition Authority does but if the Deputy wants to know specifically, it has carried out a number of functions obviously from a regulatory perspective oversight of the likes of Jersey Telecom and postal services. In terms of reviews there are quite a number of reviews that the Authority has undertaken. The most recent ones: the fuel market is under way; the groceries report that was published, all of which are extremely valuable and I believe have added significantly to the reputation of the Authority.

[9:45]

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

Is the Minister able to tell the Assembly how much it has cost to have 4 Chief Executive Officers in 4 years, including recruitment as well as paying off their contracts please?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I do not have an exact figure to hand. It is clearly within the budget. The budget and funding of the Competition Authority is currently £300,000 per annum and it certainly falls within that. In terms of actual pay-offs and any other costs associated with recruitment I am very happy to get back to the Deputy with precise figures but I clearly do not have those to hand at the present time.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

If the Minister could let everybody know please exactly which one costs what and over what time period.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes.

3.1.4 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Minister not acknowledge that, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, one may be acceptable but 4 is, to put it mildly, unfortunate. Was he not worried that there was a rather clear pattern there and to say: “It is run by a Board and I only get reports from the Board”, seems to me abdication? Would he not acknowledge that a very serious situation has arisen? One example of a report tendered in April 2012: no report yet. Would he not acknowledge that there is a serious situation of drift and he has not explained why these departures have occurred?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I have pointed out that it is clearly disappointing to see a high turnover of staff and particularly at a senior level. In any organisation clearly it does impinge on the ability of the Competition Authority to carry out its functions as efficiently and as effectively as it perhaps should do. That is to be regretted and I agree with the Deputy in that regard. I am and will continue to have a dialogue with the Board. It is the responsibility of the Board to have oversight of the Executive and the function of the Competition Authority and that is exactly as it should be. I will continue to have dialogue with the Chairman to ensure that in future, as best as possible, we can get a more consistent approach to staffing to ensure that the outcome improves even further from where it is currently.

3.1.5 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

What is his analysis of why there has been such a turnover?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I think the figures at face value do indeed appear to be unsatisfactory but, to be fair, I know that at least in 2 cases personal circumstances resulted in the individuals departing, and that is clearly a regrettable situation but perhaps understandable for Members.

3.2 Deputy J.A. Martin of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the opening hours of licensed premises during the World Cup:

What consideration, if any, has been given in relation to licensed premises and opening hours during this year’s World Cup?

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

I, like the Deputy, am a keen sports fan and therefore thank her for her question. Due to the difference in time zones some of the games for the forthcoming World Cup in Brazil will take place outside of existing licensing hours. Having consulted with the Bailiff, it has been agreed that pubs that wish to stay open to show the matches should apply for a permit through the Bailiff’s Office under Article 89 of the Licensing Law. It is important that we give pubs the opportunity to remain open for what is the most popular sporting event in the world, bar the rugby perhaps. [Laughter] The permit system has worked well in the past for other major sporting events and by working with the Bailiff extended opening can be managed in a safe and controlled manner. We understand that the Bailiff is consulting with the Parishes and Home Affairs about the plan to permit extended licensing hours. The Bailiff’s Chambers will be issuing further instructions on how and when licensed premises can apply for an extension permit in due course.

3.2.1. Deputy J.A. Martin:

That is good news. Supplementary to that, it did seem to some of the licensees that I was listening to on the radio this morning that it was news to them, so again back foot on the consultation. But my question is under Article 89 does this mean that if licensees apply they will have to apply for every individual game or will that cover the duration if they want to open when a match is on during the World Cup?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

My understanding is they can apply for the matches that they wish to remain open for and therefore can remain open. I believe there are in the first phase of games 10 matches that start beyond the licensing hours as they currently are at the moment.

3.2.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Will the Minister be referring to the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority the price of the tee-shirts for the World Cup; £90?

The Bailiff:

Good try, Deputy. [Laughter] Even I see difficulty in there being any connection with the question.

3.2.3 Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John:

Given the Minister’s joy of this possibly going to happen, has he given consideration to these which are being held in the early hours of the morning, the effect that will have on the neighbours within the vicinity of those public houses?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Clearly when we first started to look at this matter Home Affairs quite understandably… and the police and a number of other interested authorities gave their views and that was the reason why the decision was taken that the most appropriate place for the decision to be made is through the Bailiff and the Bailiff’s Chambers so that matters such as that can be properly and appropriately considered and dealt with as part of the licence arrangements.

3.2.4 Deputy J.A. Martin:

It is quite concerning the Minister says the first 10 games will be covered. It is this individual licensing for every match that I have a problem with. I would have preferred if the Minister had brought, like he did at the Royal Wedding, where basically everyone has opted in and can choose whether they open. Can this still be done because to me the licensees, and there is a cost to these licences I am presuming, are they going to want to blanket for the 4 weeks when we are supporting the local teams, all the nationalities over here. I really think it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and we have done it before. Why is the Minister not doing it this time?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Although I understand the Deputy’s concern, of course the Royal Wedding was just a single event. We are talking about multiple matches here, which makes it slightly more complex. We also have to consider that in the second phase, although the matches start, I believe, at 9.00 p.m. in the evening, we run into difficulties potentially with extra time, penalties and such like. So it is very uncertain what the timeframes are likely to be. The purpose of giving the matter to the Bailiff’s Chambers to consider is that they can apply more appropriately conditions, hopefully make the system simple, which I am sure will be the case, and as far as charges are concerned, that is indeed a matter for the Bailiff’s Chambers, which I am sure will be very reasonable.

3.3 Deputy N.B. Le Cornu of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding unfair dismissal safeguards:

Will the Minister advise what safeguards, if any, are in place for employees who are unfairly dismissed prior to completing 6 months of employment?

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

Employees are protected against unfair dismissal when they have at least 26 weeks continuous service with their employer. The Employment Law also provides that employees can make an unfair dismissal complaint to the Employment Tribunal from day one of employment, that is with no requirement for any period of service in certain specified circumstances. These circumstances include where the main reason for dismissal is one of the following grounds: the employee was or proposed to become a member of the Trade Union, the employee took part in or proposed to take part in the activities of the Trade Union, the employee asserted a statutory right or brought proceedings against an employer to enforce the statutory right, including the right to be paid the minimum wage, the employee represented or proposed to represent another employee in a disciplinary or grievance hearing or asserted the right to be represented in such a hearing. The automatically unfair reasons for dismissal will be extended when we introduce race discrimination legislation this September. The Discrimination Law would introduce a new article into the Employment Law so that dismissal will be unfair from day one of employment where the reason for dismissal constitutes an act of racial discrimination. The automatically unfair reasons for dismissal would be extended again with the introduction of family friendly and sex discrimination legislation in 2015, subject to States approval.

3.3.1 Deputy N.B. Le Cornu:

Would the Minister accept that there are those who suffer the injustice of what we can put, in inverted commas, “unfair dismissal” prior to those 26 weeks, who only have a lesser period of employment and recognising that injustice any extension of the period of time from 26 weeks perhaps onwards, as in the U.K. (United Kingdom), would increase the injustice?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I would agree with that statement but I am sure the Deputy is probably aware that we consulted through the Employment Forum on whether we should extend the 26 weeks. Last year the Forum recommended to me that the 26 weeks would not have any major change to employment prospects of unemployed people and based on their recommendations I have retained the period of 26 weeks.

3.3.2 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

Will the Minister explain whether he believes that it is okay to dismiss somebody unfairly as long as it is done before 6 weeks, even if it falls outside the exceptions that he listed a moment ago?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

No, I do not think it is ever right for somebody to be dismissed unfairly. It is not okay, as the Deputy put it. There are procedures that every employer should follow. We recently put out a new Code of Practice for disciplinary and grievance procedures, which was heavily consulted upon and clearly it is a responsibility of an employer to go through those procedures and make sure people are dismissed fairly.

3.3.3 Deputy M. Tadier:

Does the Minister accept though that far from seeking to extend from 6 months that we should be considering whether or not there is a period at all which qualifies unfair dismissal because surely if somebody is unfairly dismissed after 3 months, after 2 months or 4 months, they should have exactly the same recourse as somebody who has been unfairly dismissed after 6 months and one day?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

The 26 weeks I believe is a fair period in which time for an employer to assess the abilities of an employee and to take steps within that time to address any training issues that might be required. It is a fact, of course, that an employee is not required to give notice to an employer during those 6 months and therefore an employee can simply walk out of a job without giving any real reasons and this can place an employer in a difficult position. There are rights on both sides, which can be misused.

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

Would the Minister confirm or otherwise that he is yet to bring forward the Regulations under Article 67 of the Employment Law, which sets out specified circumstances where by definition people are unfairly dismissed by reasons of pregnancy, childbirth or maternity? Would he say what the situation is with his Regulations?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

The Deputy is absolutely correct. There is a provision in the Employment Law to make it automatically unfair to dismiss somebody by reason of pregnancy, childbirth or maternity but subject to Regulations being made. Those Regulations will be made when we introduce family friendly legislation, which will then make dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy, childbirth or maternity automatically unfair.

Deputy N.B. Le Cornu:

I would certainly thank the Minister for mentioning about the new disciplinary and grievance procedure guidelines, and having used them in practice they are very useful and would be recommended to any employer or employee who is considering these issues.

3.4 Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade of the Chairman of the Comité des Connétables regarding long service medals for members of the Honorary Police:

Could the Chairman outline to the Assembly the criteria under which any member of the Honorary Police could be served or issued with a long-service medal for diligent service to the Parish and community, particularly in light of their recent involvement in various high profile incidents, including bad weather, and could he inform the Assembly if and when long-service medals might ever be awarded?

Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity (Chairman, Comité des Connétables):

Service by members of the Honorary Police is recognised by the Parish in which they serve. This may be on retirement or to recognise completion of several terms of office, for example, an award after 9 years’ service or after 18 years’ service.

[10:00]

Special awards can also be made to recognise an officer’s exceptional conduct and service on a particular occasion.

3.4.1 Deputy S. Power:

Could the Chairman clarify for the Assembly whether the Comité des Connétables as a whole, because the Chairman said that the Parish Constables issue… that all Constables are in agreement that there should be recognition to the Honorary Police for diligence and long service from our Honorary Police?

The Connétable of Trinity:

Yes.

3.4.2 The Connétable of St. John:

Will the Constable agree that not all Parishes give long-service presentations whether it be by a scroll, whether it be by a glass receptacle after 18 years of service, that would be given by the Honorary Police Association, but generally there is no hard and fast presentation rule across the 12 Parishes?

The Connétable of Trinity:

That is correct.

3.4.3 Deputy M. Tadier:

Will the Chairman consider that in the event of any glass receptacles being awarded to any of our diligent Honorary Policemen and women that we seek to use some kind of recycled glass composite which could be put in to make sure that obviously it would need to be of sufficiently high quality to be engravable, et cetera. But that would use local recycled glass, because I think that is what our Honorary Police would want.

The Connétable of Trinity:

We do our best. [Laughter]

3.4.4 Deputy S. Power:

Could the Chairman give any indication to the Assembly as to whether there is a collective or a collegiate approach by the Comité des Connétables as to a standard type approach or presentation or design of a medal or a glass receptacle or something, because it appears to me that there are grounds for the Connétables to get together and agree something which is across all 12 Parishes? Could he give an indication?

The Connétable of Trinity:

I totally agree with the Deputy and we are at the present time ongoing looking into a long-service medal and that hopefully will happen in due course.

Deputy S. Power:

Could I just clarify? Does he have an idea of timescale?

The Connétable of Trinity:

As soon as possible. [Laughter]

The Bailiff:

If it is any assistance, Deputy Power, if I have anything to do with it, before I cease as the Bailiff.

Deputy S. Power:

Thank you, Sir. That is very reassuring.

3.5 Deputy J.N. Le Bailly of St. Mary of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding funding the cost of water tests by the States Analyst for residents of properties not served by mains water:

The Bailiff:

We come next to a question which the Deputy of St. Mary will ask of the Minister for Treasury and Resources.

Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence:

I am happy to answer that on behalf of the Minister. I would like to give the Deputy the opportunity to wait for the Minister to arrive, or I can answer it now.

The Bailiff:

Deputy of St. Mary, are you happy to proceed now?

The Deputy of St. Mary:

I am happy to proceed now. Thank you. Given that there are a lot of properties throughout the Island that are not on mains water and are therefore reliant on bore wells and springs for drinking water, and in view of the risks of the water table being polluted by slurry spreading and domestic soakaways, would the Minister consider funding the cost of water tests by the States Analyst for residents of these properties?

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

It would not be right for the Minister for Treasury and Resources to become involved in policy matters around water safety for Islanders not connected to mains water supply. This question might have been better directed at either the Minister for Health and Social Services or the Minister for Planning and Environment. As far as funding goes, the Medium-Term Financial Plan and the contingency funding processes are well established and provide opportunities for departments to bring forward requests for additional resources. More importantly, the M.T.F.P. (Medium-Term Financial Plan) process provides departments with the longer term certainty of funding and allows them to reprioritise spending as broadly as they wish.

3.5.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

Would the Minister then agree that it is somewhat ironic that one of the richest places in the world cannot provide infrastructure to the outlying areas of this Island, causing the people who live there to endure facilities no better than a third world country? Would the Minister consider that perhaps now would be the time to invest in that infrastructure or it may never happen?

The Bailiff:

Deputy, that is 2 questions, so it is probably all right.

Deputy E.J. Noel:

I would disagree with the Deputy of St. Mary that our outlying water supplies are akin to a third world country. Towards the end of last year in fact we did ask the Chief Executive of Jersey Water about this very matter. We were informed that the company has looked into this and the estimated average cost per property is high at some £10,000 plus and the company would not be able to subsidise the private householders and would also end up subsidising developers. Therefore they have no plans at present to extend the mains water network.

3.5.2 The Connétable of St. John:

Given the Minister’s reply, would he agree that it would be far more expensive if people are poisoned through contaminated water supplies with medical bills indirectly to his department in having to treat with long-term illness a number of people than putting potable water supplies across the Island?

Deputy E.J. Noel:

Let me say again, I cannot agree with the Connétable of St. John. There is a process in place where those on bore holes and on wells can have their waters tested, and that I believe is through the Environment Department and the States Analyst. That is the route they should take to see if their water is fit for human consumption, and if it is not then alternative measures can be taken.

3.5.3 The Connétable of St. John:

Will the Minister give serious consideration to, if not putting a free of charge testing service in place, to reduce the charges which currently are charged up to £93 per household each time you have a water test? Would he consider subsidising that or giving a free service?

Deputy E.J. Noel:

It does not really come under the remit of Treasury and Resources. This really is a matter for the Environment Department who I believe the States Analyst is part of. It is within their remit and within their gift to appropriate their budget as they see fit.

3.5.4 Deputy J.H. Young:

Could the Minister confirm his answer that he and his political master have a hands-off policy in respect of important policy? Could he confirm that he has no views therefore on funding for how we may extend the sewage network to eliminate this risk of water pollution in the future?

The Bailiff:

I am sorry, Deputy. I think that is straying too far. At the moment this is a question about the cost of water tests.

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

Could the Assistant Minister confirm whether he has had a request from the Environment Department to fund the cost of water testing as per the Deputy of St. Mary’s question?

Deputy E.J. Noel:

As far as my knowledge, the Treasury has not received such a request.

3.5.6 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement:

When the Assistant Minister is next speaking with the Water Company would he address the issue of efficiency, because I know there are occasions where ... in fact, one case where they wanted to refill a trench in order to open it up again in order to justify a £1,000 charge per 3 feet of pipe?

The Bailiff:

Again, Deputy, I think that is off the topic of testing of bore holes.

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I was referring to what the Assistant Minister had said earlier about the discussion with the Water Works Company.

3.5.7 Deputy M. Tadier:

This one does relate to something that falls under the Minister’s remit. Does the Minister accept that funding for big projects like this, and it could be Housing and Health which the Treasury has not been loath to support proactively in the past ... does he accept that if we had a more progressive tax system and those Deputies who also asked questions about the provision of infrastructure on the Island support a progressive taxation, there might be enough money sloshing around to provide infrastructure of this nature?

Deputy E.J. Noel:

I believe we have a progressive taxation system in the Island that suits our needs.

3.5.8 Deputy M. Tadier:

I forgot it was 1st April, but does the Assistant Minister agree that it could be made more progressive insofar as those who earn the most could pay the most and also have access to the mains water supply?

Deputy E.J. Noel:

I believe that we have a tax system that suits the needs of Islanders.

3.5.9 The Deputy of St. Mary:

The Assistant Minister claims that this is not a remit of Treasury. In fact it is the remit of Treasury to provide the funds to be able to put this infrastructure in place. This matter is continually passed by. We need to find ways of funding this infrastructure, maybe by putting a penny on income tax which would generate between £25 million and £32 million per year. Couple that with a 10-year programme and we could complete these works quite easily.

The Bailiff:

Do you agree I suppose is the question.

Deputy E.J. Noel:

I am afraid again I have to disagree with the Deputy of St. Mary.

3.6 Deputy J.H. Young of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the costs of defending Planning Appeals since his appointment:

Will the Minister inform the Assembly of the cost incurred by his department and the Law Officers’ Department in defending planning appeals since his appointment and the number of cases in costs incurred where he has initiated appeals against the Royal Court judgment made against him, and advise how he justifies spending money to ensure, via costs imposed on the appellants, that he has the final say in such decisions?

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

I have taken it as read that the Deputy is not asking for full details of the costs of defending appeals as these were discussed in the debates on the new appeals system. However I can re-forward details to the Deputy and other Members if required. The new issue raised is challenges made by the Minister against Royal Court judgments. Now there is currently one live case before the Court of Appeal. I am sure that the Deputy will acknowledge that it would be inappropriate for me to make reference to any live proceedings in answering his question. Historically the cases are rare. I pursued one appeal last year and prior to that the previous one was in 2009 by my predecessor. That such appeals to the Court of Appeal are so few in number underlines that both I and my predecessor have only pursued them where important matters of principle had to be clarified in the public interest, such as the legal basis upon which a Minister can make a decision. The case in 2013 concerned the listing of a site as one of special interest and I brought an appeal as I was concerned that the Royal Court’s judgment undermined the whole process of listing important buildings and places and therefore put those buildings and places at risk. The Court of Appeal found that the Royal Court’s judgment was legally incorrect, justifying my decision and ensuring these important buildings and places remain protected. These cases are handled by the Law Officers’ Department and I am unable to give the Deputy an indication of their expenses. I accept that the current system is legalistic in its nature. The States have decided to pursue a new merits-based appeal system with appeals heard by independent expert inspectors. I hope that this will largely do away with the Royal Court process and issues such as these.

3.6.1 Deputy J.H. Young:

As it is not the first time that Deputy Duhamel has said he will circulate figures separately, I would ask that he circulates those details that he said to all Members please, as part of the answer requested. But would he not accept that he has in fact made public comments recently about 2 such cases, not one, and that while one accepts that the system is going to change, can he really say that this test of important matters of principle applies to both those cases?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I am happy to re-send the details as requested by the Deputy to all Members and will circulate them henceforth. The Deputy makes a point about 2 cases. He is absolutely right and one of those, the second case, is still live so I cannot comment on it.

3.6.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

It is a question for you, if I may.

[10:15]

The Minister says he cannot discuss these cases as they are sub judice. Surely that does not extend to the name of the case. We do not need to know any details or any comments on them. Surely the Minister should be allowed to give us the name of the cases that are currently in dispute.

The Bailiff:

Yes, he can do that if you wish.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

In that case, can I ask the Minister to tell us the name of the cases?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

The 2 cases I was referring to where appeals had been made by third parties which had been submitted of late is the Herald case with Capital Tower and the Parish of St. Ouen over the fields at Plemont.

3.6.3 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I am not sure this is the remit. Could the Minister tell the House, other than the Crown Officers from whom does he take advice when he makes a decision within the department to proceed with legal action?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I am not sure that I am able to answer that because I think under the Ministerial protocol I am not allowed to advise anyone that I have taken legal advice or indeed what that legal advice contains.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Could we have some procedural advice on that? It sounds a very strange answer.

The Bailiff:

You are entitled to say you take advice from the Law Office if that is the case, Deputy. You are entitled to say you take advice from officials in your department if that is the case.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Very well worded, Sir. I repeat every word without repeating.

3.6.4 Deputy J.H. Young:

I have to confess to being rather confused. The Minister started off saying there was one case he could not talk about because there was only one case; now he says there are 2 and he has given us their names. But we still do not know the numbers. Will he at least produce a report on this? Will he confirm or give us the information because otherwise we are in an impossible position when we are approached by constituents who ask us: “How is it that these cases are one-sided cases when a Minister has all the resources and the appellants have none?”

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I think from the recent media offerings hares have been set running in this particular area and I think it is absolutely right that I apply the correct Ministerial pressure on the departmental officers to ensure that States Members are properly or correctly advised and brought up to date so that any potential fears that they have that the system is not being applied properly can be allayed.

3.7 Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding reductions to the waiting time for those seeking adult psychological services:

What action, if any, is the Minister taking to reduce the 9-month long waiting time for those seeking adult psychological services?

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

The Deputy will be aware that I have answered a similar written question from Deputy Tadier. My department has just last week advertised to recruit some 13 staff for a new Jersey Talking Therapy Service. It is hoped that all or some of these staff will be in place in the next few months. This will help manage and reduce current waiting time within the Psychological Assessment and Therapy Service. Health and Social Services is also employing a full-time locum psychological therapist who is due to start this month. This ought to reduce the waiting list.

3.7.1 Deputy J.A. Hilton:

When the Health White Paper was agreed in October 2012, the proposal was to indeed invest in adult psychological services the Minister has just outlined. Can the Minister explain to Members why it has taken since October 2012 to the current time to advertise these posts?

The Deputy of Trinity:

As I said, this is a new service. Working closely with a wide range of stakeholders has been critically important and I approved the service specification in June last year. Since then a wide range of both professionals and the voluntary sector have been working hard to design and agree the exact way the new services will be delivered. The services must be accessible and non-stigmatising, and the level of detail is really important.

3.7.2 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

We are given assurances that the waiting lists are coming down and so forth. When all these measures are in place, what will the waiting list be? Has the work been done to estimate this?

The Deputy of Trinity:

I am sure it has. The most important thing is going to be, as I said, this is a new service. It is also early intervention and that is where the greatest need will be. As I said, there are about 13 staff that are going to be recruited and it will be accessible within the community setting.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Supplementary, Sir. I asked a simple question: how long?

The Deputy of Trinity:

Nobody has crystal ball. All the evidence has been done and it does show that obviously it will cut down waiting list times.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Excuse me, Sir. I asked a very simple question.

The Bailiff:

Yes, and she said that she cannot look into the future.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Well, the work has not been done, I presume, Minister.

3.7.3 Deputy M. Tadier:

Has the Minister looked into how local private practitioners, for example, therapists, counsellors, et cetera, might be able to be used either in the short time or in the longer term to fill the demand for Talking Therapies, et cetera?

The Deputy of Trinity:

I am not certain, but all I can say is that this is a new service and we are recruiting, as I said, 13 staff and an extra £700,000 investment is put into the service. There will be better outcomes as the service begins.

3.7.4 Deputy M. Tadier:

Can I ask for clarification? The written answer ... and the Minister has again talked about 13 staff, 8 of which will be for psychological services. What are the other 5 staff? Are they related in any way to Mental Health Services?

The Deputy of Trinity:

Yes. All the staff are involved in this new psychological Talking Therapies.

3.7.5 Deputy S. Power:

In relation to the response to Deputy Hilton, can the Minister explain to the Assembly the overhaul that is needed in terms of attention to acute and urgent intervention for those seeking immediate assistance with their psychological problems? I know that the Minister would say that there is an A. and E. (Accident and Emergency) situation, but once they have dealt with A. and E. is there a mechanism to improve acute and urgent care for psychological care, because a number of us are aware of cases where that does not appear to be available.

The Deputy of Trinity:

That is why, as I said, the psychological therapies is not an emergency service. If someone needs that emergency care it is either to A. and E. or through their G.P. (General Practitioner) and on assessment they will get referred into the appropriate route.

3.7.6 Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:

My question is not too dissimilar from what Deputy Power has just asked. I know of examples of people who, because of their mental health problems, have attempted suicide and have not been able to see their allocated specialist for sometimes months afterwards. Is the Minister satisfied with that, and does she accept that because of the nature of mental health problems there should be no such thing as a waiting list for someone in those sorts of circumstances? If she does agree that there should be no waiting lists, why are there? Is it an issue of funding?

The Deputy of Trinity:

The ideal is if there is no waiting list, but that is in the ideal world. We have recognised that there is a need and that is why the Jersey Talking Therapies is essential. It will receive non-stigmatised service treating patients with anxiety, depression, with or without alcohol issues. It is a variety of ways of face to face, individual groups, counselling and working with their G.P. It is low level which is the most important and it is early intervention

3.7.7 Deputy J.A. Hilton:

Of course I welcome the news of 13 additional staff delivering Talking Therapies and a locum psychologist who is going to be taken on very shortly to try and help reduce waiting lists. But I am disappointed to hear and to know that by the time those posts are filled it will be around September time; that it has taken almost 2 years to deliver this new service from the time the States Assembly agreed to it. The question I wanted to ask the Minister is: how confident is she that the mental health review that her department is undertaking which comprises of 4 different strands will be delivered in a timely fashion?

The Deputy of Trinity:

Any new service does take time to set up because, mostly importantly, it is working with the voluntary sector and the G.P.s and it has to be right because it is going to be bolted-on to current services. So it has to be right, right from the word go. Alongside some of this as the Deputy said, she is quite right, there is going to be a mental health service review. It will be done by the end of this year. But also we are doing a review into the mental health estates and also looking at the mental capacity law. So it is a very busy time for mental health services, but a very positive way forward.

3.8 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding investigations into the background of companies based in Jersey which were involved in the financing of the construction of Alder Hey Hospital, Liverpool:

In granting permission for them to trade under the Control of Housing and Work Law, will the Chief Minister state what investigations, if any, were made into the role that Henderson Infrastructure, a Jersey company, played in financing the construction and servicing of Alder Hey hospital, Liverpool, through Laing O’Rourke plc and Alder Hey (Special Purpose Vehicle) Limited, and whether such activity enhances the reputation of the Island’s finance sector?

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

Could I ask Senator Ozouf in his role as Assistant Minister responsible for financial services to answer?

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

The business activities of Henderson Infrastructure are not under the Control of Housing and Work Law, so the rest of the question is probably not relevant. However it would be not appropriate to make in any case any comment about third parties, other than perhaps to note that the matter apparently referred to in the U.K. media comment, which I assume is what the Deputy is questioning about, is a standard P.F.I. or Private Finance Initiative deal signed and therefore approved by the U.K. Government itself.

3.8.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

If the activity of this company does not come under the Control of Housing and Work Law, what laws do they come under? Is it J.F.S.C. (Jersey Financial Services Commission)?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am advised there are no regulatory requirements in respect of this particular issue. It does not fall apart from any of the standard regulatory requirements of any promoters of company service and entities, et cetera.

3.8.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

If I may, in that case: does the Minister not consider that it ought to be appropriate? We should be regulating the activities of companies like this which strip out the profit from companies based in the U.K. and thereby skew the bidding process for P.F.I.s throughout the country.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

It would be entirely inappropriate, and I would invite the Deputy to consider very carefully making such accusations which, I assume, he purely speculates on. I also would say to the Deputy that it is of course a matter for the U.K. Government - in this case who has engaged a P.F.I. - to structure arrangements in the manner in which they decide is the best interest of U.K. taxpayers. What is quite clear is that Jersey’s position in respect to the use of companies has been made very clear by the Chief Minister on numerous occasions. It will be made clearer when we publish the new Financial Services Framework later on this week and of course the main reason why companies choose to use Jersey company law is not tax; it is because the flexibility and the quality services in which they are provided. That is why people use Jersey company law.

3.8.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Does the Minister consider that activities such as this enhances the reputation of the Island in the world’s eye?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I was last night fortunate to address a City audience including attending a dinner with a U.K. Treasury Minister. I am very clear that Jersey is highly regarded by the U.K. Recent comments by Ministers, the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, Minister Gauke recently, clearly indicate the high standing of Jersey that is held by the U.K.

[10:30]

Jersey is not a tax haven. We are not the problem. We are part of the growth solution of the U.K. Government and clearly our innovative company law is providing useful arrangements for U.K. companies.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Will the Minister answer the question, please? Does he consider that activities such as this enhance the reputation of the Island? Yes or no?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

If the Deputy is suggesting that the use of Jersey companies because of its innovative nature is anything apart from enhancing the nature of Jersey, I would say absolutely. Our company law is held up as being one of the best in the world.

3.8.4 Deputy M. Tadier:

My light has been obscured, and while I am loathe to interject in this ...

The Bailiff:

I am sorry, Deputy.

Deputy M. Tadier:

That is okay, Sir. It is because I now have someone else sitting in front of me. I will not complain because he is an ally. Does the Minister accept that if companies are set up in Jersey because of flexibility and not the zero rate of tax, then we should be getting rid of the zero rate of tax because that is clearly not what these companies come here for? But that is not the question. The question is in this particular case ...

The Bailiff:

It sounded like a question to me. Does he not agree?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Can he restate the question? I am sorry. He went on so. Could he simply restate the question?

The Bailiff:

Choose your question, Deputy and ask it.

Deputy M. Tadier:

The Minister said or implied that this arrangement here was due to the flexibility and not due to zero taxation or to tax benefit. Can he clarify that in this case the prime purpose of using a Jersey structure was for zero taxation so that they do not have to pay tax and therefore saving money for the P.F.I. (Private Finance Initiative) in question.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

The Deputy, once again, attempts to put a narrow question on what is clearly a large issue so you will be frustrated that I cannot answer very simply. The fact is it is the U.K. Parliament, the U.K. Exchequer that is responsible for the arrangements of transfer pricing of entities within the United Kingdom. The U.K. Prime Minister has been very clear in the issue of profit shifting and the rest of it of which Jersey absolutely complies. We have a zero tolerance of the use of Jersey companies which abuse the intended will of parliament. However, it must be for the U.K. to deal with their U.K. issues in respect of the use of their companies and in this case the use of a P.F.I. which has been signed by the U.K. Government.

Deputy M. Tadier:

But surely this is a point of order. I have asked a very narrow question deliberately to try and elicit a narrow answer, preferably yes or no. The Minister made no attempt to answer that question in a meaningful way. The question is: does he accept that this vehicle and this particular example was used for tax-avoidance purposes perfectly legally? That is what we have been talking about, abusive tax avoidance, and not due to the other flexible structures that Jersey offers.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

The factual answer is that it is a matter not for Jersey to consider the implications of the use of Jersey with another jurisdiction’s tax authority. It would be wholly inappropriate as I ...

Deputy M. Tadier:

A point of order, that is not the answer; the answer was, yes or no.

The Bailiff:

The Minister is entitled to give his answer now.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

The answer is simply that he is not getting the answer that he wishes. The answer is that it would be not appropriate. I do not know, and neither should I know, the absolute intricacies of any particular corporate structuring that is a matter for the U.K. Government Procurement Service. So the answer is no, but I do not know the actual details. I know the standards of which company service providers adhere to and also what the U.K. Government is trying to achieve. I cannot really add anything else.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Does the Minister see no shifts?

The Bailiff:

No, Deputy, you had a number of questions.

3.9 The Connétable of St. John of the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding States members’ I.T. expenses:

Could the Chairman confirm whether the new provisions relating to I.T. (Information Technology) expenses for States Members will result in £31,000 of tax payers’ money being spent annually on I.T. equipment for Members?

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

No, I cannot confirm what the questioner asks. An observation I would make is that this allocation was never - never - solely made for the provision of I.T. equipment i.e. hardware. Also, for clarity, this is not new money. As was communicated to States Members in my letter dated 3rd January 2014 States Members have had this budget allocated to them for over 10 years. Thank you.

3.9.1 The Connétable of St. John:

Can it be right that at this time in the political cycle to be using £31,000 of States funding, given that the House will be replaced come October this year and should that money not be set aside until the end of the year when any new ways of dealing with I.T. be put in to the new House?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Can it be right at this time? Yes, considering that this particular budget has a number of components within it which includes States Members internet provision which, if Members refer to the answer to the written question, it explains quite clearly in detail why that happened due to J.T. (Jersey Telecom) changing its billing system in the way in which States Members are reimbursed for internet provision. Also, with regards to the other component, again, States Members are already receiving that. Again, the written answer explains why it was decided to change the mechanism to how this particular budget was accessed by States Members. So I would like to make clear that this is not new money, this is no additional cost to the taxpayer and that States Members have been receiving this allocation for over 10 years, just via a slightly different mechanism.

3.9.2 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I wonder if the Chairman would agree with me in that the office expenses which States Members incur, whether it be in their own office and I.T., putting software, hardware or whatever, should come out of Members’ expense allowance.

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

The committee were mindful of this and were bearing in mind things such as the Freedom of Information Law. They were minded to adopt this change as it is more transparent, as the Deputy is quite clear in saying, that this should come out of what is classed as States Members’ expenses and not hidden as a hidden subsidy within the I.S. (Information Services) Department budget. Therefore, that is why the Chief Minister was willing to transfer that budget over to the States Assembly budget. I could not agree more with what the Deputy said.

3.9.3 The Connétable of St. John:

Will the Chairman go back and reconsider with his committee, or his panel, delaying this until after the election?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

The committee has considered this. The committee will not be reconsidering it at this time. What the committee has decided, however, is that this matter should be more thoroughly considered by the States Remuneration Board at that time and that is what the committee sought to do. Thank you.

The Connétable of St. John:

So the answer is no?

The Bailiff:

I think the answer was no. Yes.

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I began to say the answer was no. Thank you.

3.10 Deputy M. Tadier of the Attorney General regarding the possibility of importing and possessing cannabis for medicinal use under the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978:

Will H.M. Attorney General clarify whether the importation and possession of cannabis for medicinal use would be possible under the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 and, in particular, whether the Minister for Health and Social Services has the power to issue a licence allowing possession of cannabis for medicinal use?

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

The Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 makes it a criminal offence to import and/or to possess cannabis. The Minister for Health and Social Services has designated cannabis in accordance with Article 12(4) of the law as a drug for which it is in the public interest for its production, supply and possession to be wholly unlawful except for purposes of research or other “special purposes”. The term “special purposes” is a high bar to satisfy. In principle, the Minister can lawfully issue a licence for the possession of cannabis for medicinal use but there would need to be evidence of some genuine and special medical benefit that would justify the issuing of a licence for a special purpose. It is a matter for the Minister having regard to any relevant evidence and of course a consideration of the harmful effects of the drug. As I have already noted, the phrase “special purpose” is a high bar to satisfy.

3.10.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

Given the fact that medicinal cannabis is already prescribed and brought into the Island at great expense, it has to be said, there is presumably already sufficient evidence for doctors to be prescribing cannabis-based products. Will the Minister basically outline the process by which a G.P. and a patient could legally be prescribed and use medicinal cannabis, perhaps even herbal cannabis, for their ailments if the G.P. thought that it was the correct medicine to be prescribing?

The Solicitor General:

I am obviously not the Minister and, as I have already indicated, it is for the Minister to consider any relevant evidence in deciding whether to issue a particular licence. The background to this matter is as follows. Insofar as the Minister wishes to take the views of the United Kingdom authorities into account, those authorities will not issue a licence for cannabis in any circumstances, having regard to its known harmful effects, and they include links to mental health problems. There has to date been one exception to that principle. There is a cannabis-based medicine, it is called Sativex, and that has been the subject of scientific trials. That has resulted in the conclusion, those trials have shown, that there is a medicinal benefit in respect of that product for the treatment of particular conditions, namely multiple sclerosis and cancer. Therefore, that drug, that particular product, is prescribed both in England and Jersey but it is not right to say that cannabis is the subject of general licence. That just has not happened.

3.10.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Solicitor General say whether evidence from other jurisdictions, and we have seen the move recently in some American states, for example, if rigorously collected and presented would be the kind of evidence the Minister could rely upon?

The Solicitor General:

These are questions better put to the Minister. It is the Minister’s power. As I say, special purposes is a high bar to satisfy, but no doubt the Minister will take into account all relevant evidence.

3.10.3 Deputy M. Tadier:

I think just to put it in perhaps more layman’s terms for us mere mortals. Is it the case then that the Minister for Health and Social Services needs to go away and decide whether or not there is a case for herbal cannabis to be supplied, that it extends the amount of products on the market and, therefore, to make the case if she sees fit for other varieties of cannabis-based medicines to be available on prescription in Jersey?

The Solicitor General:

I cannot really add to what I have already said. It is for the Minister to consider the law and whether any particular licence should be issued, having regard to whether it can be properly classified as a special purpose.

3.11 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of the Chairman of the Jersey Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association regarding the selection of delegates for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in October 2014:

Which Members have been selected to attend the annual Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in October 2014 and what were the criteria for selection?

Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement (Chairman, Jersey Branch, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association):

Recognising that it was unlikely that many applications will be received to represent the States at this conference, falling as it does only a week before our elections, the Executive Committee of the Jersey Branch invited the Deputy Bailiff to lead the delegation. I am delighted that he accepted. Subsequently, all Members were invited to express interest in attending the conference. Only 2 did so, namely, the Dean and the Deputy of St. Ouen. Accordingly, the Jersey Branch, having 3 delegates, both were selected.

3.11.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Obviously, as the Chairman has stated, an unusual situation with the election arriving at that time, I wonder why it was not possible, seeing that it was an exceptional situation, to accept, for example, ex-Members of the Assembly into the candidature. For example, I have often wondered, Constables’ positions, it seems they are technically ex officio.

The Connétable of St. Clement:

Members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Jersey Branch are Members of the States, not former Members. Therefore, it would not have been possible to invite applications from former Members.

[10:45]

3.12 Deputy S. Power of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the impact of low freight rates on the viability of shipping to the Channel Islands:

Can the Minister advise whether some companies involved predominantly in R.O./R.O. (Roll On/ Roll Off) freight shipment to the Channel Islands are quoting unsustainable freight rates and, if so, is he concerned that these low rates have the potential to damage the viability of shipping to the Channel Islands?

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

As background, freight rates have declined over the last 5 years and both shipping and logistic companies have fought aggressively for business with the market becoming very competitive; a situation many will argue is a positive outcome for the local economy. With regard to R.O./R.O. I understand that Condor Ferries has a published freight shipping tariff scaled to volumes shipped. At the time of the Huelin-Renouf collapse I understand that they also introduced a commodity rate to ensure continued transportation of key building materials during the period of uncertainty. To answer the Deputy’s specific question, at this stage I do not have any clear evidence on whether any unsustainable freight rates are being quoted. However, what I can tell Members is that the J.C.R.A. are reviewing certain freight rates to ascertain whether they may indeed be anti-competitive. I am awaiting their early determination on this matter which I am told will be made very soon. Thank you.

3.12.1 Deputy S. Power:

I thank the Minister for that information. He did refer to the loss of Huelin-Renouf Ferries, is he also aware that unsustainable long-term freight rates, including low commodity rates on Channel Islands routes, has in the short term the potential to add benefits to local importers and suppliers but in the long term has the potential to cause rates to go up largely because of monopolistic trading conditions that could occur? Is he aware of this risk?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, I am aware of the risk. It is a risk if indeed it is the case. That is the reason why the J.C.R.A. are looking at the market and looking at certain tariffs, to see if there is any prejudicial pricing being deployed at the moment in the marketplace which would not be a satisfactory outcome.

3.12.2 Deputy S. Power:

There are 2 parts to my final question. One is: has the C.I.C.R.A. given the Minister an indication of timescale? Is he also aware that there is another risk that if a company does try to increase its market share as a percentage of the total overall freight market, does get a new licence permit and does have an option on the new fleet replacement that that company could be being prepared for sale and that his department could be used as a pawn in a much bigger game, in either an equity release or a sale of one company?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

With regard to the timescale, I am told by the J.C.R.A. that they expect to make a determination during the next week or so, so very imminently. With regard to the second question, there were, I think, about 4 or 5 “coulds” in the Deputy’s question; there was, therefore, a lot of speculation. Yes, in short, I am aware of the potential risks, as indeed the team negotiating any potential long-term arrangements are as well. That will form part of any agreements that may or not be concluded.

3.13 Deputy M. Tadier of the Chairman of the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel regarding a review of the Minister’s proposed action to address clinical waiting times:

Will the chairman advise if the panel has reviewed or intends to review the Minister’s proposed action to address clinical waiting times, including those for mental health-related issues?

Deputy J.A. Hilton (Vice Chairman, Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel - rapporteur):

The Health, Social Security and Housing Panel has not reviewed clinical waiting times, including those with mental health-related issues. Once our current review of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service has been completed, we intend to review the Regulation of Care Law. This will run alongside our other review regarding the design of Health and Social Services, which includes the proposed hospital redevelopment, a sustainable funding mechanism for primary care and additional services which were agreed in October 2012 for delivery in the community. Therefore, unfortunately, we cannot commit to reviewing clinical waiting times in the future.

3.13.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

I appreciate that the Scrutiny Panel is very busy as usual and, therefore, my standing offer to join them remains. Nonetheless, I would ask if they are satisfied more so with the Minister’s progress on clinical waiting times. Again, we have seen this week some headlines in that regard. Is she and the panel satisfied that the Minister is taking effective action to reduce these waiting times?

Deputy J.A. Hilton:

As I said in my previous answer to a question, I welcome the additional staff being provided by the Health Department which was agreed in October 2012. I am disappointed that it has taken almost 2 years to deliver those additional staff. Also, the Minister for Health and Social Services confirmed this morning that the mental health review would be completed by the end of 2014 so I am heartened by that. Certainly, the Scrutiny Panel will continue to question the Minister in public hearings to ensure that this does happen in a timely fashion.

3.14 Deputy N.B. Le Cornu of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the implementation of the strategies agreed as part of the Sustainable Transport Policy:

Given that when the States approved the Sustainable Transport Policy in December 2010, Members voted unanimously to request the publication within a year of a target for road accident reduction and the rationale behind it and also comprehensive strategies designed to facilitate and encourage walking and cycling, could the Minister explain the delay in carrying out the wishes of the States and update Members on progress?

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

The timescale of one year set by the States for the development of these important strategies was optimistic, given the limited officer resources available. I can confirm, however, that my department has more recently been able to allocate resources and made considerable progress in developing both a Road Safety Strategy and an Active Travel Strategy, the latter addressing walking and cycling together. The draft Road Safety Strategy White Paper is close to completion and I anticipate publishing it for public consultation before this summer. Work on the Active Travel Strategy is also well advanced and it should be published later this year as per my response to the Constable of St. Helier’s question in January.

3.14.1 Deputy N.B. Le Cornu:

I am conscious that we are soon to debate legislation on the compulsory wearing of helmets by children when they are cycling. It could be said that we do not have the scientific basis for argument for or against the use of such helmets, given that the department has not given us more information which was requested by the States. Are we therefore in a position to think rationally about the decision we are soon to make?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I will provide as much information as I can get hold of for States Members regarding this but obviously this is the subject of a proposition which will be before the States shortly.

3.14.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Is it the Minister’s intention as part of his Sustainable Transport Policy going forward to include a ‘Hoppa Bus’ service to reduce the amount of traffic in the town and will he find funding this time round which failed to find funding in the last Medium-Term Financial Plan?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

It is my intention to expand the bus service as much as possible which will include the suburbs and the periphery of town. Whether that would include an actual ‘Hoppa Bus’ I will take under advice but that would be nice to have.

3.14.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

If I may, can I remind the Minister that this House approved the progress on a ‘Hoppa Bus’ and then the Minister failed to come up with the funding to meet our requirement?

The Bailiff:

So what is the question, Deputy?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

The question was: can I remind him does he recognise that we have passed this once, twice, 3 times I think?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes, I would love to proceed with that if funding was made available. I was more querying the name “Hoppa Bus” as opposed to the actual service. But I wish to expand the service to cover all areas of town, rural areas and countryside.

3.14.4 Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:

Does the Minister consider that the current projects to provide improvements in the village centres of the Parishes, which have been driven by the very communities that they affect, will play an important part in achieving some of the aims set by the Sustainable Transport Policy and of course increasing road safety? Does he consider that the work being undertaken to achieve these and to get them right is worth the effort and worth the wait?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Absolutely, I could not agree with the Constable of St. Mary more and T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) really appreciate the input of Parishes on the subject.

3.14.5 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

The Minister mentioned lack of resources was holding up aspects of the policy. Would he not agree that particularly the walking and cycling objectives may have been over-optimistic, in any event?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes, indeed. The cycling was a difficult one because we are dealing with private land owners but we are trying to expand that as soon as we can. We have got sections of the eastern cycle track in place, we have got new sections of the harbour area in place now, and that is something we would wish to progress.

3.14.6 Deputy M. Tadier:

Does the Minister think that there is a democratic issue when the Assembly passes propositions, in this case the Sustainable Transport Policy, only to find out that it cannot be implemented in a holistic or timely way due to hold-ups at the funding stage?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I think we are progressing in a timely way. Sections of the eastern cycle routes have been installed, we have the successful Cycle Challenge, we have installed over 100 parking spaces for bicycles in bicycle racks in town, we have 3 travel plans completed and there are further 3 under development with various States departments.

3.14.7 Deputy M. Tadier:

That is all very nice but will the Minister answer because he is the one who said that certain aspects of this have been held up due to a lack of funding? Is it a problem when the States Assembly asks for the Minister to go away and do something and when he does not do it, we would entirely be in our rights to have a vote of no confidence? Would he take the question more seriously and answer whether or not it is a democratic problem when the will of this Assembly is not enacted in a timely fashion?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

If the Deputy will recall this was the Strategic Transport Policy of 2010. I became the Minister for Transport and Technical Services towards the end of 2011 and I instructed my department to prioritise this, which they have done.

3.14.8 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Following on from these questions, and certainly from Deputy Southern’s, will the Minister tell us what efforts he has made since he has been Minister to obtain funds from the Treasury for the ‘Hoppa Bus’ and for the other initiatives and if he has not done, will he be putting it into the Medium-Term Financial Strategy as something to go forward?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

My department and I have regular discussions with the Minister for Treasury and Resources, Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Treasurer of the States regarding T.T.S. projects. This has been discussed at length and I will be moving forward with this. As I mentioned previously, I wish to expand the bus service to cover the whole of the Island which includes St. Helier.

3.14.9 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Again, the Minister has not answered the question. The question is: has he made specific proposals to the Treasury for funding for a ‘Hoppa Bus’ and funding for the other initiatives: yes or no?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

That is a yes.

The Bailiff:

A final question, Deputy Le Cornu?

Deputy N.B. Le Cornu:

No, I do not.

3.15 Deputy J.H. Young of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the impact of the withdrawal of air services to Guernsey by Aurigny:

Will the Minister give assurances that there are no adverse effects on activity between the Channel Islands, whether for business, cultural, sporting, tourism or private family purposes, as a consequence of the significant reduction in inter-island flights following the withdrawal of services to Guernsey by Aurigny and advise what action, if any, he will take to maintain services to an adequate level to properly serve our 2 communities?

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

There is no public service obligation in place between government and any airline to provide a minimum level of service, as Jersey operates an open skies policy which allows airlines to choose routes, frequencies and timings. This has led to an extensive growing and competitive network of air routes serving the Island. There are many code share services around the world which allow airlines to co-operate on operational efficiencies that compete in the commercial markets. The code share between Aurigny and Blue Islands helps to secure inter-island services, stabilises the market and maintains competition on the inter-island route. Both airlines are free to set their own price points and have agreed allocations. However, I am aware of some possible teething problems with the new code share arrangements. I have therefore spoken to C.I.C.R.A. about possible capacity issues and they are closely monitoring the situation.

[11:00]

3.15.1 Deputy J.H. Young:

Accepting the market theory that the Minister gave us about route freedoms and so on, would he not accept that traditionally for many years our community has been used to being able to make day trips to Guernsey for working purposes, family or sporting events and achieve an effective working day, a practical day in our sister island? When one looks at the current availability, one is likely to find the early flights out and late flights back and reverse are all booked. Therefore, would he not accept that that is a practical problem, particularly where we are doing agreements in Guernsey, to work co-operatively with our sister island, that those links are essential?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I would certainly agree that the links are essential. The first flight out of Jersey is 7.55 a.m. The return last flight is 6.50 p.m. so a day trip is perfectly feasible. There does appear to be a capacity issue potentially with the code share arrangements at weekends and that is a matter the Competition Authority are monitoring. I am also pleased to say that the airlines themselves have responded to capacity issues by laying on extra services. It is an evolving position; this new code share has only been in place for a matter of weeks. As I have said, we continue to monitor the situation. I thank the Deputy for his question. It is an important question and, as I say, it is under review.

3.16 The Deputy of St. Mary of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the provision of a fresh water supply and mains drains to all Islanders:

Does the Minister consider that the whole Island should be connected to both freshwater supply and main drains in order to eliminate the current high risk of pollution to drinking water supplied by bore wells and springs and if so, will he recommend to the Minister of Transport and Technical Services that this should happen without any further delay?

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

The question is somewhat misleading and alarmist as it refers to, and I quote: “bore holes and springs being under a current high risk of pollution”. The truth is that, although there are inherent risks associated with using private bore holes and wells, most of the private water supplies on our Island pose limited risk and have properly maintained treatment facilities on them to manage this risk. If the whole Island were to be connected to both freshwater supply and mains drains then households relying on private water supplies such as bore holes and wells and the environment would be best protected against pollution. However I would be hesitant to recommend Island-wide connection as there are practicalities and costs associated with such connections. The practicalities include distance, gradient and access, and by the nature of these there is a recognised high per unit cost of each connection that may well be prohibitive. In the meantime, however, it is important that officers from my department provide full protection for households and private water supplies such as bore holes and wells. This is achieved by regulation under the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000 and provision of incentives and education in order to reduce the risks of such water pollution occurring. The department also uses the Planning and Building Law to secure environmental gain such as extending networks in cases of new developments and in cases where private waste treatment is the only option, ensuring that these are fit for purpose and do not cause a risk to the environment.

3.16.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

In that case would the Minister also consider bringing legislation in order for properties to connect up to the main services by accessing adjoining fields without having to pay very often a ransom price that is currently being charged by landowners if there is no alternative route or obviously no intention to fund main services?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

The issue of legislation or charge to make water connections is something that is due to be considered with the Water Strategy that my colleague the Minister for Transport and Technical Services is bringing to this House very soon.

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

As a farmer who spreads slurry I would like it to be noted that when you apply to spread slurry the Department of Agriculture gives you areas where you can go and where you cannot go. These are monitored by the Department of Agriculture. Would the Minister not consider it would be more advantageous to make sure that everybody was on main drains as these, I believe, if one has an outside privy, which a lot of old places now do have, these are not monitored, where farmers who spread slurry it is monitored? Would the Minister not consider that main drains would be much more important?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

No, the Minister does not share that opinion.

3.16.3 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Many older properties make use of rainwater systems and use neither mains water nor wells or bore holes. Does the Minister believe we are currently doing enough in regard to rainwater harvesting?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I do not and that, indeed, is one of the alternative directions I would wish to encourage. In the old days that perhaps the Constable of St. Saviour was referring to, that still exist in some far flung places of St. Saviour and the Parishes, people were known to drink their rainwater. That obviously does not run the risk of contamination by septic tanks or soakaways because it comes on to the roof structures and then is collected in barrels. It is about wise use of resources and considering each time we use water we are obtaining the best value and not just extending mains services for the pure joy of it.

3.16.4 The Connétable of St. John:

I do not think there is any joy in having to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds or millions of pounds by the department having to extend services. That said, would the Minister, when he is sitting around the table of the Council of Ministers, support the Minister of Transport and Technical Services in moving forward in putting wayleaves in place so that we are not putting money into landowners’ pockets where there is a ransom strip when people require to cross somebody’s field, et cetera, or even their garden or a private road, so that this can happen at a modest cost by the person who requires this service? I am not talking about developers. I am talking about the ordinary householders within the Island who do not have the ability to find the funding that some of these ransom strips are demanded.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I agree with the Constable and with the general sentiment that it must be fundamentally wrong for landowners to hold out for ransom strips in order for pay for connection of services to the mains services. But that being said, if there are other alternatives that can provide suitable treatment of waste materials or, indeed, possible supplies of water then those alternatives must have proper representation as well.

3.16.5 Deputy J.H. Young:

According to written answer number 22 of the Minister of Transport and Technical Services today, there are 2,250 premises in the Island that are currently relying on septic tank or soakaways for their own waste disposal. That is 2,250 situated in the water pollution safeguard areas of the Island. What help is he giving to the owners of those properties to ensure they can identify if their systems are working well and are properly maintained? What is he doing about that?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

My department runs a farm risk map that has been developed and is online and the map is for farmers and other property owners to assess the risk of spreading agricultural slurry on specific fields. The slurry application, as we all know, is permitted on certain fields as long it is not spread within 50 metres of a bore hole or well and that other conditions as to it being reasonable to spread these materials on a field apply. That is why the department runs a closed season, if you like, between 14th October and 13th January most years when we have high rainfall and the higher potential for contamination of bore holes to occur. That said, there is a body of work that is being undertaken. Members will know that the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law was agreed by the House in 2000. Within that Water Pollution Law it did give the Minister power to set up water catchment management areas. There are inherent problems on a wider scale with the quantity of nitrates in our drinking water, as has been suggested most years by the Jersey Waterworks Company, and this Minister has firm intentions to move the debate on in terms of providing proper water services to Islanders under the powers the Water Pollution Law gives me. The timetable for delivering this is by 2015.

3.16.6 Deputy J.H. Young:

If I could ask the Minister to clarify his answer because I think he missed the main point. My point was what is he doing to help those 2,250 owners of septic tanks maintain them so they do not pollute their own bore holes and their own water supply?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

The Department for Planning and Environment, as Members know, does not have extensive monies to pay for the servicing of people’s independent bore holes or sewage systems. If, indeed, that is something that Members would wish my department to involve themselves with then answers or questions and suggestions on a postcard would be welcome.

3.16.7 The Deputy of St. Mary:

This again appears to be a question of funding. Perhaps everything should be channelled once again into Treasury’s lap. Could I ask the Minister to support that idea of gaining extra funding for this?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I have indicated in my answers to the questions earlier that, indeed, having general taxation being applied to solving these problems is just one way of solving the problems and there are a number of Islanders who would wish not to have the State, if you like, intrude in their affairs and I think those wishes have to be respected while at the same time looking at what is in the Island public good.

3.17 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the resolution of the problems with J.T.’s billing system:

Would the Minister, as shareholder representative, advise whether the Jersey Telecom billing problem is still ongoing and, if so, who is responsible, can it be resolved and does this problem in conjunction with fibre-optic issues and broadband limits have the potential to adversely affect J.T.’s value?

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

As previously advised to the Deputy the decisions taken by the J.T. board in regard to the change of its operating platform as well as the move to fibre and the underlying broadband services are decisions taken in the best interests of the company but also, I have to say, from the position I have as the Minister for Treasury and Resources I believe in the best interests of Islanders and particularly of economic growth. It is, of course, for the board to make these decisions and it is the Treasury’s role to hold that board to account and that is a responsibility I hold extremely seriously. I have previously indicated that I am reviewing with my Assistant Minister in the Treasury the overall framework and the objectives of the company, and that is exactly a healthy thing to do. J.T.’s strategy is correct and its implementation and what it is doing is ambitious although difficult and challenging, as has been seen by the fundamental change in the billing system that is not just a billing system, it is the whole of the financial architecture. On value it is probably worth saying that since, as far as the States accounts are concerned, J.T.’s value has increased from £105 million in the 2010 accounts to £183 million in last year’s accounts. Indeed, if one was to take the Manx Telecom valuation now publically listed that would indicate that J.T. today, on those terms, would have a value of the region of £350 million to £400 million.

[11:15]

3.17.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

The Minister did not answer part of my question about whether the billing problem can or cannot be resolved. We know that cheques are no longer acceptable, bills arrive months late and some firms owe Jersey Telecom hundreds of thousands of pounds because of these delays. Does the Minister not agree that firms that normally put their own interests before that of their customers end up with problems and it may affect J.T.’s value in that regard?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am more than happy that the Treasury acts on behalf of this Assembly and holds companies we are responsible for to account and to say tough things in private to those entities, and the Assistant Minister and I do so. We ask tough questions. But I have to say J.T., in respect of what is described as a billing system, would have made a disservice to users, consumers, the Island and the shareholder if it had not put a comprehensive new financial platform in place. With all big financial transformations there are implementation issues and J.T needed to deal with some. There were some billing issues but all the information I have including, which I can send to the Deputy, updating exactly how many people have been calling the call centre, the seconds it takes to answer them. They have taken the issue seriously, they have dealt with the problems they are dealing with and I would ask the Deputy to reflect on the positive action that has been taken to date in doing the right thing, in making sure their financial systems are capable of dealing with the future rather than just simply criticising because I do not think it is entirely fair.

3.17.2 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Does the Minister accept that to simply take all the complaints J.T. receives at face value is not necessarily the whole story as people like me have given up complaining because of the bad service we are receiving. [Approbation]

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

If a bad service is because there was a billing issue that was in the period up until Christmas when J.T. completely changed not just the billing system, it is not just the printing system that ended up with billing, it is the entire financial architecture of the company. I asked the company with my Assistant Minister and the Treasurer: “Exactly how many dress rehearsals did you have on that? What did you do about data migration?” On all those issues, and frankly issues went wrong, but they prepared well and they have responded. If the Deputy has an issue, then please call the J.T. line. It is being answered, I think, 90.2 per cent of calls are being answered by agents within 40 seconds. They have put resources into dealing with consumers’ questions and consumers now have better information about their bills, when it is being incurred and are assisting consumers to ensure they are getting best value and they are understanding charges.

3.17.3 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Supplementary, Sir. I did one better than calling the J.T. I went in personally and I have not received a reply from them since 2 months from talking to them in person. How can the Minister expect me or other members of the public by implication to have confidence in J.T.?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I regret that the Deputy did not get an answer. It is quite unfair for Members that might have an isolated issue to somehow cast aspersions. There are hundreds of people who have had their questions and their queries on a new bill and none of us like change. I did not understand my new bill but I understand now that the new bill format, once I looked at it, was providing much better information and the roll-out of J.T. in providing customers with better information, more accurate information, timely information rather than just simply the end of their month on mobile uses, et cetera, is providing better customer service. I will take up the Deputy’s question. Indeed, I will take up any other question that Members may have and I will get it solved but at the moment 90.2 per cent of calls are answered within 40 seconds.

3.17.4 The Connétable of St. John:

I am concerned what I am hearing from the Minister. Can he tell us: is billing done off-Island? He talks about a call centre. Is that on-Island or off-Island? If so, what that does do to our unemployment numbers if we are employing people from off-Island to run these particular areas?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

The call centre, despite the fact that I have already answered this question previously, is on-Island. I would also remind the Connétable before he starts casting aspersions on J.T., on the one side we want lower prices and an efficient company and therefore J.T. does need to run an efficient and competitive service that, of course, is in a competitive market with other telecom providers that are not operating in Jersey. I would remind the Connétable of the amount of apprentices and people that are being employed in terms of rolling-out the fibre issue that the Connétable also and other Members have criticised. Now I find it somewhat ironic that the complaints to Islanders are not whether or not fibre is happening but the fact that it is not happening fast enough. Clearly we cannot win but J.T. is taking local employment seriously and has helped to get some young people back into work and that is a good thing.

3.17.5 The Connétable of St. John:

The Minister did not answer the question about billing off-Island but while I am on my feet I too, like the asker of the question, had a query that went on for 3 months before I had it resolved. It had to be resolved eventually because I wrote to the chairman of Telecom but I should not have had to do that. I would be telling the public who are listening here today, if you have a query write to the Chairman himself and them something might happen because if he has sufficient correspondence he will do something about it further down the line.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Can I thank the Member who sent me some Tunes for my voice? I am most grateful. I would not be the best operative in a call centre today but I will try to do my best to answer questions. The Connétable simply continues and I do not understand. There is a disconnect between what I hear about the customer service from J.T. giving and the isolated examples that I hear from a number of Members. I have just had a message. The J.T. call centre, somebody has called it and it was answered within 10 seconds. I will take the Connétable outside and perhaps he can call with Deputy Maçon to solve their issues straight away and we will get them solved. [Approbation] He does not need to write to the Chairman or me or ask questions in the Assembly. The call centre here in Jersey is delivering and I congratulate J.T. and thank all of their hardworking staff who have dealt with the financial transformation that is providing better customer service.

3.17.6 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I am sure the Minister would acknowledge he made a little slip in that he did not accept the notion that the bills were in fact emanating from the U.K. Perhaps he would like to clarify that. I wonder on a broader issue would the Minister tell the House what lessons he feels he has learnt from the recent ruckus over the billing?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I think the misnomer is the bills are posted from the U.K., those that are posted and those that J.T. saves money on by filing most bills obviously online now. I understand that is a postage issue but I am not going to tell J.T. again to be protectionist in relation to that. I think it is the post that is the issue there. Lessons learnt: clearly J.T. has learnt a lot of lessons in the fibre-optic roll-out and, indeed, the billing system. But we should not underestimate the scale of transformation of this entity. This was a States department 10 years ago running on States systems, operating effectively as a committee of this Assembly. They have moved in one of the most fast-moving, dynamic worlds quickly and they are responding. They are evolving and they are serving Jersey’s economic growth and serving Jersey’s community. I am proud of what J.T. is doing. They are learning lessons. That is the dialogue we have with them there, and we are looking at their objectives. We are going to ensure that we are aligned completely with the Minister for Economic Development to ensure that the objectives of this Assembly are those objectives with J.T. and they are remunerated and motivated on that basis. It is ongoing lessons, learning lessons every day. You do not get everything right all the time but you learn and improve and that is what they are doing.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I do thank the Minister for that but what lessons has he learnt? That was the question.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I have learnt that you have to be extremely well prepared in States questions [Laughter] but you have to know everything from dripping taps to Deputy Maçon’s telephone issue to the Connétable of St. John’s absence of technology and the fact that he still does not have an iPad and we have to print out issues for him because he does not receive email. [Laughter] We have to be apparently an expert on everything that these infrastructure companies own and clearly we have to raise taxes also, apparently, in order to fund the infrastructure because this Assembly sets up these entities and then wants to micromanage them. I do not think that is quite right.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I have a comment, Sir, that it is not that...

The Bailiff:

Can we have a question?

3.17.7 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I have a question too, Sir. It is not the fact that the replies to the calls are replied to quickly but were the explanations available immediately? I am, in fact, in discussions with J.T. because the bills are appalling if you are trying to read them online. Does the Minister not think it would be a good thing to have the J.T., bills as easy to deal with for the public as those for J.E.C. (Jersey Electric Company) and the Water Company that are also available online?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I look forward to the day when I get some agreement and I satisfy Senator Ferguson on something [Laughter] because I just simply never achieve that, and on April Fool’s Day I do not know. Let us be clear. J.T. provides water on largely either a rateable value or a litre business. The J.E.C. provides a standing charge and a tariff for water. J.T. is running an internet business, fixed line data on a plethora of tariffs and I would remind the Senator, and I think she knows this because I answered this in a question at her Corporate Services Panel, there was indeed a focus group, including members of the Senior Citizens Association, that directly reflected what J.T. did with those bills, including giving a big total and an explanation. J.T. listened to their customers with a focus group but, of course, there still need to be improvements made. Just to say J.T. did this without consulting would not be fair.

3.17.8 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

The Minister made several comments. He said he was proud of what J.T. is doing. I would suggest that a lot of Islanders would not agree with that. He said he gets better information on his phone bill. I can only presume he must be using an alternative supply to Jersey Telecom because I have not seen any change in my phone bill. Worryingly, he said there was a billing issue. Will the Minister admit that the billing issue is ongoing; and my original question was will it ever be resolved and if so, when?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I have been very clear. The billing system was about a fundamental change in the financial architecture, root and branch, of J.T. and there were data transportation issues that you only know despite however many dress rehearsals. There were issues and they needed to be fixed and J.T. probably needed to fix them more quickly than I would have wanted. But these issues are further improving, they are holding further dialogue with customers, they are constantly listening to what customers want in terms of more information and better formatting and this is a never-ending endeavour. Good is never an end point. It is constantly improving. I would say there were issues, they have tackled them and they have been tackled well by the board. If there are further improvements they are going to be made.

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I asked would the Minister admit that the situation is ongoing and will it ever be resolved and if so, when? He failed to answer.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

The Deputy wanted me to admit his pejorative. I have acknowledged there were issues about the billing and the whole financial transformation. It could have been better but everything is fine with the benefit of hindsight. Simply to criticise entities and States departments for trying to do the right thing and change sets out a culture where we are simply going to mean organisations do not do anything at all. I do not criticise for change, I compliment it and encourage constant improvement. That is the way that I would respond to States departments doing change and States-owned entities rather than simply admitting the fact that they have done something and whipping them in public.

3.18 The Connétable of St. John of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the supervision of slurry spreading:

Could the Minister advise when the closed season is for spreading slurry on land and what action if any is taken by the Department of Planning and Environment at the start of the closed season to inspect slurry pits and tanks to ensure that they are empty of fluid or solid silt?

[11:30]

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

The Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000 allows for approved codes of practice to be approved by the Minister. The Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water is one such code - the Water Code - and it sets out voluntary measures that farmers can take to prevent water pollution. As part of these water pollution prevention measures the Code specifies a closed period for the application of slurry to agricultural land. The most recent closed period was from 14th October 2013 to 13th January 2014, coinciding with high rainfall. The department takes a risk-based approach to regulation and enforcement to prevent officer time being spent on low-risk inspections. It also applies a light touch to regulation where possible to enable businesses to decide how they wish to operate within the laws, policies and voluntary codes. In relation to the last closed period a letter was sent out to all farmers in May 2013 reminding them of the closed period dates and their responsibilities. In addition, the 7 farmers who applied for a derogation to apply slurry during the previous closed period were visited individually in the summer of 2013. They were asked to detail what measures they had put in place to minimise the chances that a derogation would be needed the following year.

3.18.2 The Connétable of St. John:

Are some slurry tanks underground subject to an examination of those units to ensure that no caking or silting-up is happening within the sumps and are the sumps fitted with paddles? Others are above-ground slurry tanks. A number are covered. How are these inspected to make sure the paddle wheel is being effective in keeping the liquid from caking?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I do not have that information with me at the moment and I will ask the department for it and give the Constable a fuller report.

3.18.3 Connétable J.E. Le Maistre of Grouville:

I wonder if the Minister would agree to review the dates of the closed period with a view to making them more flexible. As an example of the winter we have just had, October and November were very mild. The grass and cover crops were still growing and could take use of the nutrients that farmers could not spread so they are storing-up slurry from that time right up until 14th January and that was incredibly wet, as was February. We have a case where farmers are storing slurry when they could be spreading in good conditions and end up spreading in conditions that are not so good.

3.18.4 Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

As I mentioned in a previous question, it is my intention to come forward under the Water Pollution Law with water catchment management orders and define water catchment management areas. Within those areas and those orders there will be an opportunity for more fine-tuning as is required in order to minimise the potential pollution problems.

3.18.5 Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin:

I would like to back-up what the Constable of Grouville has just said. This closed period stops farmers using slurry when it can be taken up by crops and when the ground conditions are favourable. It also forces farmers to spread slurry when the ground is waterlogged on many occasions. Can I ask the Minister… I would say to him this policy is causing more problems than it solves and can I ask him if he would consider abolishing it all together?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Before moving towards an abolition I would have to take advice to see whether or not that was the best way of solving the problem. Indeed, the States have invested some £1.5 million of taxpayers’ monies and an additional £750,000 of farm business investment has taken place since 2005 to ensure that farms have had the ability to store at least 4 months of slurry and dirty water. That is principally for dairy farmers. Potentially the storage problem has been solved. There is an opportunity afforded by weather windows and the ground conditions to spread slurry. Everybody is saying that there should not be an abolition of spreading slurry on the ground but mainly that when such an action takes place it should be done with due regard and respect to other people’s bore holes, and indeed the wider catchment facilities for providing the Island with drinking water. I will look at it, I am looking at it but I think the extreme measure that the Deputy has suggested will not be the final outcome.

3.18.6 The Deputy of St. Martin:

The Minister says that the 4-month closed period and the storage facilities have cured the problem but the problem arises when the Island finds itself, after 4 months of not being able to spread slurry and all its capacity is full and ground conditions are unfavourable, in a completely uncomfortable position of having to spread slurry when the soil is incapable of taking it. This regime needs to be looked at in great detail and I think the department does not take into account that Jersey is a very special climate, a very special farming regime.

The Bailiff:

Ask a concise question if you would, Deputy.

The Deputy of St. Martin:

I would urge and ask the Minister to reconsider this.

The Bailiff:

A concise answer if you would, Minister.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

The Island is some 45 square miles and half or thereabouts is used for agricultural purposes. The number of dairy farmers has come down to 27 or thereabouts and the number of cattle has substantially reduced from previous times. The problem is not as big as the Deputy is suggesting and I think the appropriate measures will be taken.

3.18.7 The Connétable of St. John:

I am surprised at the last answer we have just been given, given that the Minister says there is something like 4 months’ supply or capacity for slurry to be held on farms. When caking occurs within a slurry pit or tank, this reduces the volume of liquid that the tank can hold. Now, unless the officers from his department are inspecting these tanks on a regular basis prior to the closed season to make sure they are not holding 50 per cent or 40 per cent or caking or silt, then the capacity that that farm or any farm will have will be greatly reduced. Will the Minister make sure if he sets up an inspection regime that these tanks are inspected and the caking is removed so the tanks can hold the correct volume?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Yes, I will but, equally, I will also pay attention to perhaps encouraging Island farmers to move to different systems for fertilising their land, in particular based on crop rotation.

3.19 Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Housing regarding the expenditure of the rental income estimated for the years 2014 to 2018:

Will the Minister give a breakdown of how the £240 million rental income estimated for the years 2014 to 2018 in the business case, which accompanied the proposition entitled The Reform of Social Housing, P.33/2013, is to be spent and, in particular, how much is to be returned to the Treasury?

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

Of course, as Deputy Southern said, this was all laid out in P.33 on page 45. However, of the projected rental income of £240 million in the years 2014 to 2018, £64 million will be spent on maintenance, £30 million on net overhead expenditure, £20 million on finance costs and £153 million in that area will be returned to the Treasury. This results in a net loss of £27 million due to the additional costs associated with bringing our stock up to decent homes standard and the cost of borrowing. This loss is projected to be recovered by year 10 of the plan as a result of the additional rents generated from the rent policies and the new properties built. During the period 2014 to 2018 the housing company, Andium Homes, will be undertaking a major programme of refurbishment and new-build projects costing £175 million. Andium Homes will be utilising proceeds from existing property sales and borrowing from the States of Jersey to deliver homes standard and provide the much-needed additional housing as all laid out in P.33.

3.18.10 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Can the Minister point out how the return of such a large proportion of rental income is not replicating the system we had before whereby the priority given to the Treasury to claim rental income took over from the ability to maintain housing? Is he not in danger of making the same process again?

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

No, I am not in danger of making that mistake again at all. That is why we have a very clear 30-year business plan which shows the money that will be paid to the Treasury and how the other monies will be spent and where the sources of money will come from. This is a very robust, properly-checked business plan. I might say that the company will be in receipt of £1 billion worth of assets free of charge - at no cost - and it is not unreasonable, therefore, that they make a return this time.

3.18.11 Deputy T.A. Vallois:

Could the Minister for Housing confirm whether the dividend return from the company to Treasury has been included in a Memorandum of Understanding and whether that will be included in the transfer regulations that are due to be debated by the Assembly in July, I believe?

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

Yes, that is under discussion at the moment but it certainly will be very clearly either in the Memorandum of Understanding or in the Regulations. It will be very clear. We are discussing that at the present time.

Deputy T.A. Vallois:

Can the Minister just confirm then that the Memorandum of Understanding has not yet been agreed?

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

It is under discussion at the present time.

3.18.12 Deputy G.P. Southern:

I will put it a different way then. Does the Minister not agree that, in ploughing such a large portion of the rental income of Andium into return to Treasury, he is effectively making his tenants pay additional rents in order to support the income support scheme?

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

That case may have been existing in the past. The way I see it now we are getting £1 billion worth of assets at no charge from the Treasury and we are making a very modest return in place of that.

The Bailiff:

That brings questions on notice to an end. We come now to questions without notice, although before we do that can I just inform Members of a lodging: P.45 Chief Minister election: Island-wide vote, lodged by Deputy Mézec, and a report, R.43 Land transactions under Standing Order 168(3) - Apartment No. 8, Block A Les Quennevais Park - transfer of the Public’s flying freehold ownership and cancellation of existing 99 year lease, presented by the Minister for Treasury and Resources.

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Social Security

4.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

In transferring what was the Invalid Carer’s Allowance to the Home Carer’s Allowance from funding by the taxpayer to funding by social security contributions, was it the intention of the Minister to reduce those who can offer home carer’s care for, say, parents by requiring them to have a full contribution record for at least one month during the previous quarter but one; thereby reducing the number of people who can volunteer to do this caring effort in our society when the demand is going up?

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

No, there was no such intention. However, it is a condition of a social security contributory benefit that there has to be a contribution record of some sort. We chose the very minimum which, as the Deputy explains, is one month and we also made due note of the credits received for home responsibility which would apply to women.

4.1.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Does the Minister not consider that this is reducing the number who can apply for this particular benefit and is he considering reducing what he calls this minimal level still further?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I am not aware that the changes have created any difficulties with people making applications. If the Deputy is aware of any particular cases, if he would bring them to my attention I will give it further consideration.

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

What provision, if any, is made by the Social Security Department to enable those who cannot drive for medical reasons to have access to reduced travel costs such as subsidising the bus service?

[11:45]

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I have to say, in response to the Connétable, that I do not think any of this comes within the responsibility of my department. If she believes it does I would happily look further into it, but I do not see that these issues relate to Social Security.

4.3 Deputy M. Tadier:

Just to follow on from that, is it not the case that in the past cards were available for disabled bus passengers, for example, to use that and there was a transfer so that a component came under income support? If that is the case, is there sufficient provision in income support arrangements already for those with mobility issues to use public transport?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I am at a bit of a loss with these questions and the direction they are taking. The issue of people on income support who have mobility difficulties, there is a component within income support - 2 levels - which is assessed and included in an income support claim. It may be that those monies can be used to buy tickets on a bus or a taxi maybe once a week or whatever, but I cannot think how these questions are targeting my department because I am not sure they are our responsibility.

4.3.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

If I can reiterate perhaps with a supplementary, is it the case that the department still issues cards or, rather, are there people on income support who, as a legacy, still have bus passes that would have been issued by his department and will those individuals also still be in receipt of a component, whereas new claimants are not able to receive a card for travel purposes?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

Now we are getting to the nub of the problem. I think we are talking about health insurance exception cards, which were done away with when we introduced income support. A holder of a health insurance exception card was entitled to free travel on the buses. I think there was a slight legacy of arrangements made, but certainly the only people I am aware of now who have entitlement to free bus passes are people in receipt of an old age pension.

4.4 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville:

Would the Minister consider introducing a flexible social security contribution arrangement as they have with National Insurance in the U.K. for our fishermen who, in the case of this winter, were unable to go to sea for 2.5 months in some cases?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

There has been concern raised with the department about the plight of our fishermen and it is something that the department officers are looking into in conjunction with the Economic Development Department. Quite rightly, we are looking at situations where we can reduce, as far as possible, the contribution requirements in the relevant quarter for fishermen who are having financial difficulties. As to whether we will be making changes, there is a programme of work scheduled for probably next year now to look at introducing new classes of contributions other than the 2 that we have, but that work has not really started yet.

4.4.1 The Deputy of Grouville:

As the demands will be going out in the next few days and as some fishermen are going out of business as we speak, would he consider an expedient timescale to address this at this time, even if it is a temporary measure?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

The difficulty with social security contributions is it is a legal requirement. We would have to change the Social Security Law that would require primary law changes, so that could not be done in a hurry, and it would probably be wrong to do it in respect of one particular group of people on a one-off basis. I would reiterate, if any fishermen or organisation involved with the fishing industry is having difficulty or the receipt of their latest bill is presenting them a difficulty, they should come in and talk to officers in the department.

4.5 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Is the department monitoring the number of people who, given the radical changes in pension provision and indeed the expansion, for example, of zero contracts, are really going to be without proper pension provision? If so, has the Minister got an estimate, say, for the next several years and will he be considering auto-enrolment as a way of dealing with what could be a growing issue?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

The Government Actuary has completed the latest review of the Social Security Fund which, of course, provides provision for pensions. I will be presenting the findings of that report to States Members in the next few weeks. There are clearly issues around people who are not making adequate contributions in relation to receiving a full pension and the findings in the report will help guide us as to whether we need to make changes going forward.

4.5.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

On a supplementary, though, is the Minister committed to a solution like auto-enrolment were he to discover large gaps in provision?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I believe that we need to take some steps to make sure that, going forward, people have adequate pensions. Maybe that answers the Deputy’s question.

4.6 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Is it not the case that Disability Transport Allowance for many on income support is being subsumed by the requirements of the household medical needs - so their medical needs - and, in general, what progress has the Minister made, in conjunction with the Minister for Health and Social Services, to develop access to G.P. services for those on low incomes in future?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

The Deputy has confused me as to why the Disability Transport Allowance fits in with access to G.P.s. The Disability Transport Allowance no longer exists, although there are a few people who are having it phased-out. Maybe that was not the correct terminology. In regard to work with G.P.s, which is presently underway with both my department and the Health and Social Services Department, the process has been slow but we have put more resources into dealing with the issues. We had intended to use an off-Island consultancy but we decided to do the work locally. The Ministerial Oversight Group is now meeting monthly to monitor progress and we hope that we can stick to the timetable set by the States.

4.6.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Which is to deliver something by what date?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

The amended proposition of the Minister for Health and Social Services was by the end of September. At this stage I would very much doubt that we will have full proposals, but we will certainly be at a stage where we can present to Members our findings to date.

4.7 Deputy J.A. Hilton:

The Minister just half-answered my question. I was going to ask a question about sustainable funding for primary care and the Minister has basically confirmed that it is not going to be delivered by September 2014. Can he tell Members when he thinks it will be in its entirety?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I was referring to the model of primary care, not the sustainable funding, which is a separate element of the proposition. The issues around sustainable funding are really a matter for the Minister for Treasury and Resources in conjunction with the Minister for Health and Social Services and myself.

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

Just following on from Deputy Hilton’s question, what progress have the 3 Ministers made in developing a sustainable funding mechanism for primary care?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

The issue is complex, as I am sure the Deputy would understand being on our Scrutiny Panel. The question is really tied-in with the development of the next Medium-Term Financial Plan and bids are presently being put forward, particularly by the Health and Social Services Department, as to the growth required to meet the requirements of the delivery of a new model of primary care and also the cost of a new hospital, et cetera. The work really relates to the bids and the funding for the next Medium-Term Financial Plan, which is work well underway at the Treasury.

4.8.1 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

Does the Minister propose that the sustainable funding mechanism for primary care will not only be brought to the States but decided prior to the next Medium-Term Financial Plan?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I firmly believe that the 2 Ministers have a responsibility to bring out proposals to the States, but the funding mechanism will certainly be part and parcel of the next Medium-Term Financial Plan.

4.9 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I am aware of the excellent work the Minister is doing here but he must be aware that the public believe that the current payment system is not working, hence the big shift, for example, to Accident and Emergency. Can the Minister inform the House whether the group’s work is based on the fact that we are going to have to abandon the current system and develop other alternatives? If so, which are they considering?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

It is too early in the development of proposals to give any direction to the Assembly and to the Deputy. I would challenge whether the co-payment system that we have for G.P.s and the refund through the Medical Benefit System is not sustainable. I suggest that it is a system that is done in some other countries and it just needs refinement. It is a question of how that refinement is obtained.

4.9.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

The U.K. is talking about £10 a visit. Is that the kind of refinement that the Minister is seeking?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I think the Deputy is perhaps not taking into consideration that G.P. practices are private businesses and they are quite at liberty to charge whatever the patient is prepared to pay. We pay a set amount out. The control of the costs of going to the G.P. very much rests in the hands of the practitioners and their representative body, which is the P.C.B. (Primary Care Body).

5. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Transport and Technical Services

5.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Two weeks ago in this Assembly I questioned both the Minister for Transport and Technical Services and the Minister for Planning and Environment over the Pine Walk, the state of the oad and the footpath underneath. Could I ask the Minister if he has made any progress in that department, please?

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

As I pointed out last time, this falls under the responsibility of the Environment Department. T.T.S. are assisting with this. We would like to expedite this as soon as possible because it needs to protect the road above and also we would like to get it fixed as soon as possible to assist tourism.

5.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Following on from my earlier question, will the Minister elaborate on all the meetings and discussions he has had with the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the ‘Hoppa Bus’ and also tell us what the reaction of the Minister for Treasury and Resources was? Is funding going to be forthcoming or not?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Hopefully in the future. T.T.S. did put in a bid, which was not supported. I had many meetings with the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Treasurer of the States regarding various T.T.S. projects, of which this was one.

5.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Is the Minister optimistic that this time he might be able to push through funding for a ‘Hoppa’ service in town and this environment to take in the essential places we need it to?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I am confident in the future that a ‘Hoppa’-style service will be travelling through town, call it what you will: ‘Hoppa Bus’, ‘Hop-on/hop-off.’ As soon as we can get the funding together and expand the service we will do so.

5.3.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Would that hop-on/hop-off service be low-cost or no-cost?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

That is yet to be decided. It could be sponsored by many of the businesses in St. Helier.

[12:00]

5.4 Deputy J.H. Young:

The Minister, in his written answer 17 today, sets out a so-called basis for ignoring a States decision made in January 2011 and in September 2010 to provide a site for waste recycling operators. Is he really telling this Assembly that it is for him as a Minister just to ignore these policies, specific decisions that were made by the States, and ignore the policies of the Island Plan that make it quite clear that a waste recycling centre should provide such a facility?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I am all in favour of a waste recycling facility. As the Deputy is well aware, we are planning such a facility at La Collette, but it is not within the remit of Transport and Technical Services to provide skip services for all the private companies in Jersey.

5.4.1 Deputy J.H. Young:

He knows that what he is effectively saying is he wants to see the proliferation of waste-sorting activities going on in all sorts of unsuitable sites throughout the Island, causing problems for their neighbours and what have you, when he is the custodian of the largest area of waste facility in the Island where he is investing public money into a facility for this very thing. Why should he not make it available, by tender if necessary, for private operators?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Whether a site is suitable or not for a skip service, that is a matter for Planning not for me. As I said, we do not have the space to accommodate skip companies from all over the Island.

5.5 Deputy M. Tadier:

Will the Minister advise whether any research has been undertaken into whether or not Island-wide kerbside recycling would result in more recycling being done and thus the targets being met?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I would greatly encourage kerbside recycling throughout all the Parishes on the Island. Many Parishes do kerbside recycling to a greater extent than others. Some do good recycling and some are glass-only, but it is something that I would sincerely encourage.

5.5.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

Would he encourage it to the point of providing a service himself, albeit in conjunction with the Parishes, to make sure that all of the Island, no matter where one lives, can benefit from kerbside recycling rather than the current system of having a postcode lottery?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

As I say, I would encourage it but I do not think there is any point in T.T.S. duplicating services we already have. The Parishes take care of their own refuse. If the recycling element could be included in that, that would have my full support.

5.6 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Will the Minister be bringing to the Assembly for debate or implementing any of the recommendations in the recent review of the taxicab service during the remainder of his term and if not, why not?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes, in the not too distant future.

5.6.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Can the Minister explain whether that will be via States debate or by Ministerial order through his department?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yet to be decided, but I think I would like to bring it to the States.

5.7 Deputy J.A. Hilton:

Several months ago I asked the Minister for Transport and Technical Services whether he would carry out some work on the crossing at New Cut and King Street to make it a pedestrian crossing. Can he inform Members what progress he has made on this project, please?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I am not sure what progress has been made on that. I need to consult the Engineering Department.

Deputy J.A. Hilton:

Can the Minister please come back to me in email just to confirm exactly what is happening, thank you?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Indeed.

5.8 Connétable M.J. Paddock of St. Ouen:

In light of the Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources’ statement this morning with regards departments seeking funding for projects, could the Minister tell the Assembly would he be seeking funding to extend the sewerage networks within the country Parishes and certainly in the Parish of St. Ouen where we have some definite problems?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes, indeed. I would agree with the Constable 100 per cent. As Members are aware, we have put in a bid for £75 million for a new sewerage plant but, additional to that, my department is in talks with the Minister for Treasury and Resources and his department regarding expanding the foul sewer network into the rural areas. I do not think it is realistic to say that we can put every house on the Island on main sewers, but we will do the best we can to include all the conurbations both north-east, north-west and all points in between. Where we cannot put main sewers in for reasons of topography or distance and expense we will, working with the Minister for Planning and Environment, authorise small pocket plants that will do a similar job.

5.9 Senator L.J. Farnham:

Has the Minister’s department had a chance to assess the damage to the Island’s beaches following the harsh winter storms and, if so, decided if any action is necessary to restore the beaches, especially where the sand levels have decreased significantly?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes, indeed. A lot of work was done on the sand levels, even during the recent storms we had, to alleviate as much flooding as we can. A considerable work was done down at Beaumont to reduce the level of beach there. Beaches were moving about 10 or 12 feet at a time, so that is definitely ongoing work; not to mention the damage that we had to infrastructure, which I believe at the moment is running to some £850,000.

Senator L.J. Farnham:

Could I just briefly congratulate the T.T.S. Department for their excellent work in that area?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I thank the Senator for his comments.

5.10 Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement:

Can the Minister give an estimated date for the completion of the works at Snow Hill car park? Thank you.

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I believe the Deputy is referring to the Phillips Street shaft arrangements. That is ongoing, there have been some delays. The contractor has had a few problems with the strata. The main shaft is complete in Phillips Street and the tunnel boring has started, but there have been some delays with the rock strata, I believe. Work is definitely ongoing. I am not in a position to give a date at the moment.

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

Some time ago I raised with the Minister the concerns the parishioners have for a rather dangerous crossing at the bottom of Trinity Hill. I wonder if you could just tell me if there is any progress on that particular work

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes. I am familiar with the area the Deputy refers to. It is quite a dangerous corner and our senior engineer has been down to look at it several times to see what can be done. This work is ongoing, but it is a very difficult and dangerous corner, I would agree.

5.12 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Some time back I wrote to the Minister about car parks in St. Martin’s. Specifically where in one car park a large number of vehicles under one single ownership are being kept on a permanent basis. These are public car parks funded by taxpayers and could I ask the Minister: has he made any progress and will he give a guarantee to resolve this issue before the summer senior starts?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes, indeed. I believe it was somebody selling second-hand cars. This has been reported to the department and is ongoing and I believe the department is liaising with the Parish police regarding that.

5.13 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Again, following up on one of the other questions about the funding of extending the main drains… The Minister said that he had talked to the Treasury, can he tell us how that was received? Is he getting funding for extending the main drains and will that be in the Medium-Term Financial Plan?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes, the talks with Treasury have been very fruitful regarding this and also we will fund out of own T.T.S. rolling programme.

5.14 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Surely the important thing about the safety involved at the crossing of the foot of Trinity Hill is not that his officers should have gone and taken a look, but that he should come up with some sort of solution, because this is a death trap at the bottom of Trinity Hill where there is a blind corner. However you do it, it is a very dangerous corner. When will the Minister come to the House with some solutions?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I would agree entirely. It is a very dangerous corner. As I said, I am very familiar with the area. But putting a zebra crossing on a corner is equally as dangerous because it gives people a false sense of security. We could put a zebra crossing further up the hill or down the hill, but people will take the shortest route across, which I believe is to the supermarket.

5.15 Deputy M. Tadier:

To follow on, is that like putting a zebra crossing in front of a yellow give-way line in several places in town, is that equally dangerous?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I would agree, but they are not ours.

5.16 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Will the Minister look into the question of lighting of zebra crossings? Particularly at night, well, obviously at night, sorry. The ones in St. Brelade Bay and St. Ouen are particularly dangerous and a lighting set up, such as you can get in America, where if somebody steps on to the crossing the lights come on. Something like that, why can we not have that?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

As the Senator is well aware, we are doing a considerable amount of work in St. Ouen at the moment, and I will ask engineers to check that.

Deputy M. Tadier:

I had not even put my light on then. [Laughter]

The Bailiff:

Oh, right. I must have failed to tick you off.

5.17 Deputy M. Tadier:

I think we have got a psychic link which has developed now, Sir. Will the Minister be conducting any type of general review of circulatory systems, given the fact that I suspect in many places around the Island where traffic lights are involved, systems are sub-optimal and could be enhanced by a simple rethink of layout?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes, and in fact that work is ongoing. There are several computer programs which are department-run which deal with that very problem. In fact when we had the problem with the rock fall at Mount Bingham a lot of the lights were changed by a computer to prioritise east and west. So that is being done and is ongoing.

5.18 Deputy T.A. Vallois:

Could the Minister advise what is happening with regards to a traffic network survey that the T.T.S. were carrying out in St. Saviour with regards to the school network?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes, that is in its draft form at the moment. The White Paper should be available in the not too distant future.

5.18.1 Deputy T.A. Vallois:

Sorry, could the Minister explain why it has taken 2 years?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

It was very extensive and it had to involve consultation with the Parishes involved, both St. Saviour and St. Helier. There was a lot of work done with all the schools involved, and even the parents.

5.19 Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade:

Due to the lack of movement from the department the Parish of St. Brelade is carrying out its own speed reviews to speed limits in our Parish. Is the Minister going to be carrying out a review or pick up his review of Island speed limits generally?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes. That is work that is ongoing. If the Constable would like to provide me with any information he has with problem areas I am more than happy to look at it.

5.19.1 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

It has been ongoing for an awfully long time. Is he working on the Island-wide speed limits at the present time or has the work been shelved?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

There have been several put through recently, various speed limit amendments have gone through in the last few weeks.

5.20 The Connétable of St. Mary:

Is it not true, Minister, that there will be a consultation on speed limits launched in the second quarter of this year? That is the information I have from the department and the information I have been giving to my parishioners.

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes, indeed. It is all part of the works going on with St. Ouen, St. Mary, St. Lawrence, St. John and various other Parishes.

5.21 The Connétable of St. Mary:

Supplementary, if I might? The Minister should be aware I am referring not to that work regarding the village centre improvements, but to an Island-wide consultation which I believe will be launched in second quarter.

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes, my team will be touring the Parishes.

The Bailiff:

Very well. That brings questions without notice to a close. There are no matters under J, L, K, so we come to Public Business.

The Connétable of Grouville:

Sir, I would like to withdraw or rather delay my proposition if that is all right for later in the day to be put on the agenda for the next sitting? There is a current planning application that is live and the Minister for Planning and Environment will be making a decision, I think, on Friday and I think debating my debate might compromise that position. If I could delay and put it off to the next meeting.

[12:15]

The Bailiff:

That is projet 24?

The Connétable of Grouville:

Indeed, Sir.

The Bailiff:

You want to defer that until the next sitting? Thank you very much.

PUBLIC BUSINESS

6. Draft Financial Services Ombudsman (Jersey) Law 201- (P.9/2014)

The Bailiff:

The first matter is the Draft Financial Services Ombudsman (Jersey) Law - Projet 9 - lodged by the Minister for Economic Development. I will ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Financial Services Ombudsman (Jersey) Law. A Law to establish a Financial Services Ombudsman and for related purposes. The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following Law.

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

In the autumn of 2009 the States voted to accept an amendment from Senator Breckon to the 2010 Business Plan to give legislative drafting time to a new Financial Services Ombudsman Law for Jersey. As Members are aware, Jersey already has a financial regulator, the Jersey Financial Services Commission, a Depositor Compensation Scheme and, with Member’s support today, an ombudsman will be created to consider complaints from customers of Jersey financial services providers. This is an important further piece of consumer protection legislation. Not only for Jersey residents but also international customers of Jersey’s international financial services industry. Consumers will have access to a free alternative disputes resolution process that meets recognised standards for alternative dispute resolution. That is the British and Irish Ombudsman Association criteria of independence, fairness, effectiveness, openness and transparency as well as accountability as seen in the European Commission guidelines. As a large number of financial services providers operate across both Jersey and Guernsey the ombudsman represents an excellent opportunity for pan-Island co-operation from the start of the scheme. A Channel Islands ombudsman will bring likely benefits of improved consistency and efficiency for both customers and financial service providers to the 2 jurisdictions as well as cost savings. It is therefore intended that the ombudsman will be operated in partnership with Guernsey who are drafting their own legislation based on our law. On this basis the ombudsman scheme can be operated as a joint venture with shared staff, resources and premises. As Jersey has led on the development of a pan-Channel Islands ombudsman, the scheme and its operation will be physically based in Jersey. Currently, if a customer has a complaint about financial services provided in or from within Jersey there is nobody with official powers to take on that complaint. Therefore, the only option is the pursuit of legal action for any unresolved complaint, which can of course be costly and daunting. The ombudsman will have powers to investigate complaints, and if upheld, make awards of up to £150,000 to put complainants back into the position they would have been in had the problem not occurred in the first place. To be clear, the ombudsman is not a regulator, does not issue penalties on financial services providers or set rules for them. In addition, it is not a compensation scheme awarding money from its own funds. The ombudsman will consider individual complaints brought by a customer against a financial services provider and determine that the provider must compensate the complainant or take certain steps if a complaint is upheld. Complaints must be within the jurisdiction of the ombudsman, meeting certain criteria as to the complainant, individuals and a small business. The act complained of must relate to relevant financial services businesses provided in or from within Jersey and the time limits. The ombudsman is a quasi-judicial role, so the law sets in place measures to ensure his or her independence. These include provision that the office of the Financial Services Ombudsman and the ombudsman to be independent from the Minister and from the States and for the appointment of a board whose membership must be a majority of non-financial services and whose role is to appoint the ombudsman, maintain the independence of the office and act in the public interest. Some areas regarding the scope of the ombudsman and the funding of the office for the Financial Service Ombudsman by the financial services industry are to be detailed in secondary legislation. To that end a consultation is currently underway on 2 Orders concerning the detailed scope of financial services that will be covered by the ombudsman, and on a proposed further category of complainant. A consultation is being prepared on the funding proposals, and this Assembly will in due course consider Regulations to cover these. The finances of the office of the Financial Services Ombudsman must be independently audited and submitted to the Minister for laying before the States with the annual report. The annual report will include information on the case load and the ombudsman’s approach in deciding complaints. Giving this feedback to the financial services industry can be useful to inform future complaints’ handling. While there will be restrictions on information disclosure, the ombudsman can disclose information to the J.F.S.C. or other statutory bodies to assist them in carrying out their duties. Data from the ombudsman on complaints can be useful for regulators, both for supervisory purposes and of course for developing regulation. A Memorandum of Understanding will be drawn up with the Jersey Financial Services Commission describing how the bodies will co-operate in carrying out their respective duties. The primary legislation before Members today sets the framework for the ombudsman service. I would like to take this particular opportunity to thank the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel for the work that they have undertaken in preparing a report and reviewing this particular piece of legislation. As a result of the review it has led to the lodging of an amendment, which I will deal with in due course, but the work they have undertaken has been extremely helpful. Further consultation is already underway to define the full scope of the scheme and the funding model will also be consulted upon. Shortly the recruitment process will commence, assuming Members approve this proposition, to select and appoint the chair and the board of the ombudsman service. Regulations for the final details of the scheme will be brought to this Assembly as soon as possible. In summary, I hope Members will welcome this important, albeit overdue, piece of consumer protection legislation and also give it their full support today. I propose the principles.

The Bailiff:

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

6.1.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

This is one piece of legislation that is long overdue. As the Minister knows, in my former career at the Financial Services Commission I drafted all the Regulations for this piece of legislation way back in 2003. Eleven years have gone by before this legislation has come before the States. What has changed in those 11 years? In terms of the original proposals, the sum put forward has risen to £150,000 from £50,000. Which is fine over the 11 years, allowing for inflation; good. What has also happened, and in fact I will be asking questions later when we start looking at the detail, why have we adopted a board? Why have a board when the original proposals were for a corporate sole, such as the Data Protection Commissioner. After all we use the Data Protection Commissioner pan-Island. She is acting in Guernsey as in Jersey. So why have a board? Boards, to my mind, when you look at what the board is doing it is nothing that could not be done by the ombudsman themselves, at less cost, or is this another case of having, dare I say it, jobs for the boys. More boards, more bodies that will have a large sum involved, where over a period of time they will determine their own salaries. The third part of the law that is different is primarily the relationship with Guernsey. Obviously the original scheme was for Jersey only. If we look at the body of this draft law, most of it is concerning provisions with Guernsey. Saying what happens if? This and that, transfer. So again, Guernsey has not yet adopted it, they may say they are going to, but it does not mean to say it is a done deal until it is signed. I personally would not be surprised if Guernsey back-out at some point. I am quite surprised to hear the Minister saying it will be based in Jersey although there are provisions in this law for the transfer of personnel and functions to Guernsey. Although I welcome the Financial Ombudsman scheme, it is long overdue and it is a necessary requirement for any modern financial state. I do have concerns that it appears to be largely a work in progress. There are so many consultations that are still yet to happen, and yet we have had 11 years being prepared for this and yet we are still consulting. So when will the law finally come in? Yes, we have a framework, but when will people get the benefit of the law?

6.1.2 Senator A. Breckon:

The Minister for Economic Development touched on some of the history of this, but it goes back further than that because it is nearly 16 years ago that the recommendation came from the Edwards Report which was published in November 1998 and it was titled The Review of Financial Regulation in the Crown Dependencies. It said at the time that Jersey’s financial services business should have a statutory ombudsman. It goes back a long, long time. Following that a task force was established, and this was with a former Finance and Economics Committee in 2002. At the time it just seemed to wither on the vine. Senator Le Gresley was then Chief Executive of the Citizens Advice Bureau and he was a member of that working group in 2001, 2002 when the industry, I have the list of it somewhere, were well represented. So it is a long time ago that this was supposedly to be coming into being. I remember as well at one of the Annual General Meetings of the Citizens Advice when the former Chief Financial Ombudsman from the U.K., Mr. Walter Merricks, came to the Island and gave a very effective presentation and offered to assist in this, and that is probably about 7 or 8 years ago, I do not remember exactly when, although the Minister mentioned that, but I brought amendments to various things in 2004, 2005, 2007 and finally in 2009. The difficulty I had is that in order to get it into being I had to remove something from the law drafting programme. Just to give Members some idea of my frustration, whenever I suggested taking something out, some Minister or President or whoever would stand up and say the sky was going to fall in if we did not have this. An example of that in 2007, I proposed removing the review of the Licensing Law in 2007 and I was told at the time: “This must go ahead.” Of course it still has not been done. There were other examples of where somebody stood up to say the sky was coming down: “This must not be removed.” So that was some of the difficulty. The principal ombudsman scheme goes back to Sweden in 1809. We are not breaking any new ground here, and in fact the Isle of Man have had a scheme since 2002. They boasted that they were the only offshore financial jurisdiction with a Financial Ombudsman Service. I argued at the time many years ago that this would be an opportunity for Jersey to fly the flag and say we are one of the best, we can demonstrate that because when occasionally things do go wrong we have a no or low cost remedy for disputes, usually with the individual against the might of an institution. The other thing that was missing, in the U.K. and elsewhere there was things like the Office of Fair Trading, the Financial Services Authority and an ombudsman scheme that helped consumers collectively or individual to remedy disputes. We have none of those things. Therefore, as the Minister has sort of admitted, we are now coming to this rather late. The other frustration, it was agreed by the States, I think it was about 5th October 2009 and it has still taken a long time for a decision of the States, and it is not there yet, because there are Regulations to flow from this, and that probably will not happen this year. Although there is some degree of backdating disputes, which I welcome and I know Deputy Southern has an amendment on that. But it is ... especially when we have people in 2001 and 2002 on working party looking at bringing something into being.

[12:30]

Imagine their frustration about what a waste of time that was. Why did we bother, they gave their time freely and willingly to this debate. The other thing, obviously I welcome this, but my frustration is it has taken so long. That is not just a personal frustration, it is the many people who have suffered because of various decisions of high street banks and others to carry out various things, and that has been considered now to be unfair, or mis-sold or whatever it is. There are issues out there where people do feel frustrated, they do feel aggrieved and they have had in some instances nowhere to go. They have been, on some occasions, able to use the services of the U.K. Financial Ombudsman Service, depending where and what the investment was, to get some redress, and that has happened. I do hope that following this that the Regulation and things that flow from this will not take too long, because it is people out there ... I have seen where some finance houses have issued a letter to people and say: “Go to the Financial Ombudsman.” Of course we do not have one. The other thing is Members should not forget that we did not have a Financial Services Commission years ago either, and sometimes they are restricted in what they can do. They have only really got a nuclear option, which is to withdraw somebody’s licence. They can have various investigations but there is no real redress mechanism. There is a great deal of grass roots - let us call it that - dissatisfaction with this situation where the might of the institution to take people’s money and not be accountable for it. This I think is a way that will return some of the balance. The fact that the ombudsman is there is very effective, and I know that from things I have seen in the U.K., it is very effective in remedying disputes. It is referred to the ombudsman, and suddenly some institution changes their tone and comes to the table prepared to talk and to even settle. I have seen that in practice. Although Members may have some fears about that, but when it is obviously set up and running there will be initially a lot of inquiries, I think this will level out and I think that has been demonstrated elsewhere. Finally, I would say that an ombudsman is considered like a kite mark, and other areas use it, even for undertaking services, removals, things like that; there are ombudsmen schemes because the trade itself recognises that when things do go wrong, if this service is available to people it is a benefit to trade. The traders can say: “Well, we do have our own scheme that will remedy matters if and when [hopefully not very often] they do go wrong.” I think it is welcome. Just finally, the Clothier Report did say that we should have Public Sector Ombudsmen. I think they underestimate the amount of work that might be required, but perhaps it is something that can be looked at for other areas of life, if there are problems. But there needs to be problems, not just having it for the sake of it. With that, I should say I do welcome this, but I hope the Minister will not dilly-dally when it comes to the Regulations and we see something sooner rather than later.

6.1.3 The Deputy of St. Martin:

In 2009 the States took the decision to approve the creation of a Financial Services Ombudsman. Here in 2014 those Members of this Assembly who have followed the workings of the current Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel will know that since our formation in 2011 we have been calling for, on a very regular basis, that decision to be implemented. It is therefore very good and welcome news that we finally have this proposition P.9 before us today. In reviewing the subject the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel decided that we would conduct a 2-stage review. The first part being a desk top study to make sure the primary legislation was fit for purpose. The second being a much more detailed piece of work looking at the Regulations. I can report to the Assembly, and Members have our comments in front of them today, that in the Scrutiny Panel’s opinion this proposition is indeed, and to quote our advisers, fit for purpose judged against the criteria for an eligible complaint. Members will also note that we questioned the Minister more specifically on 3 points: the chairman, systemic remedies and the charging of complainants. On the first issue the panel are now assured by the Minister of the independence of any future chairman, not least because States Members will be able to object to any future chairman they consider will compromise the independence of the ombudsman. Secondly, on systemic remedies the panel are satisfied that further consultation will need to continue between the Economic Development Department and the Financial Services Commission. This issue was certainly not sufficiently compelling to halt this primary legislation at this stage. Finally, on the point of charging the panel are grateful to the Minister for bringing the amendment that we also have before us today. As a panel we were very clear in our thoughts that this scheme should not have the ability for the ombudsman to award costs against the complainant. We felt it was vitally important that any complainant should not be deterred or put off in any way by the possibility of having to pay costs. While we accepted the Minister’s view that it would only be in cases of vexatious or fraudulent claims that costs could be awarded against the complainants, we as a panel felt that the principle of free access for all should apply. As I said, we are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to amend the wording in this section. I am not going to dwell further. This is a very important day and this is an important decision that we are being asked to take. We need to get on and agree this primary legislation. Members may ask about Orders and Regulations, but in the big scheme of things, they are not important at this stage. The important matter is to approve this proposition and allow the Minister to press ahead with the detail, detail that will allow us to approve the Orders and Regulations as soon as possible so our Financial Services Ombudsman can be in place and working just as quickly as possible.

6.1.4 Deputy J.H. Young:

I think I would like to begin by making a declaration. I, in the past - I think in common with many people in Jersey - have had occasion to make complaint to the financial service providers running a business through Jersey and found that the scope of regulation was not there. I am therefore pleased with this. I do not think I have got a current interest; those complaints were past. It has concerned me for some time that there was a general perception that we were such a well-regulated Island through the J.F.S.C. that when things went wrong, one could always turn to that body. When one looks at the scope of the ordinary business of people, not the ultra-sophisticated kind of trust business and funds and so on, I think you will find that this law that we are now being asked to approve will very effectively bridge that gap, in other words, make up that gap, because I think it has been far too long. We are in a situation where in the United Kingdom there has been for a long, long time arrangements in place in the financial services industry whereby complaints procedures could be put. For example, low-cost endowment policies in the early 1990s, whereby there were compensation schemes and a procedure for complaints in place, and yet endowment policies were sold into the Island and there was no recourse to any external complaints body. One’s only source was to complain to the company themselves and the stock answer was: “No, but we are operating outside of the U.K. rules and therefore you fall outside of it.” There was nothing ordinary people could do. Obviously very well-resourced people and mega-deals could go to the Royal Court, but ordinary people could not. So we still are in a situation where we have major U.K. plcs providing business into the Island. I do not think I will name them, but it is pretty close. There is one U.K. plc that provides mortgage products on immovable property in both Jersey and Guernsey through local subsidiaries. I just looked up the 2013 balance sheet for that U.K. plc and I find they have got £430 million worth of loans on their books in Jersey, and of course that is a lot of borrowers. So I feel confident, I am really delighted that we have this piece of legislation today. I hope I have read it properly, and so I straight away checked out those things: “Mortgage providers, where are they?” and I turned to Article 9, which says that the scope, relevant financial services businesses, they are listed there in Article 9 of the law today, and in particular, credit providers are talked about in schedule 4. We have got a list of credit businesses, and there I see item 2(b): “A loan secured against immovable property either by hypothecation or a mortgage or any other matter” so I am assured. Unfortunately with the fine small print, one finally gets disappointed sometimes, that you think it is in, but then lo and behold, some surprise happens and you find it is not. So I am reading this at face value and I think if that is an example of the thoroughness that this work has been done, I am absolutely delighted, because that seems to say to me that that sort of business will be within the scope of the complaints procedure. A couple of things I think strike me, being that I want to be sure: I read the Scrutiny Panel’s report carefully and I think it is an excellent report. Page 3 of the Scrutiny report lists down a series of points that the expert advisers came up with, then I read the Minister’s comments in the back, and with the one exception of the charging complainants for fees, I was delighted that the Minister had made that amendment, because I myself was at the point of drafting one. When I first found it, I thought: “This cannot be right, big red mark on that” because it does undermine of course the whole purpose of what we are doing here and it spoils it. It is not necessary to get into the whole arena of whether a complaint is frivolous or not. What is frivolous to one person, to an expert kind of civil servant-type person, is not frivolous to an ordinary person and so I am really pleased that is out. But there are other issues in there. For example, I think this issue of the independence is really important. If we end up with somebody who is just somebody from a financial services business running this, I am really troubled about that. I want to see real independence here. I know we are told: “Do not worry, the Minister will not appoint somebody like that and they will go through the Appointments Board” but we have seen it so many times and you look down the names, and I can tell you, if you look down the members of who is on the J.F.S.C., you will find people in those sorts of connections, quite close to what I have been saying. Now, nothing wrong with that in the case of J.F.S.C., but this is a different animal. I think that I would like to see some strengthening about independence there and I think this question of systemic complaints, I do not think this can be just brushed aside. An ombudsman that starts to see a level of complaint and starts to see common patterns in problems that come to light should be empowered to take some action in a positive way in drawing attention to systemic issues, because after all, unless I am wrong, using my example of mortgage providers, you do not have to register under the Financial Services Law to be a mortgage provider, I do not think. I tried to find it, cannot find it; or at least the major plc, I could not see its subsidiaries are registered under the Financial Services Law. They are not regulated here. What we have got is people that will run businesses that will sit outside of the Financial Services Law and codes and so I think it is important that systemic failures that come to light as a result of the ombudsman’s work are addressed and there is some method there.

[12:45]

The annual report to the Assembly, it is a significant matter, because it is their opportunity to tell us: “Here is a problem here. We want you to do something about it.” I found the Minister’s comments, I regret to say, a little bit complacent there and not really looking at it from, as it were, the ordinary persons end of the spectrum, but perhaps looking at it from the financial services, J.F.S.C. end of the spectrum. But I think it is a really excellent piece of work and I am delighted to see it. It is well overdue. A couple of things in it I am not keen on. I do not like this bureaucratic thing about you have 6 months to complain. That is the time limit if you have gone through the proper firm’s complaints procedure. That troubles me for all sorts of reasons. People have perfectly bona fide complaints out of time and there needs to be some flexibility. I am really quite anxious about the Guernsey involvement, hence my question of flights this morning. If we cannot get there, is it really going to work in practice, and why do we need to do that, really? Are we so hard-up that we have to have a joint scheme? The funding for this, I was delighted to see, is coming from the levy from the finance industry. That is good, that is sensible. Do we really need to have that over-closeness of Guernsey, because I do not think we should be afraid? There might be some differences and on the amendments I think that point will come back again. For example, what if there is a backlog of complaints? Who is going to get priority, Guernsey or Jersey complaints? What about the size of the complaints? I think there are issues there. I hope the Minister will not interpret my remarks as negative. What I want to do is I think we want to get this into legislation and try and be aware of these issues and try and enhance them and improve them over time, and very much as well I think we have got a great model here for the Government Ombudsman, because I really think that is such an omission, that we should look now to that Government Ombudsman for Government services. So those are the things I wanted to say, and I am supportive obviously of the law.

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

The Bailiff:

The adjournment is proposed. The Assembly will reconvene at 2.15 p.m.

[12:47]

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

[14:16]

The Bailiff:

The Assembly is debating the principles of Projet 9, the Draft Financial Services Ombudsman (Jersey) Law 201-. Does any other Member wish to speak on the principles? Very well, then I invite the Minister to reply.

6.1.5 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I heard a comment which I will treat with contempt and ignore on the basis that it is not relevant to the said debate, I hope. Clearly Members have had a good lunch, hence no further appetite for questions at this stage. I will try to address as quickly as I can the points raised by the Members who did raise questions before the lunch break. Deputy Higgins kicked off and reminded Members of his previous life at the J.F.S.C. and his involvement in this important area. I would just say to the Deputy that the regulatory landscape has clearly changed quite significantly in the period since he was at the J.F.S.C. He asked in particular why was a board structure being used. Well, in today’s world, that follows best international standards, and in fact just about all ombudsman structures are set up in a similar way. The board protects the independence of the ombudsman and allows for better oversight, and I would say to Deputy Higgins that perhaps if he felt particularly strongly, which he appeared to when he raised the point before lunch, he could of course in the run-up to the lodging of this proposition have raised the matter with me. I would have been happy to listen to his points, or indeed, the option existed to bring forward an amendment, which of course he could have done. He did ask about the timing, and of course that is an important point, and one I am sure other Members will be particularly interested in as to when they are going to see the doors of the Financial Services Ombudsman open. I cannot give an exact date. I have been asked this before. There is a process to go through yet before we can get to the opening. Of course, once this law hopefully is approved by Members today, it goes before the Privy Council and comes back. We have got the appointment process of the new Chair, we have got the board to be appointed. There are, as the Deputy points out, a couple of consultations underway which are necessary for the scope and the funding and of course they have to follow in that order. Of course once those consultations are complete, the results will be passed to the ombudsman for them to consider, which is appropriate and clearly determines the independence of the ombudsman, which is important, in fact, essential. In summary, I would hope that towards the end of the year we would be in a position for the doors to open. It may well be that a decision is taken on the advice of the ombudsmen themselves, once established, to make it a clean date start at the beginning of January 2015, whichever the final date is following the order that I have laid out. There is of course the period of retrospection. That is a matter of course we are going to come on to debate in some more detail later on, but at the moment it is set at 6 years, so whether the ombudsman opens in September, November or January makes not so much difference in the outcome, because of course it will go back to the date of 1st January 2010, which is the start date set within the legislation before Members today. The other comments, Senator Breckon very kindly reminded Members of the amount of time it has taken to get to this point. I do not wish to dwell on that any further, other than to say to him that I am at least the Minister who has brought it forward and we are standing here debating it today. I do agree with him, it has taken longer than it should have done, but we are here now and I think that is a matter that I am pleased with and I am sure Members will be as well. So I can assure him there is no dilly-dallying, I think was the phrase he used, going on any further in this regard. I thank the Deputy of St. Martin, the Chair, of course, as Members know, of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel, for the comments that he made, for the work of his panel, which I have already referred to and I have already highlighted the fact that there is an amendment that Members will have to consider to Article 17, an amendment that I have laid myself as a result of concerns raised by the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel with regard to potentially charging, and that deals with that matter. Finally, I think Deputy Young made a wide-ranging number of comments. Overall he was supportive, and I thank him for that. It is of course a low-cost - this is one of the points he raised - and simple dispute resolution outcome, and he was making the point in the absence of an ombudsman, as Members are obviously very well aware, the recourse is only to the Royal Court or through legal process, which is expensive and daunting for many people, hence the need for this ombudsman. He raised a number of other points. He talked about systemic complaints. Of course they will be flagged-up in the annual report, and of course as the Financial Services Ombudsman is an independent body, it can of course make its own representation to other statutory bodies, such as J.F.S.C. or elsewhere, if it sees fit. It is an important point that the Deputy raised, but it can indeed and will be, I am sure, dealt with in due course. There was one other point he did make that I think needs to be just covered, and that is in relation to the 6 months for complaint. He seemed to be concerned about that. That will not of course apply to historic complaints and it would only apply looking forwards on the basis that the particular complaint is active with the firm that is seeking to resolve it, in other words, the financial services firm to which the complainant has an issue. If they can prove to the ombudsman that they are going through an appropriate process and still actively considering and dealing with the complaint, then on that basis there is an opportunity for an extension up to 6 months, so it is not an automatic 6-month period. I think that covers all the questions raised by Members. I maintain the principles.

The Bailiff:

Very well. All those in favour of adopting the principles, kindly show; those against. The principles are adopted. Deputy of St. Martin, I take it you do not want this referred to your Scrutiny panel?

The Deputy of St. Martin (Chairman, Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

No, thank you, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Very well. Then turning to the individual Articles, Minister, would you like to take parts 1 and 2, first of all? How do you wish to proceed?

6.2 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

What I was going to suggest, if Members are in agreement, if we did Articles 1 to 10, because we have an amendment with Article 11, so I thought I could take 1 to 10, make some observations and then deal with 11 after that.

The Bailiff:

Very well.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I will just briefly make comments with regard to Articles 1 to 10, or indeed, I should say those that are relevant. Article 1 is of course the interpretation provision. Article 2 establishes the Office for the Financial Services Ombudsman as a body corporate with a board of between 3 and 5 members, including a chairman. Article 3 provides that the general functions of the Office for Financial Services Ombudsman are to secure resolution of complaints independently, fairly, reasonably, effectively, quickly and with minimum formality. The office should offer an alternative to the court proceedings points that we have covered to date. Article 4 provides for the appointment of the principal ombudsman and other staff for the office. Article 6 provides the arrangements with Guernsey and for adaption of the scheme to European standards. The law can operate independently for Jersey alone. That is a point I think that Deputy Young was raising. He was concerned about the Guernsey involvement. This scheme is set up and the law is prepared that it can, if necessary, operate alone. That is not the intention. We would prefer to operate and intend to - and there is an intention in Guernsey as well to do the same - as a pan-Channel Islands ombudsman, but it is set up to do so independently if absolutely necessary. Moving on, Article 7 provides the conditions for referring a complaint to the ombudsman. Article 8 determines who is an eligible complainant. Article 9 sets the framework for determining what is a relevant financial services business. It does so - and I know Deputy Young again referred to Article 9 - by casting the net very widely and then it requires the Minister to narrow the scope by order to exempt classes of businesses where it is not appropriate for the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman’s services to be available. Finally, Article 10 determines who can be a respondent to an ombudsman complaint. In normal circumstances, it will be the financial services provider whose act or omission is the subject of such a complaint. That is briefly the details of Articles 1 to 10. I would be very happy to answer any questions should Members have any.

The Bailiff:

Very well. Do you propose the relevant schedules as well, that is schedules 1 to 4, which are created by those Articles?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Very well. Are they seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak then on any of Articles 1 to 10 or the schedules? Deputy Higgins.

6.2.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can I ask the Minister: he said earlier that the scheme is going to be based in Jersey and that is assuming even if Guernsey agree. Can he explain then why under Article 6(3) it says: “In the case of the arrangement described [whatever, it has got] provision for transferring all of the functions of the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman to the corresponding body under the Guernsey scheme and for abolishing the O.F.S.O. (Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman) following the transfer.” Why is that provision in there if it is going to be in Jersey? In the schedules, schedule 2 under: “Budget 4” it says: “The establishment and operation of the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman are funded primarily by financial services providers in a manner that maintains the independence.” I did miss it earlier, I must confess, when I was glancing through my notes, but it was always intended that the scheme would not be chargeable to complainants, it was always going to be free to them, so I believe there is an amendment on that and I will be supporting that amendment, because it must be free for individuals. You have also got here again, it was the wording “generally free to complainants” and I was concerned about that. Again, my question was also on: “(3) Case fees”, if you could explain why under (2)(d) it says: “Requires the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman before prescribing or varying such a scheme to consult on it [that part is fine] and to refer an increase in a fee to the Bailiff to be considered by Jurats if that increase is disputed by the consultee or in any circumstances specified in the Regulations.” That is not a question, as I see, of going to the Bailiff in a judicial capacity. It seems to be extra-judicial.

[14:30]

In other words, the Bailiff and Jurats, you have got them involved rather than going to the court to adjudicate on whether the fees were valid or not. Could the Minister please explain that?

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak on these individual Articles? Then I invite the Minister to reply.

6.2.2 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Thank you to Deputy Higgins for his questions. With regard to Article 6(3) that he referred to, quite simply the issue is about flexibility. It has been agreed in dialogue with Guernsey that the scheme would be operated out of Jersey. We have led on the project. They are supportive of what is being proposed. However, what the Deputy has picked up on is that in the future, there may well be an agreement that there could be a greater extent emerging of functions. Indeed, it could in the future move to Guernsey for whatever reasons, but that would be a matter for the ombudsman to decide upon. What I pointed out earlier on is the fact that it will be opening and the office will function out of Jersey. What he sees within the law allows flexibility for future changes, should they be agreed upon and implemented at some later stage. With regard to funding, he is absolutely right, it is free, and in fact I think he made the point about potential charges. Under amendment 17, which is an amendment that I have lodged myself, which I hope Members will approve, that removes any doubt in that area. With regard to the case fees, I am not entirely sure of the point on that. I think, as far as I am aware from my note, that it is in relation to the case fees. The Bailiff and Jurats are from the J.F.S.C. fee system, not relating directly to the ombudsman, which is what I think the Deputy is referring to, so I think that answers all the questions.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Could the Minister just repeat that last bit? Sorry, there was noise here and I did not hear it.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

From what I can see, the Bailiff/Jurats is from the J.F.S.C. fee system, not relative to the ombudsman scheme, but I do not know if the Solicitor General wishes to add anything to that point.

The Bailiff:

Very well. All those in favour of adopting...

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Sorry, can I ask if 6 and also schedule 2 can be voted on separately, please?

The Bailiff:

Article 6, yes, certainly. The schedule, let me see, because that is referred to in Article 2, so I think you have got to take Article 2 separately, because Article 2 says: “Schedule 2 makes provision” so if you are going to vote against schedule 2, I think you have got vote against Article 2.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

That is fine, Sir, as long as we can take 2 and 6 separately. Thank you.

The Bailiff:

So we will take 2 separately and 6 separately. Very well. On that basis then, for convenience, shall we vote on Articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, in other words, all the others? All those in favour of adopting those other Articles, kindly show; those against. They are adopted. We will now then move to Article 2, which includes schedule 1 and schedule 2. Do you ask for the appel, Deputy? Yes, the appel is asked for then in relation to Article 2. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 40	CONTRE: 2	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator P.F. Routier	Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Senator A. Breckon	Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Senator F. du H. Le Gresley
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of Grouville
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B)
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy M. Tadier (B)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)
Deputy of St. John
Deputy J.P.G. Baker (H)
Deputy J.H. Young (B)
Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Bryans (H)
Deputy N.B. Le Cornu (H)
Deputy S.Y. Mézec (H)

The Bailiff:

The other matter is Article 6. Would you like the appel on that too, Deputy? Very well, the appel is called for then in relation to Article 6 and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 39	CONTRE: 3	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator P.F. Routier	Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Senator A. Breckon	Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Senator S.C. Ferguson	Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Senator F. du H. Le Gresley
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of Grouville
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B)
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy M. Tadier (B)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)
Deputy of St. John
Deputy J.P.G. Baker (H)
Deputy J.H. Young (B)
Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Bryans (H)
Deputy N.B. Le Cornu (H)
Deputy S.Y. Mézec (H)

The Bailiff:

Very well. So that means the Assembly has now adopted Articles 1 to 10, so we will now come to Article 11, where there is an amendment lodged by Deputy Southern, so I will first of all ask the Minister to propose Article 11 in its current form.

6.3 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Article 11 provides the 3 timing conditions for the complainant’s eligibility: “The act or omission complained of must not predate 1st January 2010. The complaint must not be premature and it must not be too late.” I propose Article 11.

The Bailiff:

Yes, is that seconded? [Seconded]

6.4 Draft Financial Services Ombudsman (Jersey) Law 201- (P.9/2014): second amendment (P.9/2014 Amd.(2))

The Bailiff:

Then there is an amendment lodged by Deputy Southern, so I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Pages 42 and 43, Article 11: (a) in paragraph (1)(a) for the words “1st January 2010” substitute the words “1st January 2005”; (b) in paragraph (5)(a) for the words “6 years” substitute the words “10 years.”

6.4.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

It seems a while since I have done an amendment. I must have been slacking or something, but nonetheless I hope it is like riding a bike and I can still do it. Where to start? Start with the 6 points I make on page 3 of my report explaining why I think that what we have here is too restrictive, and extending the time period over which we can operate improves and in fact, I think, makes the whole proposition much better indeed. The 6 points I make there interestingly came out of a whole series of questions over the past quite some time about provision of financial services, and in particular, the mis-selling of P.P.I.s (Personal Protection Insurance) which has been rife over the last decade. The points I make there in points (a) to (f), there is no recourse presently to enforce repayment of mis-selling on some Jersey companies, that the U.K. authorities have no powers in Jersey, hence the whole reason for this particular piece of work. The Minister has no evidence of a problem in pursuing P.P.I. against Jersey companies he said at one stage. The Minister does not know the size of the problem and has refused to investigate how many claims may be involved. He has refused to investigate how many P.P.I. cases there might be, but certainly on the mainland, there are enormous sums of money involved in P.P.I. mis-selling and there is no reason, I do not think, to suggest that a similar level of mis-selling occurs here. But nonetheless, the Minister, as part of his comments, says that this is a relatively small element in there. The Minister is only aware of a small number of successful claims, and the Minister offers no evidence to support his choice of timing and he is not prepared to extend the timing conditions for eligibility. So there is a starting point, and basically the starting point came to me because I received a complaint by somebody who had been the subject of mis-selling of personal protection insurance, and this dated from 2005. It is a long-running battle she has had and was getting nowhere with it, and eventually came to me and I bought it to the Economic Development team and they helped me sort it. It took some time and it was not easy, hence the ombudsman should be making things a lot easier than that, but nonetheless, it dated way back to 2005. The first misselling was 2005 and it continued for a number of years, so I believe a starting date of 2010 - and we will come back to it later - is absolutely inappropriate for this particular piece of work. In the comments from the Minister, he says a number of things. The time limits, he says, are in line with those of the financial ombudsman schemes in other jurisdictions, and he states that as a bald fact and then refers to the consultation that took place, the 2011 Economic Development consultation on the Financial Services Ombudsman, including a specific consultation question on the suitability of a 6 or 10-year time limit. Now, when you look at that particular consultation, and in particular I refer here to August 2011 to the summary of the consultation details, what you find is the question: “Comments will be welcome on the most suitable time limit, 6 or 10 years, to be used in section 9(3). There were 13 responses, of which the majority support [9 of that 13] a 6-year period. This accords with the U.K. and Isle of Man schemes, so 6 years will be adopted.” A bald statement, and again elsewhere on page 4 it says: “A 6-year general time limit on complaints was supported by respondents and will be adopted. This accords with both the U.K. and Isle of Man schemes.” Bear in mind though the Isle of Man and U.K. schemes started way before us. The Isle of Man had the ombudsman present in 2002, so they have been taking these cases all the way through the previous decade and yet we are saying we cannot go back that far. When one examines the list of correspondence, the purpose of the consultation was to invite comments about the proposed structure and funding of the financial ombudsman scheme to ensure it best meets the needs of customers and Jersey’s financial services industry. So one wonders how much response did they get from the needs of customers, and the answer is that of the 32 respondents, which go from Barclays Wealth right the way through to Volaw Trust and Corporate Services Limited, there is one single representative of the customer, 31 from the industry - they are always very well-organised - and one from the customer. On behalf of the customer, Jersey’s Citizens Advice Bureau made a contribution which was very straightforward on this particular issue. “We consider that a 10-year period is more suitable to tie-in with other relevant legislation, such as life time of judgments.” Ten years, they say, because that ties-in with the Jersey system. That indeed is supported by the words in the main consultation document where it says, and I will just read for a moment, if I may, 1.2 because I think it is absolutely shocking: “The 1999 Edwards Report recommended the introduction of an ombudsmen scheme for financial complaints in the Crown Dependencies and it has been under consideration in Jersey since then.” So 1999 the recommendation was there, get on with it, and we still have not got it yet today. Other people have said that this is absolutely shocking. When it comes to the time limits, this is what the consultation had to say: “The reasoning behind the second limit is that financial services products can be long-term commitments, for example, a 25-year endowment policy” and we heard something from the previous speaker about endowment policies: “so problems may only come to light years after the initial investment decision. These limits are similar to the U.K. scheme, which uses 6 years, and the Isle of Man scheme which also uses 6 years. In Jersey, however [note that ‘however’] the limitation or prescriptive period for contract is more generally 10 years so a decision will need to be made about whether to use 6 years or 10 years.” The habitual time is 10 years in Jersey for length of contract and there is absolutely no reason why we have to go down the U.K. or Isle of Man route and choose 6 years, and no justification has been given for it really, whatsoever. It is not difficult because that is the normal rule for Jersey companies and Jersey contracts. Then we look at, in particular, these P.P.I.s because that was my starting point and I believe one of the most common means by which ordinary members of society came across this particular issue, this mis-selling or perhaps it might be a better way to describe it, fraud, from absolutely faulty policies. I refer to an article, I think it is a Daily Telegraph article, which goes into some depth about P.P.I. and has the figure £18 billion in terms of P.P.I. compensation in the U.K.

[14:45]

£18 billion. I wonder what proportionately that is in Jersey. “Banks have agreed to pay the equivalent of almost £400 to every adult in Britain as the country’s biggest mis-selling scandal continues to grow. Compensation payments for payment protection insurance reached £18.4 billion, twice the cost of the Olympics. The banking sector ignored warnings about the way it sold P.P.I. products for almost a decade.” What decade was that? Why is it appropriate that we target that particular decade in this particular mis-selling and it goes on to say: “Banks face the first serious accusations of mis-selling P.P.I.s in 2001 but continued selling the product until it was banned by regulators in 2009.” So in terms of this particular aspect, which may be very significant, certainly in the U.K., I would expect it to be significant in Jersey, that was not stopped until 2009. When does our compensation scheme start? Nothing before 2010. Those 31 financial services salespeople, those 31, would certainly pick 6 years and start in 2010, please, because that means that this particular incident was over by then. We will not catch a single one of those because we set the time limits too rapid, too short. So I believe if we are to be taken seriously when we say we want a scheme, we want an ombudsman and we want it to have teeth or we want it to deal with the issues, we cannot then have a starting point of 2010. Think about it, if you do a survey of how long does it need to be retrospective, and you do that survey in 2011 and you are given a choice of 10 years or 6 years and you go for the shorter one, where does that end up? From 2011 less 6 years, why it is 2005. So what was being consulted was a starting point of 2005 at the short end back then. It has taken a number of years to get through to this stage and I am saying that 2005 was the right starting point. Why are we not doing it now? In terms of 5 years, 6 years or 10 years, 10 years is appropriate, that takes us back to 2005 and that is exactly when we should be starting. Now, the joy of this body every now and then is that individual Members can take a vote and make a difference. This might only appear to be a minor difference, a small difference, but I urge Members to support this more extended length of time because that way it will sweep in far more of people who have been mis-sold to, have been defrauded by the system than otherwise. If we start at 2010, I think we miss all of these people and we know we are missing all of the people, we are setting up something that is not effective. I urge Members to support my amendment.

The Bailiff:

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Deputy Higgins, do you wish to speak?

6.4.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Just very briefly. I would just urge Members again to support Deputy Southern’s amendment. Bear in mind how long it has taken us to bring this legislation to the States. It has been a scandal, that is all I can say, a scandal, going back all those years and people have lost out on compensation on this and many other schemes and if the States are not prepared to support this amendment they are just showing contempt for the public because it is our fault. We should have insisted on this scheme being here much earlier. Please support the amendment.

6.4.3 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Regrettably I stand to oppose the amendment lodged by Deputy Southern. I make some initial comments. The Trading Standards Department does receive from time to time complaints with regard to P.P.I., which is the area that Deputy Southern is particularly concerned about, and other Members I know as well, and quite rightly so. Currently they have 3 live cases outstanding which indeed could be relevant to the ombudsman when it gets fully established and opens its doors. I mention that simply to give Members an indication of the likely numbers of cases that there are around at the moment. I also raise the point ... Deputy Southern pointed out that he brought forward a complaint that went to him, an individual who had a concern over a P.P.I. dating back to 2005, well before the proposed start date as ombudsman. As Members will be aware, that start date is from 1st January 2010. The case that Deputy Southern brought forward was investigated, the Economic Development Department did assist with that and it has reached resolution. I think that makes the point that despite the fact that the start date of the ombudsman may be 1st January 2010, there are cases, as proven by Deputy Southern himself, that can indeed get resolved, and do get resolved, in any event. I think that is a point that is worth making. There is a clear and logical rationale behind the time limits that we have set in the draft law under Article 11. First and foremost, the intention of my department was to introduce an ombudsman scheme, which is aligned with international standards and is recognised as being as such. As I have already mentioned, the majority of ombudsmen operate a 6-year general time limit. Of those the U.K.- that is the largest ombudsman service in the world - the Isle of Man, Ireland all operate a 6-year time limit. In 2011 - it was a point that the Deputy referred to - Economic Development carried out a consultation on the Financial Services Ombudsman and it has included a specific question on the suitability and workability of a 6 or 10-year time limit. We propose a 6-year time limit to ensure consistency with the existing schemes that I have referred to and we were supported by the majority of those who responded to the consultation, and that included the Citizens Advice Bureau who supported the proposed 6-year time limit. The starting point means that from the day that the ombudsman service opens complaints can be considered about events occurring on or after 1st January 2010, as I have said, and on a rolling basis it will go back 6 years in the future. The start date is the cleanest date, immediately after the States decision that was taken to introduce the ombudsman. There are also, in certain circumstances, a situation where an earlier date before 2010 can be considered. That is defined with the law. I draw Members’ attention to Article 11, paragraph 5, which states, and quote: “Two years after a claimant could reasonably have been expected to become aware that he or she had a reason to complain in relation to the act of the complained of.” So in certain circumstances it is still possible under Article 11, paragraph 5, for individuals to seek redress. Whatever the starting point, it may serve to disappoint a small number of people and that is unfortunate. Our approach to the start has also influenced Guernsey to adapt a degree of retrospection, even though their starting point at 2nd July 2013 will not be as generous as that that is contained within Jersey’s draft law. It would be disproportionate to increase, in my view, the general time limit to 10 years effectively across the whole affected financial services sector simply to cover a small number of purported P.P.I. complaints, as the Deputy refers to. So, in fact, it would then be a rolling 10-year retrospection that would occur and it would cover the whole of the financial services sector. There would be significant attendant difficulties with recall and record keeping for the length of time. Members will recall the Taxation (Accounting Records) (Jersey) Regulations 2013 which we debated in May and June last year to ensure full compliance with international standards with regard to record keeping. These Regulations mandated that every person in receipt or possession of any income or of any profits arising from the carrying on of the business or from the letting of property across the Island maintain their records for a period of 6 years. It would, of course, be problematic for one part of our law to require retention of records for one period but for another to allow the pursuit of claims for nearly twice the defined period. A 10-year general time limit would further complicate the analysis, much of which has already been carried out, estimating the likely utilisation, staffing and the costs of the proposed scheme. It is also important, given the stated political will of both Jersey and Guernsey to run a joint scheme that parity is achieved wherever possible in order to ensure a quality of treatment and costs to industry and to eliminate arbitrage between jurisdictions. There is nothing to indicate that Guernsey would consider introducing a 10-year limitation period and given their approach is already to have a reduced element of retrospection, the prospects of achieving a unified limitation position at 10 years are considered remote. Concerns about P.P.I. mis-selling have existed for many years, U.K. consumer groups raised concerns back in 2000 and some Members have already mentioned that. The U.K. Financial Services Ombudsman highlighted concerns in 2001 and 2005 as well and referred the issue to the U.K. regulator in 2008. So it is very hard to pinpoint a satisfactory date other than that chosen in the draft law linked to the decision to implement an ombudsman taken by this Assembly. In summary, neither Scrutiny, the independent advisers or the majority of those consulted, including as I have said the Citizens Advice Bureau, felt there was anything wrong with our proposal contained in the law for 6 years retrospection. I would therefore urge Members to reject Deputy Southern’s innocent sounding and perhaps seductive amendment for the reasons that I have stated. Thank you.

6.4.4 Deputy M. Tadier:

First of all, I am not sure why the Minister tried to suggest that Guernsey would be put in a position where they would have to follow Jersey’s suit because he already told us that Guernsey already want to pursue a different avenue. They are looking at 2013 and we are not. So there is a discrepancy there any way, which is perfectly workable. We do not need to consider that as one of the arguments. This is not simply about P.P.I. selling or mis-selling, we all know, I suspect, of cases in our own constituencies or indeed in the wider Island constituency where individuals have come up against issues of this nature, which would have been able to have been dealt with by a financial ombudsman had one been implemented earlier. I remember this being debated in the 2008 Senatorial elections. There were candidates there who were saying: “We need this, it needs to be done now” and in fact it should have been done already back then. There should already have been a service. We do not need to go into detail about particular case, partly for brevity sake because they are so complicated but also because some of these may be ongoing. I have here a text that was sent from the Economic Development Department by the Minister to a constituent of mine, this person would have also been contact with the Constable of St. Brelade and no doubt with the other Deputy - he is shaking his head - and I suspect other Members. Senator Breckon will be speaking later as well. He says, I will quote briefly: “My department met with officers from J.F.S.C., we did not go into the specifics of any particular case, however we are keen to reiterate that the J.F.S.C. does not have the power to resolve individual complaints.” So where does she go from there. The Minister’s response to this lady was: “As you know, the States of Jersey are in the process of introducing a Financial Services Ombudsman to cover complaints from consumers against financial service providers as an alternative to the court system. However, the ombudsman will not be in operation until 2014.” That offers some kind of hope to the lady because: “Oh great, how there is going to be a Financial Services Ombudsman” but when we consider that this event took place in 2008 and on the face of it it looks like this was somebody who was conned out of a lot of money, because of the nature of the incident, this person who was registered with Jersey Financial Services was not able to be prosecuted for any criminal actions because of the way in which he contorted money - is that the right word? Extorted, I think, is the right word. Extorted money allegedly from this constituent. So this would clearly be of assistance in this case and she has had people telling her: “You are absolutely right, there is nothing that you have done wrong, you have been a victim here, we should have had an ombudsman set up.” Surely the argument is that there must be others like this woman and her partner who are facing very difficult times, the prospect of having to sell their property and everything that goes with it, being uprooted with young children.

[15:00]

The question has to be asked, if there are really so few of these individuals that the Minister is saying, whether it be P.P.I. or other cases, what is the harm in extending it another 5 years? It is something that we should have brought in. Not us necessarily but our predecessors should have brought in. If the numbers are so few that is fine, the ombudsman will not have much work to do will he, or will she? But if, on the other hand, the numbers are very significant then we also have a need to make sure that if so many people have been falling through the cracks in the past because of the lack of an ombudsman, there is a demand for that. So we cannot have it both ways. If the numbers are so few that is fine, it will not create much of a workload for the new ombudsman. If the cases are so many, then that is also an argument for extending back another 5 years. So I think really this is one of those amendments which the Minister could have accepted and could have accepted quite easily because ultimately it is a benefit to vulnerable individuals in our society who have been facing issues like this perhaps historically and more recently. This is not something that the Minister should be opposing. So I do ask Members to support this amendment.

6.4.5 Senator A. Breckon:

I will support this amendment for a couple of reasons. I mentioned earlier that it has been a long time coming since November 1998 when the report first surfaced. I am aware of the case that Deputy Tadier has just mentioned and then it is a question of to where people go? Where have they been going? The answer is they have been going nowhere. They have been going round in circles and they have been frustrated by that. The Minister mentioned the Isle of Man but of course they have an Office of Fair Trading in the Isle of Man, they do not have one here. There are other such organisations in the U.K. that are proactive towards consumers, they are consumer facing, and they will take up the cudgels individually or collectively on issues. Just to show the scope of that, there was something I picked up at the weekend about an organisation in the U.K. and that is Financial Conduct Authority. It just shows the depth that they have got and where they will go when they feel they need to. What it is saying here is that this city watchdog will look at funds from pensions and endowments and life insurance, which people have been paying into that have now closed to new business. The probe includes policies sold as far back as the 1970s and closes in 2000. The funds held an estimated £150 billion, and they are concerned that in some cases people have been continuing to pay without being told that there are options to switch. The Financial Conduct Authority wants to ensure that providers do not penalise people in these situations. One concern is that insurance firms charge higher management fees on older products to subsidise new products. A possible outcome of the review could be that providers are forced to make it easier for policy holders to switch to alternative products. The Financial Conduct Authority will ask firms to provide representative samples of their policies rather than look at every individual case. That is an example of where somebody is going back over 40 years. Of course, there could be people in Jersey who are affected by those very things. Where do they go? Will they be covered? There are questions to be asked there and for those reasons I do not see the harm in extending this a little bit further. It does not have anywhere near those powers and we do not have the organisations that are doing some of this investigative work on others behalf. For those reasons, I would ask Members to support his amendment because I think it is worthwhile to do so because there are people out there in the community who are frustrated because they have been given literally the run round around and these are not things for tuppence ha’penny, these are a significant part of their life, it is their homes, it is the investment they have made in their future insurance policies and endowments and things like that. I think giving this little bit of leeway, which I do not think is excessive in the circumstances, is worth supporting and I ask Members to give that consideration.

6.4.6 Deputy J.A. Martin:

I will be brief. It has taken me at least an hour to get my head around these 2 different dates and I think I am just there. If we had not been so tardy in the House we would have already had this scheme up and running. So Article (5)(a) is the 6 years after the Act to which the complaint relates would take you back to 2008. It is quite simple. But we have not gone that far back because, as Deputy Southern said, there were 32 comments and 31 of them for the industry, very good and all very nice. The Assembly has just been told by the Minister for Economic Development that we passed some tax law that we said people only would need to keep their records for X amount of years. I am telling you know that there are records around for us going back in our banks and loans and whatever; if you owe them money they will find you. Now, do not tell me they are going to wipe that after X amount of years, it does not work. Again, this overall thing, it is always just that little push. The Minister said: “We want the same as everywhere else. An international service for an ombudsman.” But we have just moved on the principal law that they do not have to be in the financial services industry. They probably will not be but we will not put it in in law. We will not put it in law. So we have moved a little way. Again the myth of Guernsey is chucked out the window because they are making it legal as of 2nd July last year. We are working with a different ombudsman over the Islands. I am sorry to the Minister, Senator Maclean, who thinks there are only 3 little cases out there. We do not have it in law. Annoying as they are, when the P.P.I. people ring you or email you and you tell them where you are they basically forget it because they know ... they have been arguing with the top officers. They do not want you as a customer because we do not have it in statute. We have not got what the English ombudsman said: “If you have mis-sold it, you will repay it.” It is quite easy to do it yourself because I know people who have done it, rather than go through these annoying people that some people do not understand and they do, they pay a percentage in commission. That is fair enough. So we do not know what we do not know, we do not know how many people are out there who could benefit under this. Even if it is a few hundred pounds, that is the people who really need this service. As I said, we have timed ourselves out under 5A because we should have been up and running. It would have been 2008 that people could claim from so giving them an extra few years, 2005, I do not think Deputy Southern is asking for too much. Please, just see the sense of this because it can be done. As I say, you owe anybody money they find you. A tax record that we passed in this House that everyone is going to destroy information on anybody under that is a red herring, frankly. I am sorry if I am misquoting the Minister but that is exactly how I see it. It is not too long, it does not go back too far. In fact I would probably be generous and if the Minister had accepted the amendment to (a) I would have probably lived with the 6 years ... the (b) were Deputy Southern has put it to 10, but ... yes, I think it could be done, but what I am saying is it is up to Deputy Southern whether he takes them in 2 parts, but I do know this has been coming for too long and if we cut people off on 1st January 2010, I would not like to be those people. We have known it has been coming, we know they were mis-sold intentionally and it is the people who relied on these P.P.I.s and other sorts of insurances like your endowment mortgages, which is now falling short in the hundreds of thousands of pounds. This will capture ... there will be something around the corner. There will be something around the corner but we will be up and running then so I do not want to cut off anybody before a reasonable date. So what we have been offered is a few years longer than it should be, possibly, because we as an Assembly have got it wrong again. We have taken much too long to get to this starting date. So, please, think of the little people out there and do not tell me that there are only 3 cases outstanding. As I say, they do not come near the offshore bank accounts and that is what we look like. We cannot be seen from England in the banking world and they do not really want to know because it is not passed by our ombudsman, whoever he is. I really hope that this time we will support Deputy Southern and not be led-off with Guernsey cannot do it, the tax is going to be chucked away and their records are not going to be there. To me, it does not make sense. It should be there and they will be there. Thank you.

6.4.7 Deputy J.H. Young:

I will try and be brief. I think Deputy Southern has done us a service by picking up this particular point. Like many others, I regularly get fed up with getting text messages from U.K. firms about P.P.I., I think they must run into the hundreds now, being pushed around by ... I do not know how they get the numbers but they do, reminding us of course that there is a regime elsewhere. It is a very longstanding regime that U.K. financial services providers are well used to working within, to work within the regime that we are now going to put in place. We are used to that. Certainly as Deputy Martin says, better to not destroy their records. My experience working for a law firm and locally is that people keep records much longer than the statutory minimum. Because only in that way can they defend themselves from claims. So I do not think there is going to be a practical problem. Financial services are long-term, pension issues, annuity issues, 10, 15, 25 years not uncommon and problems come to light late. I think it is important, I think this key point law, why be the same as U.K., debts in Jersey are enforceable in law in 10 years, in 6 years in the U.K., those systems are different. It is one of our strengths. While I was listening to the debate thinking: “What clues do we have?” and I looked back into the proposition we are due to debate next week from Senator Breckon and there I see the reminder in there about the judgment in Alternate Investments where the Royal Court permission on 26th January 2007 made very strong comments about the lack of such a scheme in Jersey and how this is something that should be addressed. The Minister himself made a statement in 2009 giving a commitment that would be done, and of course in the meantime we had the events of Sunstone in 2004/5, which came to light in 2008. I think all that demonstrates why the approach that Deputy Southern has suggested to the Assembly is the right one. Let us not half do the job, let us do it properly. Let us put in place the framework so we can all feel: “That is it, job done now. It was late but it is a good scheme and there are no gaps and loopholes in it.” I still hope the Minister will accept Deputy Southern’s amendment.

6.4.8 Deputy R.G. Bryans:

I am just trying to look on the iPad to see if I could find a reference to this time delay. I think it is true what the Minister has said about the 6-year requirement. It is hard for me to remember and I cannot find it very quickly on the iPad, but I know in the U.K. things that relate to what they call due diligence, which is the information that relates directly to whoever you deal with in financial services you have to provide information relating to your passport and where you live and various things like that. Equally though there is a compliance requirement that relates to the Anti-Money Laundering Law that says that whatever dealings you have with whomever you deal with in the financial services you have to keep records for, I think it is right to say, 6 years and beyond that point the records can then be destroyed. The reason is just to really verify that the advice given could be measured at some point in the future. I think there is an actual date. I have just found the H.M.R.C. (Her Majesty Revenue and Customs) one which is the requirement for 5 years but I think the Jersey one, I could be corrected, is for 6 years. I just wanted to clarify that.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak? Then I invite Deputy Southern to reply.

6.4.9 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Just briefly, or as briefly as I can. Just to put this in context, I believe the dates that I did talk about for P.P.I., mis-selling, the critical period where people have been defrauded is from 2001 to 2009.

[15:15]

Despite the Minister saying it is all insignificant over here, it is only small numbers, I really do not believe that. When you look at the U.K. - I have just drawn my attention to - Natalie Ceeney of the Financial Ombudsman Service said last month about the number of complaints about P.P.I. was starting to decline. She said when the Ombudsman which steps in when customers and banks cannot reach an agreement was receiving 2,000 new cases each working day instead of 3,000 a few months earlier. So 2,000 cases it has peaked. But the key is that if we bring our Ombudsman for 2010, we have missed a whole chunk of ordinary people that have been defrauded through this system. I know it only sounds like something that is relatively small but what I am talking about, the person that came to me, the debt that she was repaid was £7,000 and this is a single parent, mother of 2, who is holding down 2 jobs to pay her way. That £7,000 for her was a significant amount of money and it was important. It was not hundreds of thousands but £7,000 for her was significant. Again, the Minister appeared to be saying: “Well, we have already solved that particular case through the good offices of my officers in E.D. (Economic Development)” and he seemed to imply that we can settle it at Ombudsman and if necessary we can use E.D. as well, so there would be 2 systems operating; the Ombudsman with its timescales and if there was something else that was outside that then we would simply do it through a second system. That was nonsense, a real poor argument. Then he said: “We wanted to be aligned with the U.K. and the Isle of Man standards.” The question has to be then why can we not have better standards than theirs. Absolutely no reason, I do not believe, that we should not attempt to have a Jersey system which has got better standards and does take in those people who have been defrauded since 2005. He then talked about: “Ah yes, there is also this subclause of 2 years when you should have known” but that does not apply anymore because everybody knows now that P.P.I. takes place and if they have been charged P.P.I. then they are aware of it, so that 2 years will not kick-in because everybody knows or a lot of people know and ought to have known now that this is operational. Over the 10 years I think we are talking about 6 years as the minimum and, I believe, I am informed by Deputy Higgins, that he believes that it is 6 years for a paper record but an electronic record can be 10 years and beyond. So an electronic record nowadays, 10 years and beyond. Reference again was made to the fact that the vast majority of all of these consultations was with the deliverers, the suppliers of these services and not with the customers. Senator Breckon pointed out that there are still investigations going on in the U.K. that new areas for the F.C.A. (Financial Conduct Authority) investigating pensions and endowments, these long-term schemes, that will maybe, it is coming to the surface again. Absolutely. Then Deputy Martin says think of the little people. Let us get that protection in place. Let us, if necessary, get it better than the U.K.’s system but ensure that we have got that protection in place for our people. I think that is the mindset in which we should be voting to make sure that the ordinary people of Jersey have as full a protection as we can give them in this scheme. I call for the appel please.

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for in relation to the amendment of Deputy Southern. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 21	CONTRE: 25	ABSTAIN: 1
Senator A. Breckon	Senator P.F. Routier	Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Helier	Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Connétable of St. Lawrence	Senator S.C. Ferguson
Connétable of St. John	Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Connétable of St. Martin	Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Connétable of Grouville	Senator F. du H. Le Gresley
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)	Senator I.J. Gorst
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)	Senator L.J. Farnham
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)	Senator P.M. Bailhache
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)	Connétable of Trinity
Deputy of St. Ouen	Connétable of St. Peter
Deputy of Grouville	Connétable of St. Mary
Deputy M. Tadier (B)	Connétable of St. Ouen
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)	Connétable of St. Saviour
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)	Deputy of Trinity
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)	Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B)
Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)	Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy J.H. Young (B)	Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy R.J. Rondel (H)	Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy N.B. Le Cornu (H)	Deputy of St. John
Deputy S.Y. Mézec (H)	Deputy J.P.G. Baker (H)
	Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
	Deputy of St. Mary
	Deputy of St. Martin
	Deputy R.G. Bryans (H)

6.5 Draft Financial Services Ombudsman (Jersey) Law 201- (P.9/2014) - resumption

The Bailiff:

The debate returns to Article 11 in its unamended form. Does any Member wish to speak on Article 11? All those in favour of adopting Article 11 kindly show. Those against. It is adopted. Minister, how do you wish to proceed? The only other amendment is your own amendment to Article 17, which I imagine Members would be content to take it as amended. Are you happy to propose the rest of the Articles?

6.5.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, Sir, with your agreement and with Members agreement I would like to propose the remaining amendments on the assumption that Members will accept the amendment that I have put forward, which removes the power of the Ombudsman to award costs, and that was as a direct result of a request from the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel.

The Bailiff:

Are those Articles seconded, that is Articles 12 to 27? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to speak on any of those Articles? All those in favour of adopting Articles 12 to 27 please show. Those against. They are adopted. Do you propose the Bill in Third Reading, Minister? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak in Third Reading? The appel is called for then in relation to the Third Reading. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 45	CONTRE: 1	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator P.F. Routier	Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Senator A. Breckon
Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Senator F. du H. Le Gresley
Senator I.J. Gorst
Senator L.J. Farnham
Senator P.M. Bailhache
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of Grouville
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B)
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)
Deputy of St. John
Deputy J.P.G. Baker (H)
Deputy J.H. Young (B)
Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Bryans (H)
Deputy R.J. Rondel (H)
Deputy N.B. Le Cornu (H)
Deputy S.Y. Mézec (H)

7. Draft Taxation (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.13/2014)

The Bailiff

The next matter on the Order Paper is the Draft Taxation (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations - Projet 13 - and I will ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Taxation (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations. The States, in pursuance of Article 2(1) of the Taxation (Implementation) (Jersey) Law 2004, have made the following Regulations.

7.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):

The purpose of the draft Regulations is to bring the existing Double Taxation Regulations of 2010 and the Taxation (United States of America) (Jersey) Regulations 2006 into line with the Taxation Exchange of Information with Third Countries (Jersey) Regulations 2008. All 3 of the sets of Regulations are concerned with the exchange of tax information to the international standards and Members will recall, I am sure, that difficulties experienced with the French authorities called for the 2008 Regulations to be amended, particularly in respect of the right of appeal provisions, and because of the circumstances these amendments were dealt with by the Assembly as a matter of urgency. The same urgency was not required in respect of the other 2 sets of Regulations because no difficulties had been experienced with jurisdictions with which Jersey has Double Taxation Agreements, nor with the USA. However, it is important that there should be consistency between the 3 sets of Regulations. In addition to Projet 13 there is an amendment proposition, also in the name of the Minister for External Relations. The need for this arose because subsequent to the lodging of Projet 13 some technical changes to the wording of the draft Regulations were identified as being necessary to ensure that in referring to the leave to apply for judicial review the wording was consistent with wording used elsewhere. The key change to the 2010 Regulations in matching the amendments to the 2008 Regulations is in replacing the existing ability to appeal to the Court, and subsequently to the Court of Appeal, with an application for leave to apply for judicial review. No requests for information have been received to date from D.T.A. (Double Taxation Agreement) partners. D.T.A.s include an article on exchange of tax information, which is to the same standard as the exchange of tax information under T.I.E.A.s (Tax Information Exchange Agreement) so for the 2006 Regulations covering the U.S.A. (United States of America) the draft Regulations provide for their repeal in their entirety and for the U.S.A. to be added to the list of jurisdictions included in the schedule attached to the 2008 Regulations. With the making of the proposed Regulations the U.S.A. will be covered by the 2008 Regulations as amended. This will simplify the provisions relating to the exchange of tax information so that there will be one set of Regulations dealing with requests received under a T.I.E.A. and one set of Regulations relating to requests received under a Double Taxation Agreement. So I move the principles to the Regulations.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles to the Regulations?

7.1.1 Deputy J.H. Young:

Could I ask a question of the proposer? Obviously I can see the entire purpose of this is to make sure as far as possible our statutory regime does not allow anybody to use Jersey as a hiding place for illegal tax avoidance. But I do read in an Article on page 12, it sets down there circumstances in which - as I understood this to be saying - if a notice is served on one of these overseas jurisdictions, which I include the U.S.A., about the provision of notice, is that there are circumstances when the taxpayer cannot be informed about that, and that seems to be listed in Regulation 3(5)(e). That troubled me a little bit because obviously one reads all about these extradition proceedings when people get taken off to the U.S.A. to face offences, and there seems to be some situations where they are not allowed to see the evidence against them. Obviously that is in a question of a very different context but here we have got financial services rules. Obviously I may have misunderstood this provision here but please in summing-up could the Minister please explain just a little bit more to help me understand what we are doing here and make sure this does not go too far.

7.1.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Slightly on the lines of Deputy Young, and I am a bit confused. This is an issue that may come up in the details but there are references to the fact where we cannot provide a name we will provide a number. The whole intention of getting away from the secrecy and everything is somehow all confused and I would be obliged if the proposer could identify why are we talking about people giving account numbers rather than talking about people or corporate entities in the first place?

[15:30]

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

If no other Member wishes to speak I call on the Minister to reply.

7.1.3 Senator P.M. Bailhache:

I will deal with both those points now, although they seem to me to be relevant to the detail of the Regulations rather than to the principles, but dealing with Deputy Young’s point first. There are occasions when an inquiry is taking place and it is the same as a matter of fact in a criminal investigation too where the Tax Authority, if it is not sure that any offence has been committed it thinks that something might be wrong but it is not sure that an offence has been committed or that some tax evasion is taking place, might not wish the taxpayer to be aware of the inquiries that were being carried out because if the taxpayer were aware it would, in effect, tip him off and therefore enable him to move money from Jersey to some other jurisdiction and then the country making a tax investigation would be left with the fact that information might not be satisfactorily sufficient in Jersey and you would have to pursue other inquiries in other place. Some countries are more insistent than others about the notification or non-notification of a taxpayer when a request for information is being made but with the guidance issued by the O.E.C.D. (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) I think I am right in saying that the importance of confidentiality, so far as the inquiries are concerned, is regarded as important, and that it is necessary sometimes to obtain the consent of the country which is carrying out the tax inquiries to notify the taxpayer that the inquiries are taking place. So nothing changes in the Regulations which are before the Assembly in that respect. Deputy Le Hérissier asked about numbers and names. Occasionally when a country is carrying out a tax investigation it does not know the name of the account holder. It suspects that a particular individual into whose affairs it is carrying out an investigation may have an account in Jersey and he wishes to have information about that account, but the only information it has is the bank account number itself. So it cannot notify the Comptroller in Jersey of the name of the account holder but it can identify the account itself, and this is generally regarded in practise as sufficient to ensure that this is not a fishing expedition where the Tax Authority is going on a trawl at large and does in fact know that there is a genuine inquiry under way.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Can I ask for clarification? I am a bit confused. I thought quite rightly in the trumpeted moves to transparency and the move away from opaqueness that we were getting away from that. I still do not understand it. If a foreign jurisdiction asks for information or has reservations about how a person is conducting their tax affairs, is a name given to the Jersey authorities and if not how on earth do we know who we are investigating? I just cannot work it out.

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

I am sorry if my explanation was not sufficiently clear but I thought I had dealt with it.