As Members know, this is a special sitting to say farewell to His Excellency and Lady Ridgway after what all agree, I think, has been an outstandingly successful term of office. His Excellency has been a regular attendee at meetings of the States and so I am particularly delighted to welcome His Excellency and Lady Ridgway to the Assembly today. [Approbation] I now invite the Chief Minister to address the Assembly.

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

It is my task today, and it is both an honour and a pleasure, to express the warm appreciation of Members for the 5 years of dedicated service given to Jersey by the Lieutenant Governor, His Excellency Lieutenant-General Andrew Ridgway, and to wish both His Excellency and Lady Ridgway well as they leave us today. Five years ago, when the previous Governor, Sir John Cheshire and his wife were leaving, many of us were of the opinion that they would be a hard act to follow. Today, as we bid farewell to Sir Andrew and Lady Ridgway, I can only say that in my view, they have risen to that challenge and succeeded in full measure. [Approbation] From time to time, some of us have a sense of frustration and irritation about the way we conduct our proceedings in this Chamber. The regular presence of His Excellency at so many of our sittings displays his strong sense of duty [Laughter] which I am sure is the case. However, what I believe it also demonstrates is a keen interest in Island politics and this reflects his keen interest in every aspect of Island life. Before taking up the post of Lieutenant Governor in Jersey, His Excellency’s career took him to a number of demanding roles in some of the most challenging areas of the world, Northern Island, Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Kuwait and Kosovo. He could be forgiven for thinking the 5 years in Jersey would be something of a rest. [Laughter] However, the energy and commitment shown by His Excellency and Lady Ridgway to their duties must surely have made their stay as active as many of those postings around the globe. Perhaps life at Government House may be a little less hazardous than the time he spent commanding U.N. (United Nations) Forces in Central Bosnia Herzegovina, but I would suggest it has been equally demanding in other ways. Since arriving in the Island aboard a Royal Navy fishery protection vessel, H.M.S. Tyne in 2006, His Excellency and Lady Ridgway have between them taken on the patronage of 88 different organisations. His Excellency has worked with the aid of a trust to find financial help for numerous charities and organisations, allowing them to expand their activities in ways they would not otherwise have been able to afford. For instance, the Friends of the Glass Church was established under the patronage of Sir Andrew to raise £1 million of that world-renowned building and to ensure its long-term future as an international centre of worship and healing. The funds will be used to complete an ambitious restoration programme which will bring this unique art deco building to its former glory. On a smaller scale, and perhaps closer to my own home patch, when the St. John’s Youth and Community Trust needed to raise the money to build skateboard facilities at the Recreation Centre, Sir Andrew helped that Trust to secure funding. This money contributed to the provision of modern and functional recreation facilities for young people in the Parish of St. John and beyond. In his charity work, His Excellency has tirelessly devoted his own time, as indeed has Lady Ridgway, to finding out where help is needed and then enabling organisations to access the help that they need. I am especially aware of Lady Ridgway’s involvement and commitment to Brighter Futures and, indeed, to the activities at the Bridge as a whole. However, there are many other such examples of their involvement, which I could also mention because there are so many organisations and institutions in which they have taken an interest. I am sure that they have spent much time in the last few months in saying farewell to many of those bodies. However, I am sure that all those bodies would welcome the opportunity for me to express their thanks publicly for all the support that they have received from you, Sir, and Lady Ridgway. There are also a number of activities that they have done quietly and discreetly, and of which most people will be totally unaware but for all those whose lives have been touched and supported, may I, on their behalf, express their thanks. His Excellency has not been content merely to follow in his predecessor’s footsteps. He has ploughed his own furrow and will certainly leave his mark, not least for introducing a new sport to the Island. In 2006, His Excellency challenged Islanders to produce a bobsleigh team. You may think that as we have a temperate climate, this may be a step too far but Jamaica has already paved the way for flat, non-icy countries to take part in that sport. [Laughter] The fact that Jersey had little ice and fewer mountains represented no barrier. His Excellency saw the enthusiasm with which Jersey people embrace every sport they tackle and he knew that there was potential. All you need, he told us, are people with the right attributes and he would organise the rest and he did. He has fixed it and now we have a fully fledged bobsleigh team, 2 of whose members were selected last year to represent Great Britain, both on the European Cup Circuit and the Junior World Championships and there are hopes that an Islander might even be selected to represent Great Britain in the next Winter Olympics. During his time in Jersey, His Excellency has also established a Jersey Army Cadet Force, raised more than £175,000 with the Swimarathon team and dedicated time and effort on a personal environmental project, turning a swamp area in the grounds of Government House into a small lake which is now home to fish, ducks and other birds. I should personally like to commend him particularly for his tenacity in promoting the Army Cadet Force. The results were there for all to see at the Armed Forces Day last Saturday. Of course, one of the important tasks performed by the Lieutenant Governor is opening Government House to welcome foreign ambassadors, dignitaries, representatives of various organisations and members of the public. This he has done, with the loyal support of Lady Ridgway, with enthusiasm and good humour. In the last 5 years, His Excellency and Lady Ridgway have entertained as guests the Princess Royal who has stayed there 5 times, as well as the Earl and Countess of Wessex, the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent. They have hosted visiting Ambassadors, High Commissioners and dignitaries across the world from Canada to China and numerous European countries. Sir Andrew’s previous roles with the Ministry of Justice have provided Ministers, and me in particular, with an insight into the workings of the department which have been invaluable in developing a good working relationship with the U.K. (United Kingdom) Government that has responsibility for the Crown Dependencies. Earlier this week, I was asked by Lord Bach, who had responsibility for the Crown Dependencies in the last Government, to send his best wishes in this retirement week. When I was a young man, even when I was a reasonably young States Member, the Lieutenant Governor was a much more remote figure and Government House was regarded, rightly or wrongly, as hallowed turf reserved for the great and the good. Sir Andrew and Lady Ridgway have continued the excellent traditions established by some of their recent predecessors of interacting much more with all sections of the people of Jersey and again have set new standards of inclusiveness in the way that this has been achieved. Finally, I would like to add my personal thanks to His Excellency and Lady Ridgway and the team at Government House for their tremendous hospitality, be that at official dinners or the regular working breakfast, which he and I shared. I shall particularly remember the Annual Christmas Carol evenings with different choirs lining the stairs of Government House. His Excellency and Lady Ridgway have developed many friendships in the last 5 years, many of which, I am sure, will be sustained after they return to their home in Devon. These friendships have been made through their official connections with many different sections of the community and also with members of the public who appreciated the genuine interest they have shown in so many aspects of Island life.

[9:45]

I am sure I speak for all in the House and throughout the Island when I say how pleased we were to hear of the recent announcement in the Queen’s Birthday Honours of his knighthood, a fitting conclusion to his term of office here in Jersey and an honour which many of us would say was long overdue. [Approbation] I am sure Members will all join me in wishing Sir Andrew and Lady Ridgway all the very best in their next ventures. I hope they will remember their time here with fondness, as I am sure we will remember their contribution to Island life. Sir, this Island is proud of its traditions and I should like to conclude by asking Members to show their appreciation to His Excellency and Lady Ridgway in our traditional manner. [Approbation]

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much, Chief Minister. His Excellency has sat through many long debates and has had to hold his tongue. Now is His Excellency’s opportunity. [Laughter] I invite His Excellency to address the Assembly.

His Excellency, the Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant-General A.P. Ridgway:

Mr. Bailiff, thank you. May I thank you especially for convening this Special Sitting of the States Assembly. It is a great honour for me to be given this opportunity to address the Assembly and it is very much appreciated. I am, however, conscious that you have been sitting for much of the past 2 weeks debating the Island Plan and, indeed, will be continuing to debate the North of Town Masterplan after I have finished so I will therefore be brief. [Laughter] But if you will permit me, after a 5-year wait for this opportunity, not too brief. [Laughter] It has been said that a week is a long time in politics. This may well be true but as I look around the Assembly this morning, one thing is very certain and that is that 5 years in politics in Jersey certainly is a very long time. On 15th June 2006, my welcome address in the Assembly was given by Senator Syvret. Of the 10 newly appointed Ministers of the day, only one, Senator Cohen, remains in the post held at that time and even his title has changed. Many of the original States Members have moved on and been replaced by a new crop and the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff, Attorney General and Solicitor General are all new in post. Only the Dean, among the non-elected of the Assembly, provides a measure of stability and if I may, I would like to congratulate him on the quality of his thoughtful interjections at key points in many important debates. [Approbation] If the composition of the Assembly has changed greatly over the past 5 years, so have the challenges to be faced. I note from my first speech that I congratulated the Assembly on the way that it was addressing the significant challenges that it faced at the time rather than ignoring the most difficult issues. I am pleased to say that the States has continued so to do. The range of issues then facing the Island, including diversification of the economy, increasing unemployment, ageing population, protection of the environment, control of population increase and many others, remain just as important today but they have been compounded by the biggest international financial crisis since the 1930s and the requirement to restructure the corporate tax regime which has all put further strain on the Island’s resources. I still believe that it is very much to the credit of this Assembly that these issues have been addressed head-on and, in most cases, workable solutions found. A further challenge for the States in my early years in post was Haut de la Garenne. It very quickly became clear that a number of Islanders had been subjected to appalling abuse over a period of years and that some of the perpetrators of these crimes were still living in the Island and elsewhere. All available efforts should then have been focused on caring for the victims of this abuse and in bringing those responsible to justice. Unfortunately, some individuals in the Island chose to exploit the situation for their own personal political ends and diverted attention to fanciful claims of mass child murder and institutional cover-up. The international media were happy to oblige them and, as a result, it will take decades for Jersey to lose its association with child murder. However, much more important is the way this action diverted attention away from the real priority of caring for the abused and bringing the guilty to justice. [Approbation] There is, I believe, still much to be learned from this episode. While, as I have said, it is much to the credit of the States that it continues to address the many difficult issues that it faces, this is not to suggest for a moment that agreement on the selected courses of action has been forthcoming; far from it. Members of the Assembly will remember the intensity of the debates over everything from waste disposal through public sector wage freezes to G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax). This is entirely proper and, indeed, is democracy in action. However, the intensity of many of the debates and the vociferous public opposition to some of the action has prompted some to question the effectiveness of our political system. While holding the Council of Ministers to account is an important function of this Assembly, and the absolute democratic right of every citizen, it is perhaps worth putting the performance of those charged with fulfilling the functions of government over the years into context. The Island is now emerging from the recession with no debt, with substantial financial reserves, and having been able to support the economy financially through the difficult last few years. This is the consequence of sound financial planning over many years and very few jurisdictions in Europe are in this happy position. It is perhaps also worth reflecting that the community here in Jersey enjoys a broadly similar level of public services in terms of Health, Social Services, Education, Social Security and so on to that of most European nations. There are, of course, some differences here and there but the general level of service is broadly the same. The difference is that most European nations contribute some 50 per cent of their income in taxation, and in some Scandinavian countries the level is over 65 per cent. It does rather put 20 per cent income tax with 5 per cent G.S.T. into context. The Island also benefits enormously from its enduring culture of honorary service and the powerful charitable sector within the economy. Together, these features of Island life make a huge contribution to the wellbeing of the community at large but, despite all this, there has been widespread criticism of our current form of government. I do believe that we should remember that Ministerial government is very new here. It has been in place for less than 6 years. It would be astonishing if it did not warrant some modification at this stage. It, after all, took centuries for the system in London to evolve to its current state. The question of reform of the States is a subject that has attracted lengthy discussions in this Assembly and I have sat through many of them. I do not believe that these debates have always been the Assembly’s finest hour. [Laughter] All too often, we seem to have been preoccupied with relatively minor adjustments to the composition of the Assembly without addressing the really important issues. In military terms, we have been preoccupied with tactical issues while ignoring the strategy. Among the big issues are questions like what is this States Assembly for? Before I arrived in Jersey, I read the Guide to Ministerial Government and I had discussions with the then Bailiff and the then Chief Minister. It seemed entirely clear to me that the States Assembly was the legislature responsible for making laws and holding the Executive to account. However, having spent some time in the Island, it became clear that many members of the population considered the States Assembly to be the Executive. Rather more worrying, having spent some time sitting through debates in the Assembly, it became clear that many States Members also thought that the Assembly was the Executive. Even more worrying still, it rapidly became clear that several of the Ministers also felt unable to make key decisions themselves and felt the need to bring relatively minor issues back to the States for Executive approval. It would seem to me to be vitally important to get the role of the Assembly agreed before addressing its composition. I believe that there is a similar question over the role of Scrutiny. Again, my pre-deployment preparation led me to the view that Scrutiny was required to fill several very important roles. Crucially, these included the detailed review and amendment of draft laws rather in the way that the Committee stage of a Bill at Westminster is prepared for Third Reading and subsequently for passage to the amending Upper Chamber. However, this function appears to have been largely neglected in favour of Scrutiny’s function as the equivalent of Westminster’s Select Committees. Indeed, just to show that I do read these things, I spotted in an edition of Scrutiny Matters the statement that Scrutiny Panels were the direct equivalent of Select Committees. Now, I understand there has even been an initiative to change the name of our Scrutiny Panels to Select Committees. This is all absolutely fine as long as someone is carrying out the vital task of review and amendment of proposed legislation. Now, I have noticed some satisfaction in certain sections of the Assembly that after lengthy debate, decisions were finally taken of reducing the number of Senators in the Assembly and doing away with a separate Senatorial Election Day. I can only observe that it might have been better to identify the future role of the Senator before deciding how many, if any, were needed. [Approbation] It does seem that in the absence of political parties, the Senatorial Election is the only opportunity that the Island-wide population has to let politicians know what policies they want to be followed during the next term. Successful Senators are thus the only Members of this Assembly with any sort of Island-wide popular mandate. Equally, unsuccessful Senatorial candidates know that the policies that they have proposed are not supported by the population at large. One might have hoped that this might have reduced the number of rather futile propositions brought before the Assembly. The Members of this Assembly have, of course, the absolute democratic right to vote for whatever constitutional changes they see fit. It just seems a pity that having decided to establish a Commission to address these issues from top to bottom, certain decisions have been allowed to prejudge the outcome of the review. I could go on and on about the dual role of the Bailiff, the important role of the Connétables in the Assembly and the inequity of some members of the population being able to select 2 or 3 Deputies to represent them where the majority of the population can only have one but I will not. There are clearly many important issues to be addressed and the Review Commission will have an absolutely vital role to play. I would just offer 2 words of counsel. The first is for this Assembly to select the right person to lead the review and, crucially, be sure that it is someone who has a deep understanding of Jersey and secondly, to ensure that the population is fully engaged in the process. This is not a subject for the States Assembly to decide upon behind closed doors but I am sure that I am preaching to the converted. The future composition of the States is not, I believe, the only issue to be addressed. There is also a need to consider some of our working practices and the way business is done. People often report to me that they are frequently disappointed by the quality of the debate in the Assembly. Some States Members have suggested that courses in public speaking should be made available. There may well be some merit in this. However, my own view is that the quality of the debate would be dramatically enhanced if all States Members observe the basic level of common courtesy one to another. [Approbation] I would simply ask that if any Member is about to get to his or her feet and plans to be patronising, derogatory, insulting or condescending, then please stay seated and think again. Such behaviour goes down very badly with the public at large. It demeans the individual, it demeans the States as a whole, and it demeans the whole political process in the Island. It was interesting a couple of years ago that following a particularly vitriolic debate in the Assembly, the children of one of our primary schools sent around some basic rules to be adopted by States Members. I kept mine in my States folder. It says: “Do listen; do be kind; do be honest; do be gentle; do look after property; and do work hard” and it was signed by Patrick. Out of the mouths of babes.

[10:00]

I would like to finish, Mr. Bailiff, by offering some words of thanks, firstly, to the States Members for allowing me to sit in on their debates over the past 5 years and to speak on this occasion. I have found the debates invariably interesting and stimulating and they have provided me with a most valuable insight into political thinking within the Island. Secondly, to my staff from Government House. I am pleased that they have been able to attend today’s sitting and are up in the gallery now. I would like to pay a special tribute to Charles Woodrow and the team in the office, the team in the House and in the grounds. They have provided us with unparalleled support and I cannot begin to imagine how we would have managed without them. Thank you. [Approbation] I would like to make a special mention of Peter Lewin, the Receiver General. He is responsible for managing the Crown Estate in the Island and he has worked tirelessly behind the scenes to increase the value of the Estate. The Crown Estate provides a range of benefits to the Island and, for example, recently purchased a unique 15th century Edward IV Royal Charter, which now resides in the Jersey Archive. The document is dated 10th March 1469 and refers to a period of French occupation of the Island from 1461 to 1468. It would have been tragic if such an important document had been lost to the Island for ever. But in addition to this sort of activity, during my time in office, we have handed over to the States Treasurer the income from the Crown Estate of some £1.5 million which should make everyone realise what a cost-effective operation Government House really is. [Approbation] Next I would like publicly to pay tribute to my wife, Valerie. She could not have supported me better throughout my time in office, as well as throughout my military career. This appointment is definitely a team effort and I would like to think that we work well together for the benefit of the community. I am enormously grateful to her for everything that she has done. She now embarks upon a new career as a lady of leisure and pleasure [Laughter] [Approbation] while I work relentlessly to keep her in the style to which she has become accustomed! [Laughter] Finally, I would like to offer our most sincere thanks to the community in Jersey. Right from the start, we could not have been made more welcome. We have been made to feel part of the community throughout our stay. We have made many friends here and very much look forward, after a decent interval to let our successors settle in, to returning to this beautiful Island. We will only be 100 miles away across the sea and, as Sadie would have said, I suspect that our hearts will “regularly turn in longing to thee” and the memories you awaken will certainly be bright. We will never forget our time in beautiful Jersey, a true gem of the sea. [Approbation]

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much, your Excellency. That concludes this Special Sitting I invite Members, after we rise, to make their way into the Royal Square where His Excellency and Lady Ridgway will depart in due course and the Assembly will convene at 11.00 a.m. Very well, the Sitting is adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT

[11:00]

The Bailiff:

I think for the sake of good order, the most appropriate way of proceeding is that we will have one roll call now because some Members came back for the Special Sitting but have now had to go again. We will not have prayers again and then we will proceed. Very well, I invite the Greffier to call the roll.

The Roll was called.

The Bailiff:

Before returning to the debate, the Minister for Treasury and Resources has given notice he would like to make a statement. It seems to me convenient that we deal with this at the beginning of the Assembly so I invite the Minister to make a statement.

STATEMENT ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY

1. Statement by the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the acquisition of Lime Grove House

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

I wish to inform Members that I presented a report under Standing Order 168 notifying the Assembly of the intention to purchase Lime Grove House in Green Street for use by the States of Jersey Police. This is an important and significant acquisition and I wanted to make a statement to set out the background and overall reasoning and to provide Members with the opportunity to question me. Members will be aware that the project to relocate the States of Jersey Police has a long history. Work began in the 1990s with plans for a new facility on the Esplanade Car Park site. Since then the project has been through much iteration, including 2 feasibility studies, the evaluation of more than 20 sites and consideration of a scheme on the Summerland site. The Assembly has already voted a total of £18.1 million to the Police Capital Project with further allocations proposed within the Capital Programme of £2 million in 2012, £1 million in 2013 and £1 million in 2014. The need to relocate both the operational and administrative sections of the police has now become critical. In addition to having use of buildings that far exceeded their economic life, with significant maintenance problems, existing facilities do not meet Home Office guidelines and are not suitable for a modern police service. Considerable work has been done to ensure that Lime Grove House meets the needs of the States of Jersey Police. The building will accommodate around 180 office-based staff, including the Criminal Justice Unit, C.I.D., (Crime Investigation Department), Joint Financial Crimes Unit, Scenes of Crimes Unit, Special Branch, Control Room, and Directorate. Through acquiring a modern, open-plan building and by implementing modern office standards, we will achieve real efficiencies in the use of the space. The proposed acquisition of Lime Grove House forms a 2-part solution. Firstly, Lime Grove House will accommodate all office-based staff currently based on the Summerland and Rouge Bouillon sites. The second phase will be the demolition of the old school building and the refurbishment of the remaining facilities on Rouge Bouillon site to create a small operational police station, including a custody suite. In approving this first phase, Members should be aware that I have taken some convincing that this is the right and the best value option for the States of Jersey. The proposed acquisition has been the subject of lengthy negotiations and the agreed price is supported by independent valuations and the proposals form part of the most beneficial options for meeting the needs of the States of Jersey Police. Members can be reassured that the Treasury has carried out a thorough evaluation of all available options, including a full financial appraisal. Through a combination of moving to modern office accommodation and vacating inadequate, poorly utilised space, this project will reduce floor space by up to 30,000 square feet, free up the Summerland site for housing, allow implementation of modern office space standards and enable the States of Jersey Police to improve its working methods. I am now convinced that Lime Grove House forms the central part of an option which represents the least development costs, enables police requirements to be met quickly, and frees up the Summerland site for future housing, something which we have, of course, been debating in the Island Plan over the past few days. This option has the full support of the Minister for Home Affairs and the States of Jersey Police. As with normal arrangements under Standing Order 168, the commercial details of the proposed acquisition, including the agreed price, must remain confidential until the transaction has been completed. Members should be aware that considerable work has been undertaken to ensure that these arrangements do represent value for money. This project represents the first step in a major office rationalisation strategy which is designed to deliver greater efficiency in the occupation of States buildings, reduce the number of sites occupied and improve collaboration between departments. My Assistant Minister hopes to continue progress with the other phases of the strategy over the next 6 months. Finally, I would like to thank the Minister for Home Affairs and his team at the States of Jersey Police, in particular the Chief and Deputy Chief of Police, not only for their patience, but for their considerable support in bringing this project to a successful conclusion. I would also like to thank the Constable of St. Peter who, in his role as Assistant Minister with responsibility for property, has provided me with wholehearted support in bringing this matter to a conclusion. I must also recognise the role played by the Acting Chief Executive and Assistant Chief Executive in bringing this matter to a conclusion along with, of course, the support provided by Jersey Property Holdings. After many years of living in inadequate and inappropriate accommodation, I look forward to welcoming the States of Jersey Police into their new home.

The Bailiff:

Very well. So Members have an opportunity to ask questions.

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

While I welcome this letting of an empty building on an important site and the new home to the States Police, would the Minister reconfirm to the Assembly that he supports, in principle, that the States should pay rates on their properties? Does he recognise that this move will lead to a loss of about £5,000 per annum to St. Helier ratepayers and the housing that he talks about will, of course, not produce any rates for a considerable period of time? Under those circumstances, would he be willing to make sure that Treasury continues to remit that relatively modest sum of money to the Parish in the meantime?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

The Constable has risen on a number of occasions in the last week wearing almost 2 different hats. On the one side, he wants us to save money; on the other hand, he wants to not see development apparently now on Esplanade Square. I want the Parish to maximise their rates value by exciting commercial development across town. There is an issue of the States paying rates but that also must be a burden shared by all taxpayers and no doubt will be the subject of future debates in this Assembly. He knows my own position is we have to find the money, we have to find the solution, but it has to be fair to all Parishes as well.

1.1.2 The Connétable of St. Helier:

Can I just follow up; I did not really get an answer. I did ask the Minister for Treasury and Resources whether he was willing, in the short term, to make sure that the Parish did not suffer a loss of about £5,000 from the letting of this building to the States body.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am not prepared to confirm that at this moment. I need to take advice in relation to the full liability and the other consequential benefits that the releasing of other land will have to the Parish.

1.1.3 Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:

Three little sub-questions. The first one is: there is reference to a reduction in office space by 30,000. What is the gross floor area of the new building? In relation to provision of official parking for States of Jersey Police and their officers and staff, how will that impinge on Green Street Car Park? How is he proposing to relate the occupation of this building by the States of Jersey Police with the residential units adjoining it?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I think that I will send a note, if I may, about the actual precise square footages of the different sites because I probably cannot do justice within 10 minutes of it but I will give the Deputy, if I may, the full breakdown. Regarding the parking, an arrangement is being made in order to allow the States of Jersey Police special access to the underground parking on Lime Grove House which meets all of their security requirements, and I cannot remember the third question, I am sorry.

Deputy S. Power:

The residential units.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I understand that the Minister for Home Affairs and his team and the Deputy Police Chief, who has done an enormous amount of work on this, is entirely satisfied that the residential units next to an office space police station is entirely appropriate.

1.1.4 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:

Can the Minister tell us what are the plans for the Rouge Bouillon site and what is the extent of the footprint for the much smaller police station that will be developed on that site? Given it will be smaller, what is happening to the rest of the site and the fire service?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

A very good question. First of all, the real prize in this, which is the reason why I have been convinced, is that the Summerland site currently occupied by the States of Jersey Police in frankly terrible accommodation is going to be available to deployment for housing and, I very much hope, affordable housing. There is a related transaction in relation to this to secure the whole of that site. In terms of the Rouge Bouillon site, the old St. Helier Girls’ School is going to be vacated and we are looking at the ambulance station and the whole of that site about having a unified ambulance, fire service and operational police station, and that is going to be a subject of a further rationalisation, and I hope releasing some land by efficient use of all the blue light services together, and that is going to be funded by the subsequent capital allocations that this Assembly will consider, one of which is in the Business Plan.

1.1.5 Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:

The Minister tells us in his statement that he has taken some convincing that this is right and best value option for the States of Jersey. Without breaking any confidences under Standing Order 168, would the Minister be able to assure the House that indeed the acquisition price, whatever it is, does not include a substantial premium over and above what independent valuations have arrived at?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

That is a very good question. I have taken some convincing and I have been, as Members would expect, pretty difficult in relation to being convinced of the acquisition of a piece of land by the States when we have so much. I have been convinced that the purchase price does represent value for money. It was supported by valuations and there has been intense dialogue over the last few months to improve upon the overall package that we have now reached. I am satisfied that this represents an appropriate value. I have been very difficult with Property Holdings in relation to the evaluation method in relation to this site and I am happy to brief any Member confidentially on my reasoning and now my justification for being satisfied. No, there is not a premium in relation to the issue and I am satisfied that red book valuations have been carried out, but I have been extremely difficult and I am grateful for the Minister for Home Affairs bearing with me while I have been difficult but achieving value for money.

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

So am I to understand from what the Senator says is that the reason for it taking so long and for the Police Department to have been working in inadequate and inappropriate accommodation is because the Minister has needed to be convinced, question number one, and 2 …

The Bailiff:

Well, just one question, Deputy, because a lot of Members want to ask questions.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

If I may say, I think that the police have been poorly treated by the central departments responsible for bringing capital projects to a conclusion.

[11:15]

This has taken far too long. There were original problems with quite frankly crazy proposals for police stations with bomb blast walls on the Esplanade but we have moved on from that and it is up to the corporate department of Property Holdings to serve the interests of departments in an efficient way, in a timely way, to deal with their issues. We are now making significant progress on doing that. I have taken a few months to convince but we have improved the overall package. We now have an implementable package and I look forward to the States of Jersey Police being in this building within 12 months in order to deliver the efficiencies which the Minister is also asked to do in terms of his police force.

1.1.7 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

The Minister said he had taken some convincing that this was the right and best value option for the States. What were the doubts that he had that this was the right and best value for the States?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

The original package, which had a whole series of options in it including a whole series of other consequential moves involving other States properties, was not, frankly, going to be able to be possible. A plan that could be implemented, which would not have cost overruns, was properly planned and appropriate prices for the various different constituent part of phase 1.

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

This, on the face of it, is a good solution. I just wanted to ask about whether the Minister can elaborate on any possible problems with operating from 2 sites. We are always told that it is good to operate from one site, so I would just like clarification that this issue is resolved and a little explanation what the issues might be.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am conferring with my friend, the Minister for Home Affairs, because we regard this almost as a common statement, as a common policy. The Minister advises me that his staff are operating out of 5 sites at the moment and it is their preferred option to be operating out of a back-office office site and a front-office operational police station, which will be at Rouge Bouillon ... hopefully at Rouge Bouillon. We will look at the details of that with their custody suite. This is the police’s preferred option and is going to accrue significant operational efficiencies as a result of operating out of 2 sites strategically located in town.

1.1.9 Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:

Finally, common sense prevails, congratulations. The reduction of 30,000 square feet I can understand, but can we make sure that we have looked at the long term and we are not going to want to hive off departments as legal requirements or policing requirements progress over periods of time? This is essential. Designing out crime also applies to a police station.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I have full confidence in the new Police Chief and his Deputy under the oversight of the Minister in terms of making sure that there is a long-term solution, but we have got more work to do on the Rouge Bouillon side and the custody suite and the operational side and that is phase 2 that we are going to turn our considerable attention to now.

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

I would like to congratulate the Ministers and the Chief of Police who, in my opinion, is doing a wonderful job. I would just like to ask, if I might, the Minister in response to this opportunity to question him on such an important issue. I, for example, would like to suggest at this stage that rationalisation of more parking be made at Green Street, which would be much more cost effective than Snow Hill car park to accommodate these cars. But given His Excellency’s speech this morning and given these issues have been around for some time, what exactly is the role of this Assembly and what is the role of the Executive? How does Scrutiny impart its view, given this extensive …

The Bailiff:

Deputy, I am sorry, these are no doubt very important questions but I think not for questions in relation to this particular matter.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Succinctly, Sir, does he not think that if we do have a role in questioning this that perhaps it might command a proposition to this Assembly or is it just something that has been decided upon behind the scenes?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

If I may answer, this Assembly’s job is to hold me accountable for the decisions that I am recommending. Standing Order 168 sets out an arrangement whereby I notify Members or normally the Assistant Minister, but because of the scale of the transaction, this is being done together, notify Members of the transaction. Members have 15 working days in order to consider it and then I undertake, if there was a proposition to block it - I hope there is not going to be - then I would effectively not instruct officers to proceed with the acquisition. I am making a statement to give Members the opportunity of holding me to account and that is the appropriate role, I think. I asked leave of you, Sir, to make a statement and I thought that was the right way and the right balance of explaining, of holding me to account and, of course, I stand available with the Minister to undertake further answers in the next 15 working days. I would say that I am happy to answer any Member’s questions in relation to this matter by email or meeting with a group of Members with the Minister in order to deal with any questions Members may have.

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

2. North St. Helier Masterplan (P.73/2011): third amendment (P.72/3011 Amd.(3)) - paragraph 3 - resumption

The Bailiff:

Very well. Then now we return to the debate on the Masterplan and, in particular, the amendment lodged by the Deputy of St. Mary concerning the Jersey College for Girls site and the next speaker I have seen is Deputy Southern.

2.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

Before we resume this debate, I would like to say a few words and then, with the permission of the Assembly, withdraw this, so I think if you would like me to speak first on that basis.

The Bailiff:

Very well, yes. I suspect Members will be more than happy to accommodate you, Deputy.

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Obviously, I have thought about this overnight. I have sensed the gist of all the speeches so far. I think one of the main prods, if you like, to bringing this amendment was in the … well, it cannot have been, because it is the comments of the Minister for Treasury and Resources. Nevertheless, there is an issue though and it has been covered in the debate where he says in his comments: “The site has been approved for disposal by the States Assembly. The resulting capital receipt will support the current and future capital investment programme.” Now, we have heard, at several junctures in the debate, a commitment to using this site for social rented or affordable housing or certainly for the benefit from the site to go in that direction. So that is one aspect of the commitments that we have heard in the debate and I learned from one of the speakers, who is yet to speak, if you like, that there was a point made about how long this has taken, how long it has taken to get the J.C.G. (Jersey College for Girls) site up and running which again, of course, led indirectly to my amendment. But he pointed out that, in fact, (a) sorting out all the problems inherent in the site, particularly the listing and so on and (b) making sure that we got maximum value because if we had rushed ahead with this, we might have sold this site for £1.7 million, that sometimes festina lente, make haste slowly, is better. I think what we are faced with now does seem to be a good solution and so I withdraw this amendment with the leave of the House.

The Bailiff:

Does the Assembly agree to give the Deputy of St. Mary leave to withdraw the amendment?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

A number of Members have raised the issue of the listing on the building and I just thought I would make a very brief comment on that.

The Bailiff:

Well, the matter has been withdrawn now. Could you not circulate that perhaps to Members afterwards?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I could do so, thank you.

2.2 North St. Helier Masterplan (P.73/2011): third amendment (P.72/3011 Amd.(3)) - paragraph 5

The Bailiff:

Very well. So then we move to the next amendment which is paragraph 5 of the 3rd amendment lodged by the Deputy of St. Mary. I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Third amendment, paragraph 5 - After the words “an agreed development framework.” insert the words “To deliver the Masterplan, the Minister shall, in consultation with the Constable of St. Helier and the Deputies of all the affected districts, set up a body or bodies of officers and politicians to steer the process, and this body or bodies shall engage in genuine consultation with residents of the area of the Masterplan to establish the detailed priorities for improvements to the public realm, and for such other improvements that the consultation process comes up with, to be funded from the funding streams in mentioned in paragraph 4, and from other funding which may be made available.”

The Bailiff:

Now, Minister, will you be accepting this amendment?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I will be accepting it.

The Bailiff:

Very well, Deputy of St. Mary. Perhaps you could propose this amendment which is to be accepted?

2.2.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I thank the Minister for accepting this. I note that in his comments, he says more or less this is good practice and we do this anyway. I think that is a very important issue. I re-read my copy of EDAW recently, the study in St. Helier in, I think, 2007 and probably consultation is mentioned twice in the whole document. I am very concerned, and in the Hopkins Report before us today, the mechanism of how it will be decided what the priorities are, which public realm improvements will happen and so on, who will decide again is not set out. So that is why this amendment suggests this approach with politicians or officers and then also the full involvement of the community. I do suggest a focus on residents’ car parking, which an obvious place that residents should be involved in those decisions and in working out innovative solutions, as I have suggested in other speeches. I do think this is important; that the community is in the driving seat, the community is really listened to about what happens in their area where they live. I list some consultation techniques and I do not think these have been used. I have never heard of a Planning for Real Conference or Community Planning Forum Conference being held in this area and that is the way I think that we should go. That was the intention of this amendment and I hope that the Minister is accepting the amendment in that spirit.

The Bailiff:

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment? Very well. All those in favour of adopting the amendment, kindly show? Those against? The amendment is adopted.

2.3 North St. Helier Masterplan (P.73/2011) - as amended

The Bailiff:

So that completes the amendments to the proposition of the Minister and therefore we return to the debate upon the proposition to approve the Masterplan. Does any Member wish to speak?

2.3.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:

I will be brief because I have been perhaps wrongly criticising some Members for being prolix. I just want to, if I may, set the record straight because I think the Masterplan document, in its latest version, P.73 of this year, rewrites history and I think that should not be left on Hansard and I would like just to correct the rewriting of history because I think these things matter. I want to take the Assembly back 3 years when we had, thanks to Deputy Southern’s intervention, secured the funding for the Millennium Town Park. We had a problem with parking and it was to find a solution to the parking problem that the Minister proposed doing a Masterplan and looking at other sites in the area. It was supposed to take, I think, 3 months. It took the best part of 2 and a half years. Now, I am not going to complain about that because I think the net result is positive and it is good and it is going to be good for town, but I do think it is important to recognise that what was seen as a short-term solution to solving a parking problem and probably which did not solve the problem - well, it will eventually but it has not yet, we have at least got that parking on Ann Court which is very useful in the short term and we have had a lot of debate about parking - but let us not rewrite history. When I look at the introduction to this document on page 3 and it says: “Since 1995, there have been repeated calls for a town park”, let us give credit where it is due. It was then Deputy Stuart Syvret, who was, I think, one of the people who came up with the idea of the Millennium Town Park. Let us put his name on the record. Let us put Deputy Southern’s name on the record for getting that crucial funding which allowed the park to get delivered. I think the opening paragraphs... [Aside]

Deputy S. Power:

And Senator Maclean!

The Connétable of St. Helier:

I am sorry; I left out the famous ring-binder. [Laughter] But these opening paragraphs, let me just pick out a couple of examples. The second paragraph says that all of these previous schemes failed to address fundamental principles about how the new park will be stitched into the existing fabric. Not true. That stitching in was part of the previous Island Plan and it is ironic that we have now lost one of the key routes through to Belmont Road because nobody, despite 10 years of talking about it, purchased the property and that is still something which is waiting to happen. Paragraph 3: “The Masterplan is a first attempt to put the new park into its proper urban context.” Not true. The Millennium Town Park has been part of our strategic planning for St. Helier for more than a dozen years. Later on, there is the computation of open space and it says on page 6: “The Masterplan seeks to deliver over 9 vergées of new public open space.” Not true. The town park, which this Assembly has on many occasions approved, delivers 7 vergées of those 9. Belmont Gardens, of course, is currently a very important car park for the market traders and I have not been asked to take the matter to a Parish Assembly to take that away from them. That is down here as public space and the site opposite the old fire station is a very important car park administered by the Parish of St. Helier. I have not been asked to call a Parish Assembly to turn that into open space. So it is not true to say that the Masterplan has delivered all this open space. What the Masterplan has done is the job of master planning and that is important.

[11:30]

I see the Minister for Treasury and Resources is looking irritated. I simply want to get the history correct. The Masterplan has a role to play. It is going to guide our planning in the future but it is not the Masterplan or, indeed, Hopkins that has given us the town park. It is the actions of politicians and, more importantly, it is the hard work of the community that has delivered the town park, the signatures and the hard work of the Millennium Town Park Group which continues to this day to create a park that will meet the aspirations of the community. So while I welcome the Masterplan, I do not think that the Minister should be seeking to give credit to this process when, in fact, the credit should be given elsewhere and that is the only point I want to make.

2.3.2 Senator A. Breckon:

I think that the Minister for Planning and Environment made reference to the Le Seulleur building in his introduction, and I would just like to make reference to that because I was involved with Social Security and Health and somebody else and this is an example of us making a real mess of a property transaction. There needs to be community facility and it is probably full of pigeons. The other thing, this proposition was lodged before, towards the back end of last year, and then withdrawn and it has taken a great deal of time. With other Members, I have been to a number of presentations of people who have property in the area who have expressed a wish and have already committed some time and effort and are willing to put in a great deal of money. I am thinking of the Ann Street building site and Le Masuriers and round about that in the public area, and they have put a great deal of time and effort in. Now, whether Members agree with everything is another matter but the fact is they have gone to that and it is their money and, in the current state of the economy, we should be encouraging this to regenerate a part of town that certainly needs it. So in that respect, I hope this debate will give perhaps some confidence and a signal to those people and others that things will happen and this tired part of town will be regenerated. I know the Odeon is an issue but it is something that the Minister has said something and then he has also said something else so hopefully if not now then in the future, there will be an indication of what may happen. I can see Deputy Lewis looking at me. He has not got a torch on me but he is looking at me and I know he had an interest in that but, having said that, if it is just going to stand and fall to bits like the Le Seulleur building, then that is not acceptable either if people are expected to invest around it so that is something that needs to be cleared up. Finally, in saying my few words, I would also like to recognise again, through the Minister for Planning and Environment and the department and the advisers they have had, the tremendous amount of work that has been put in and have produced booklets through presentations and things like that and made this understandable but it needs now ... hopefully after this debate there will be some confidence with the Minister for Planning and Environment, the department, and those who wish to invest to get on and do something because round the town park. I believe these things can happen and it will regenerate the area and it is much needed.

2.3.3 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

It is interesting this week if we look back from the start of the Island Plan to what will be the end of the debate on this session, we will see a lot of things have emerged as we have conducted the business, not only a number of amendments that have been introduced by the Minister on the fly to accommodate issues, rightly so, but also we have seen emergence of some significant statements from the Executive in relation to the re-housing of the States of Jersey Police. Now, obviously, the overall plan of town, as part of a masterplan, has to take into account some of the arguments and you do try to wrestle them down. In my mind a minute ago, I was trying to grasp - because I do believe it is a good move to Lime Grove - but I was trying to wrestle down the argument in the back of my mind that was being made yesterday that we need officers not on the ring-road but within the heart of town. I managed to do that by thinking about it is not such a far walk to the north end of Colomberie, which is my district which needs revitalisation, so 180 more people there conducting their work and their business is going to be great. If that frees up that part of town, it will generate business and it will be a great thing. The reason why I am mentioning this is because I think it is linked to some of the parking issues that are significant in relation to the whole of this plan and also working into the Esplanade, which I will not go into, but in relation to this plan we have had discussions … I was criticised for not approving a housing development during the Town Hall within St. Helier but yet prepared to bring one at field 1248 and how was it possible that I could say no to a housing development for social housing? The one I said no to, as it turned out when I questioned the criticiser, was the massive car park proposed for Ann Court with a few apartments stuck in the back end of it, which was going to obliterate the townscape and obliterate the quality of life that people would have had but it would not have been living accommodation. It would have been a big, massive car park as we see in the U.K. We had Laura Storey present those images for us to look at, which Hopkins used to demonstrate how ugly and obscene that would have been so I am very glad that I did not support that and I am very glad that we have taken on board Deputy Martin’s proposals, and those have been supported by the Minister. But let us think about the opportunities that now represent themselves because we have been told that accommodation can be built there and we do not need to worry about the relocating of States offices on that site and there is a caveat. I wanted to try to address this to the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Minister for Planning and Environment, so I will try to put this across. There is a bit in there that Ann Court should only be done if we cannot find the parking elsewhere within town, and that was something to do with the Deputy of St. Mary’s proposal. Yet this morning we are talking about relocating 180 people from just up the road, which obviously will free up a significant number of car parking spaces. I do think and I have spoken to and congratulate the Constable of St. Peter who I think has been instrumental in helping the Minister for Treasury and Resources in this regard in considering building up the back of Green Street to accommodate those vehicles down there on the open space that exists. It could be done sympathetically. It certainly can be done according to the Minister for Transport and Technical Services much more cost effectively than a Snow Hill car park scheme and it could also lead to a reduction of cars in and around these areas of town and it might help us alleviate the pressure that is bearing upon our considerations with Ann Court. So if we do the thinking in the round and we support what the Minister for Treasury and Resources is doing in relation to Lime Grove, then we are going to free up a significant amount of car parking. I would just like to touch upon car parking in relation to the underground issues at the town park because when the town park was coming, and I would also like to commend the Constable of St. Helier for his work, he pulled me on to the Town Park Steering Group, I think, in 1997 or something like that, with former Deputy Bridge and we had many hours over at his School of English across the Square here trying to put together these ideas. So it is Constable Crowcroft as well that needs to be recognised, the Constable of St. Helier and his sterling commitment to this town park. One of the issues we were told in relation to the underground car parking was that there were going to be significant costs incurred if we dug down into the car park, and those were predominantly based around the fact that the car park itself was built upon a watercourse. Not only was there soil to be remediated but there was a lot of water to be considered. Much to my surprise, when I went on top of the car park when the work was being conducted, because I was getting complaints about some of the odours from the neighbours, I went to go and look at the site. I looked at it and I found the Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment, Deputy Duhamel, and I said: “You know, I am looking at this site from the air and I cannot see any water at all” and there right down deep there, Deputy Duhamel came with me, we looked at it and we took note of the odours and obviously he went back and spoke to his officers and the Transport and Technical Services people, but I am sure that he will agree with me that there was a recognition then at that stage that there was no water involved. We could have very easily sunk a car park under that site. I said to Deputy Duhamel: “Bring an amendment then, even at this stage, if that is the case, if it is not going to cost so much bring an amendment. Get the Minister for Planning to bring an amendment.” Then we have seen Deputy Dupre, who has been chastised for trying to make us look at this recently because everybody wants to press on with this park, and I do. So I said this morning in a response to him by email that I would completely ascertain what the position is because I understand the Chamber of Commerce is also concerned. I had spoken to the Assistant Minister for Transport and Technical Services and he had told me that the membrane had already been laid, and I have now had that confirmed to me by the Minister from an email from the department and the Minister knows as well. So we have missed the opportunity. We have missed the opportunity to put underground car parking in the town park site and yet we were being told at the time we could not do it because there were water course issues and it was going to be very expensive. We have now been informed that we could have imported French prefabricated concrete moulds and dropped it in and created the spaces for £35,000 a space or something like that, or even cheaper. So we have missed a significant opportunity there and we have missed a significant revenue opportunity, an ongoing capital amount of money that could have maintained this park. Again, I am sorry to say the States has done its usual; put it off, put if off, put it off, put it off until it is panic time and then it is get on with it, get on with it, get on with it, get on with it; and we just hash it together. So while there is a lot of applause to be done as usual at the end of these debates I would say those who had the opportunity to bring an amendment when they recognised there was no water are the ones that should be questioned. Deputy Duhamel and the Minister himself and the Minister for Transport and Technical Services, the Executive had the opportunity to reappraise it. Even if the Deputy of St. Helier and the Constable of St. Helier and I were keen to get on with it I am sure that a rational debate based upon new information could have been considered. The lost opportunity in respect to the Odeon development has now moved on to the concern I have with the other development in town as to how that is going to progress based upon the challenge it is facing in respect to our own competition against it. It is wrong - I have been told - for the States to utilise its position against its people, its monopoly of power. I was told that by the current Deputy Bailiff when he was the Attorney General in a committee meeting that it is wrong for any state in the world to utilise its power over the community in that regard. I am concerned that is what we are going to do with developing the waterfront; we are going to dismiss and remove a wonderful car park that exists at the moment just to get something going on the waterfront and that will undermine possibly the private investment of a company that is willing to put £450 million worth of private investment into this economy at a time when it is direly needed. I am also terribly disappointed that the other plan that they have got, which is equally important to the community and of equal standard in relation to the Odeon, was not warmly embraced by the Minister and others in relation to what it would have delivered and what it could have done in relation to the connectivity that Hopkins talked about in relation to the whole of the North of Town Masterplan. So it seems to me in some circumstances the States are utilising their officers, their power and their own ideas about what we should be doing and their own vested interests against the private initiatives of those that would come forward and invest in Jersey. I am sorry to say if we continue to do that, not only do I believe that is unlawful fundamentally, but I also believe that we are going to drive away the investment. If someone is putting £500 million on the table to redevelop key areas of town from the private sector what are we doing? Why were there not supporting statements from the Minister for Treasury and Resources, the Minister for Economic Development? Where are these people? Where were these supportive comments when these kinds of projects come forwards? All we hear are the people who want to preserve the Odeon and, in my mind, if somebody was to give me permission I would go up there with a coal hammer this afternoon and start the job myself. So let us all congratulate everybody.

2.3.4 Deputy M. Tadier:

With regard to the town park I know that the Constable of St. Helier has been a proponent for a long time and one must acknowledge the work he has done. Not simply him but also the many town Deputies past and present; and also those members of the public who have been working diligently, I have certainly been receiving the emails and know what is going on and it is good to be kept in the loop. I also know that the Constable is a keen supporter of urban art where that art is good and where it can enhance the town.

[11:45]

I would ask him to consider whether it would be worth erecting a plinth in the town park with the sculpture of a ring binder on it so that everybody, for posterity, can take a walk there. If I could suggest perhaps a little poem to go on the side of the plinth which says: “Ring, ring, what a strange thing. If you seek a strange story you will find her in the story of a town park funded by a ring binder.” [Laughter]

Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:

If the Deputy would give way on a point of clarification; one of the approved sculptures for the town park is a bit like a ring if that is of any consequence.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Members will be interested to know that did not take me many hours, that I just wrote that in a couple of minutes, so there you go, it can be worked upon; it is not binding, if you excuse the pun. I think the serious point does need to be made though because a lot of joking is made about this, and the Deputy of St. Mary reminded me that it is easy to dismiss this vote and the £10 million that was funded to start the town park work early. We have to remember that in fact there was much resistance and it was not an easy battle for that to be won and if that actual vote had not gone through we would not be in a position now where we have got construction of the town park starting. Every time I walk past the construction site it is with anticipation and with a small amount of pride because I know that every vote that took place and was counted during that day was vital for that £10 million to be successful. So it would be wrong to forget and dismiss this as simply an arbitrary act of an inanimate object because it recognises the fact that there were many specifically talking about the town park who had lobbied for much time. It was a hard battle to be fought but it was a battle which was won for the people of St. Helier. As has been pointed out in the past by former Senator Syvret, he said that it will be the only example of a town park which has been created for and paid for by the States of Jersey where all other parks in the Island have been either usually donated by benefactors, for which we are grateful, but surely this is - I would hope - going to be the centrepiece of the new rejuvenated north of town which has been long overdue. So I look forward to the development; I hope that the States can all get behind it now and that we can expect an exciting rejuvenated and vibrant north of town which will extend to the rest of St. Helier, which can be of benefit to the whole Island.

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

I suppose I rise to my feet to remind Members that this is the first step on a route of regeneration and the town park was the first step which has kicked into action this magnificent plan to restructure the whole of the north of town and to revive the whole of the north of town. I suppose I warn Members that from time to time it may be an expensive business. The theory is that once we have got the park in place regeneration will occur. Most of that will be private funding; private sector development, et cetera. But from time to time part of the cost will still have to be borne by this Chamber. We have to put in the seed money to invest in order to get that generation for the benefit of the population of St. Helier and the whole Island. So I suppose it is a plea. Bear in mind that I or someone else will be back from time to time asking this Chamber to spend money, and we are currently in very strained times and that is a difficult thing to do. But unless we are prepared to invest in the future it may well be that even this magnificent plan we may not see and that would be a pity. One question I have of the Minister; when I learned yesterday that he had withdrawn at the last minute a set of amendments which I have been looking at and thinking: “These are sound, this is a good way to go, this is an improvement on what was being proposed.” Yet yesterday we learned that we had had a last minute change of mind and those, what I saw as very valid and very good improvements to the North of Town Masterplan, had been withdrawn. So I would like the Minister in his summing up to tell us what caused that change of mind that what I saw as final improvements to the plan were at the last minute suddenly withdrawn. It seems to me that there must have been some sort of serious change in mind that amendments could have been drafted and then at the last minute pulled. I think that is a very strange process to have happened and I would like a proper explanation of how it did happen. But I commend the plan overall as it stands at the moment and I wait to hear what that change was, what the difference was.

2.3.6 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

The Constable of St. Helier spoke of history and the importance not to rewrite it. So Members may recall the wonderful BBC Radio Jersey series on the Clement Hemery dairies that were broadcast a number of years ago that spoke of the life of Clement Hemery and his wife Portia who died, I think, in the 1870s. He lived in Windsor Crescent and obviously society has moved on in terms of fairness, meritocracy and all sorts of other ways; but those diaries spoke of an elegant life around Windsor Crescent and in this north part of town. In the period since Clement Hemery died it is fair to say that there has been much architectural vandalism in this particular area of town, it has been unloved. To the great credit of the Minister for Planning and Environment, he has been determined to put in place regeneration and a resetting of standards of design in this area, harking back to its original era. I do not believe that it is fair for the Constable of St. Helier, if I may say, to say that the Minister is claiming responsibility for the town park; I do not think there is anything in the document that says that. But the Minister can quite rightly claim credit for setting out a policy that will raise the standards of architecture, of living space, of urban design in this area. Politics is about standing and making a difference and I would encourage Members to vote in favour - I am sure they will in terms of this North of Town Masterplan - but also when they are doing so to think forward 10 years time, 2 Governors later, the year is 2021. Imagine the elegant mixed used tenure of housing that will be created on the Ladies College site or in Belmont Gardens; the improvements around the gas works and potentially the reuse of that site; the redesign of Ann Court with a mixed tenure development hopefully looking after elderly citizens at that stage; the hundreds of units of accommodation that will have been created; I hope the Constable’s consultation at David Place will work, the new elegant David Place, which will see the expansion of the pavements that we have already done in York Street and Broad Street. I thank the Constable for having been nice in terms of our joint working in terms of the campaigning that we did for Broad Street and York Street and the Minister’s own involvement with that before he was in the States. We can achieve elegance; we can achieve a great place to live, a great place to work and a great place to relax in this North of Town Masterplan. It would not have happened and it will not happen, that new world that we can imagine in 2021, which will happen because of investment; both public investment and private investment and the urban generation steering group, under which S.o.J.D.C. (States of Jersey Development Company) sits, will achieve this. So it is a combination of measures; a framework, the delivery mechanism and encouraging private investment together with the tariff. I think this is about politics that makes a difference and I think this North of Town Masterplan will make a difference and the history books in 2021 will say that this Assembly made a good decision and this Minister did a good job in catalysing it.

2.3.7 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I want to start with 2 images before getting on to some of the claims of the Minister for Treasury and Resources which are not borne out by the Hopkins document. Unfortunately, because if that was going to happen we would be in a good place, if Bath Street was to be made wider pavements, tree lined, all the rest of it; but of course we have not done that, Hopkins have rode back on that commitment. He mentioned Ann Court, I will deal with ...

Senator F.E. Cohen:

The pavements are still being widened and the street is still tree lined it is just no longer one-way.

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Very good, well we will have to see how that turns out and let us all hope that it makes David Place and Bath Street a lot safer than it is now as well, even though it will be narrower for the traffic. But the other point which the Minister for Treasury and Resources made - before I go on to say what I was going to say - was this extraordinary claim that Ann Court, if we approved this, imagine the mixed tenure development, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. We did have an amendment from the Minister for Planning and Environment which would have ensured that on that site, and I quote, it is paragraph (c): “Any redevelopment of the Ann Court site shall provide at least 100 units of social rented accommodation.” We heard passionate speeches in favour of that in the debate. But if you look at Hopkins, which we might be approving, what it says under Ann Court in the summary of proposals is 15,000 square feet of private residential. That is what it says and we have not debated the amendment, we have not accepted the amendment, in fact the Minister withdrew the amendment to put 100, at least, social rented; which would have opened the door to the provision of the much needed - we are told - housing for the elderly near the centre of town. So I just want to point that out because fine words are one thing and these are lovely speeches. So I will come back to what I was going to say originally; 2 images I want to put in front of Members and really it is almost like a choice. One image; I was going home yesterday on the bus and I saw Parade Gardens in the sunshine and this girl about 8 or 9 running across the grass at full tilt, as only 8 or 9 year-olds can do, no inhibitions just going across the grass, across the middle bit - the tarmac strip - to the play area. I just admired her in the sunshine running across the grass. The other image I want to put in front of Members is if you stand on the corner of Conway Street and Broad Street, as I sometimes do, and contemplate the sadness of all those cars pouring up Conway Street continuously and turning left down Broad Street continuously; and if you look - as I do because I am quite tall and I can see where they are coming from at the other end of Conway Street - half and half are coming from either side. So that means that half that traffic going up Conway Street has just come down Mulcaster Street, so those cars have come down Hill Street and Mulcaster, gone around the Pomme d’Or and they have come back up Conway Street. That is the insanity of what we are doing to our town and that is the background of this debate. We rightly rejected the multi-storey car park on Ann Court and I thought this might be the beginning of the renaissance of town, that was the right decision, we heard about the use of Ann Court for social housing, particularly for the elderly and I thought: “Aha, we are on the track now, we are on the right road.” Then you have to compare 2 things because there is a tension going on, is there not, particularly on the issue of parking. If you look at the report accompanying this proposition we see version one, if you like, of the approach of the Minister as of 11th May 2011; and in his paragraph 21 in the section headed car parking he says: “Parking beneath Ann Court has been increased.” In the Hopkins document it is made clear that will be 185 underground shopping spaces in addition to the residential 100 odd parking spaces. So that is 185 underground car parking spaces committed to in Hopkins and in the Masterplan.

[12:00]

Then paragraph 26 in the report: “The relocation of Minden Place car park was a concern ... it will be maintained until it is at the end of its life whereupon 100 underground shopper parking spaces plus 25 underground car parking spaces for residents.” One hundred underground shopper parking spaces, and that too is in the Masterplan as unamended by the Minister. Now, that underground car parking is massively expensive, you cannot get away from that and the voices of the Assistant Minister saying you can dig great big holes in the ground and put in clever, clever car parks that do not cost more than putting them above ground is insane. It just cannot be true. So it is expensive and against that expense - which will come back to the taxpayer in some form or another, whether in the form of parking charges or in the form of capital costs or whatever, it will come back - those expenses could be voided if we looked carefully at alternatives. People of course have mentioned the hoppa bus which gets you better around town than leaving your car in one place and then slogging it around on foot. But that is a matter of evaluation; and the other aspect, of course, of evaluation is what are we doing bringing more cars into the heart of town? There has not been any evaluation of the effect of that either. I would maintain that by not doing this sort of evaluation we have lost our way. Now, let us have a look at what the Minister lodged on 20th June: “Following a States decision to redevelop Minden Place car park [i.e. when it has collapsed or when it is no longer safe] at least 240 shopper car parking spaces shall be provided within 100 metres of the fish market.” We have just voted to remove 100 shopper car parking spaces from the Le Masurier proposals so that instead of constraining them to provide 210 shopper car parking - which is more or less the 240 - we have said: “No, no, no, half of them will go for long stay commuter car parking.” So that is how consistent we are, but this decision would have pointed us in the right direction but of course the Minister has withdrawn it. The second part of his amendment was the public car parking underneath Ann Court, which I said was very expensive and we know from briefings to Scrutiny about the multi-storey car park and the shaft sinking that you are talking big money going down underground on that site. Now, he proposed that shopper parking under Ann Court will only be provided if adequate levels of shopper car parking cannot be found elsewhere within the north of town area. Hopkins does talk about the changing situation with regard to traffic and relates that to parking. What the Minister did was he read his own document and decided to be consistent with himself and on page 20, parking strategy: “The Masterplan proposals are designed to meet current parking and transport behaviours. It is, however, acknowledged that these behaviours and needs will change and as a result of the Sustainable Transport Policy, parking requirements are likely to decrease and public transport requirements will increase. The Masterplan solutions, therefore, recognise this.” That is the point, is it not, we did have a modicum of flexibility built in there; the Minister then made that definite with his amendments and then did not bring them. In addition, we voted that half the space at Le Masurier should be commuter parking, in flat contradiction to what we had voted for 4 hours before. I remind Members again; that we put any new commuter parking on the edge, on the ring road, that we do not bring commuters into town and that we prioritise shopper parking over commuter parking for obvious reasons. That is what we voted for yesterday morning, yesterday afternoon we voted for the opposite and as a result of that this plan is no longer consistent with the Island Plan that we voted for almost unanimously. I want to say a few words on the success of St. Helier town centre as a retail centre because that is in many people’s minds. What prompted this section was that Deputy Le Fondré said - and it is a pity he is not here because it might be interesting to hear his comments on this - but he said: “The footfall continues to reduce.” He was talking about the market area, the centre of town, the retail core, the footfall continues to reduce. Deputy Le Claire talked about the step-change, the world is changing in shopping because more and more people of course are buying online. I just happened to read the Chamber of Commerce’s latest glossy magazine, I think it is called Connect, and there is a very good article in there on retail and, yes, this is relevant to the Masterplan, and I am sorry if people are possibly getting tired, we are all tired, but we want to take the right decision on this. What this article pointed out was that all retailers under pressure - all conventional retail - and it cited a guru whose name I forget, some lady guru of retail. [Aside] Porteous(?), that is the name thank you, Deputy Le Hérissier for that. She pointed out that what conventional retail now has to do is differentiate from the internet experience; from sitting on your own, selecting things, getting them delivered, trying them out and sending them away or keeping them. That is totally different from the experience of going into town, meeting your friends, window shopping, talking or not talking with shop assistants, trying things out. It is the quality of that experience seen as a whole that will make the difference, that will make the success of St. Helier’s retail core versus the internet. You have to differentiate and of course part of that quality is, is it nice to be in the centre of town, what is the quality of the environment? So if we are going to deal with this footfall continues to reduce problem then we only have to look at King Street and Queen Street where the footfall is not reducing, where the crowds are so thick on a Saturday you can hardly get through them because it is pedestrian friendly, and I sent some photos around about a German town just to make the point as well. But the proof is in front of us every day in King Street and Queen Street. So in conclusion, everything points in the direction of improving the public realm for the sake of quality of life; for saving Islanders vast costs both as individual users of transport, be it private transport or public or cycle or whatever, there are costs there; and as taxpayers because they end up footing the bill of an extravagant solution which tries to provide everything. It avoids the choice, it says: “Well we will just chuck money at it.” I thought we had left behind the days of just chucking money at problems. That, as the Minister for Treasury and Resources has just said: “I have evaluated this carefully, I know this is good value for money.” Here we are voting for something that says we can have this and that and that. It does not make any sense and it does not make any sense socially either in terms of healing the division between countryside and town, but I have mentioned that before. So please, please be consistent with the Island Plan and the Sustainable Transport Policy; both of which we have approved, the Island Plan almost unanimously just yesterday. I urge Members to ask the Minister to take this back and come back with something better, even his own amendments.

Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:

Before Deputy Pitman speaks could I just give notice of the guillotine, I do not know how much longer we want to spend on this debate but really I think it is time that we all thought what we are doing here.

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

I have thought the guillotine should be reintroduced in the Square for a long time. What can you say about Deputy Tadier’s poem? It started badly, it tailed off a bit in the middle and the least said about the end the better; but there we go. Apart from that - as the Deputy says - generally I think you have got to give the Minister some credit. I think, just like the Island Plan for its faults, he gave Back-Benchers a lot of opportunity to contribute and I think he deserves credit for that. I am not saying he gets everything right. I mean his proposals to put houses all over the park was … I do not know what he had been drinking the night before but give him credit; he withdrew it and probably all of us with flaming torches outside his house had nothing to do with it, so fair play. I really want to echo some of what the Constable said; it is important for the town park that people who have been in politics a lot longer than me get some credit and people, of course, who are not officially in politics. As the Constable said, that group has worked for many, many years to make this a reality. There are politicians here who … well, former Senator Syvret has gone, but Deputy Hilton has put in a lot, the Constable has put in a lot and I have to say the Constable has done an excellent job and he deserves credit, and people like Deputy Southern as well and hopefully some of us more recent comers. I do still have concerns about Ann Court. I know, just as the Deputies of St. Helier proved how people can work together despite about 8 of us being politically on the money and a couple who probably are a bit off the money, but we worked well in the town, I think, and you look at what we did with Ann Court; the St. Helier No. 2 Deputies - Deputies De Sousa, Pitman, Southern - and No. 1 - Deputy Martin and myself. The Deputy of St. Mary came in and gave a lot of support. We got a lot of signatures on those petitions and I hope we made a difference. The point I am making is that I hope plans that look very good on paper transfer to reality. I nearly said into concrete reality but that is not what I want at all. So, I know the Minister is not going to be here a long time but I hope that this plan is done justice in the fullness of time. As Deputy Southern rightly said: “Money”; he is going to be coming back asking for more money. We do not like spending money in Government and rightly so but some things are worth paying that money for and the things like the town park are a central part of this plan. That is something that you almost cannot put a value on. Generally, I really do want to congratulate the Minister. I have got concerns as I say. I was almost swayed by Senator Ozouf’s wonderful dream “Re-imagine Jersey”. It did sound a bit like a Tory political party broadcast but I could almost see the clouds and the puppies but I hope he is right and I hope it all comes to fruition. So, generally I will end on a positive note and say to the Minister, well done, and hopefully with a complete revolution at the next election we can go on and make Jersey the place it should be.

2.3.9 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I have kept out of these debates not because we should be interested but, as I said very early on in the bigger debates, it is very unfortunate this underlying town bad/rural good. It is very much a British view of life where everybody has this dream of escaping to suburbia and by doing so you destroy both the countryside and the original town when you are doing it. Of course you concrete over the countryside, as we see in places like London and, on a much smaller scale, in Jersey. So, I have never liked that and I think we should be working together as a group to improve the town and to try and minimise some of the territoriality which asserts itself from time to time. Whether we should, for example, be paying more for the use of town toilets and so forth; I have always thought, other than the fact we cannot find any these days except heavily disguised as cafés, that was a strange argument because obviously people providing revenue for the town in rates there is an assumption that there would, for example, be toilet facilities as part of the social contract so to speak but maybe we have all moved to cafés. That is one thing that has worried me. The other thing is the Governor was lecturing us, quite rightly, today about our inability to distinguish between strategy and tactics or strategy and micro issues. I do not think we will ever, ever win that at the moment. We are a cross between a Parish council and a strategic States Assembly and I think we struggle to, sort of, get a clear identity based on those two sometimes conflicting roles. I think the solution is the one that the Minister has put and I have to say I have become increasingly impressed, almost against my better judgment.

[12:15]

As the Minister knows I have been enormously critical of the personal powers that have accrued to him in his current role and some of the exercising of these powers and I know he gets totally bored with tedious comments about Portelet but they have to be repeated. I have to say the inclusive way in which the whole Island Plan and now this Masterplan has been run has been an incredible example. In an Assembly which is suffering from a breakdown in consensus I think it has been an incredible example and he deserves an enormous amount of credit. Obviously it may not get the results, as he quite rightly said yesterday, that were originally in a plan but it is to treat them as organic, as evolving and as a distillation of the best thinking that there is available from a community. That is the challenge of putting in place a proper consultation process and that has been a very impressive part. I find some of these debates, where I do not admire the length of his speeches obviously, but I do admire the Deputy of St. Mary’s analysis and his attempts to introduce converse thinking into it. But I just find that this notion of doing policy on the hop, where we decide what to do with one building or we try and block progress on another building, we try and determine the kind of car parking for another building; I find it quite horrendous and, in a sense, quite chaotic. That is where I would look to properly base planning groups or consultation groups to come up with coherent plans which we can then look at. This is a way of moving towards that so as a process it demands, I think, a lot of praise and it goes, hopefully, beyond all these territorial fights that seem to be so much a feature of how we do these things. So, I will support it. I realise that the people, the Deputies of St. Helier and, indeed, the surrounding areas have to have a lot of say but I think that given the way things have progressed in the last couple of weeks, I just hope we have a Minister for Planning and Environment who has the vision, who has the sensitivity to process, who can carry this forward because that is going to be enormously important otherwise what has been a very good process established could well fall apart. Let us hope that this continues.

2.3.10 Deputy J.B. Fox:

This has been a long process, the North of Town Masterplan, but it has been a worthwhile one, because we had no plan before and everything was taken in isolation, which is not very good. However, the Deputy of St. Mary reminded me this morning that, in fact, between the new Island Plan and this Masterplan, we have still got idiosyncrasies that are in, and one of which is having commuter parking within an inner inroad which goes against all logic; having it on the outer ring-road and commuters walking in and having your maximum retail. I can understand from the Minister for Transport and Technical Services that if some private organisation is willing to build and operate private commuter parking within the confines of town that that will save the public’s purse from doing such things. I do not accept that; I think that the income that a private operator would get, not only from shoppers paying for parking to come into town but also to do business within their organisation and also within the surrounding business area, must be on a par. It is these things that we have got to think about now because these long-term and highly-charged amendments to what we have at the moment is going to be longstanding and we have heard, quite rightly, that retail shopping is changing rapidly from the internet. What has not been mentioned is the increasing number of out-of-town shopping centres, which is, I will be honest with you, free to go and park. If you live in town, you are just as likely if you have got children, or grandparents, or elderly people, to get in your car and go out of town shopping because it is more convenient. Now that is not good for the Island or for St. Helier to do that and we have got to think about these things. Minister, I do ask that this is a living document; can we have it re-lived on that particular aspect because I think it could have a very significant effect in the future? You go into town now and you look at some of the shop fronts; I am embarrassed to be a town Deputy with the state of some of the shop fronts. I am not going to mention any names, the shop traders know who they are. I do not care if they do not own it. They should be getting on to their landlords and saying: “This is embarrassing.” We have a situation in town that we are in competition with the internet and in competition with the out-of-town. We might not have towns nearby or somewhere that they can go but we should have pride. We are still a tourist Island. We have still got pride; we have our finance centres, et cetera and we should be shouting out at how good we can make our town. A lot of people tell us we are a lot cleaner than the areas they come from. We should celebrate that but we should not sit on our laurels; we should say: “Yes. We have come back from somewhere else and learn by them.” The little cleaner that goes round like a hoover; we have got one in St. Helier but we should have them all over the place and sweep up all these cigarette ends since our change of policy of everybody being outside. It is not very pleasant and these are little things that we can do. The North of Town Masterplan is one area, but no doubt we should have an east, a west and a south one at some time in the future. Long after I am retired, I would like to walk around and see the improvements that have been going on to be extenuated so that we are, in this Island, very proud and can welcome back some of the tourists, et cetera, that we used to see in the 1960s and 1970s.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well, I call on the Minister to reply.

2.3.11 Senator F.E. Cohen:

Thank you particularly to all those Members who have been so complimentary. I am rather blushing with the compliments and it is most kind of all the Members who have expressed their support. I will deal with the points as quickly as I can. Firstly, the Constable of St. Helier; he suggested the Masterplan had “claimed” the town park. Of course it has not claimed the town park. We all know perfectly well that the town park is as a result of the efforts of many in this Chamber and most notably the St. Helier representatives who have been previously named by the Connétable and, indeed, the Connétable himself and I compliment him on his efforts and those of his Deputies. It was never intended that the Masterplan should not incorporate a vision of the present and the future and the composition of the north of the town is very much around the town park, but of course it does not claim credit. I would, at this point, like to clarify an issue in relation to the Ladies’ College site and that is that it is appropriate to clarify that I will retain the listing condition on the Ladies’ College. This requires the preservation and conservation of the much-celebrated dome. The listing will ensure the preservation of the names of former pupils written in graffiti within the dome. The names include many celebrated Islanders, including our much-respected Minister for Health and Social Services, the Deputy of Trinity. Senator Breckon said that I have given different views on the Odeon. I most certainly have not. I have been extraordinarily careful with what I have said on the Odeon and the position is that if a future Minister were to consider the loss of the Odeon I have no doubt that a future Minister would only be prepared to consider, and consider does not mean necessarily approve the loss of the Odeon should a project come forward of exceptional architectural competence. I have maintained that position from the start. Deputy Le Claire raised a number of issues about parking and car parking costs. I think those have previously been covered. Deputy Tadier read a rather amusing poem but I am afraid that his views on art I would believe preclude him from participation in the percentage for art programme. Deputy Southern raised a number of issues, the most significant of which was why I had pulled my amendments. I pulled my amendments basically because I do not think of myself as clever enough not to have to change my mind when appropriate and I regularly change my position when new information comes forward. That, in my view, is the meaning of consultation and it is the meaning of responding to responses from Members and from members of the public, particularly in reference to Minden Place; these were covered in other areas of the debate. In relation to housing; Ann Court is already committed for social housing so I did not think it was really necessary to extend any further. Senator Ozouf referred to Clement Henry. He, in fact, was my wife’s great, great, great grandfather and I am fortunate enough to have at our home 2 of his diaries and a rather good recipe book, including one for an excellent chocolate cake, which I am prepared to share with Members should they wish. In fact, it is interesting that he hit on Clement Henry, because I have never discussed this with him before but Clement Henry’s vision was one of the inspirations behind my initial ideas for the North of Town Masterplan and to try and regenerate the vision that Clement Henry described in his daily goings-on and his daily life tracking down Portia, who was usually somewhere playing her harp. The Deputy of St. Mary; I do understand the Deputy of St. Mary’s view and he criticises me when I say that he is rather unique. That is a compliment. As I have said previously, we cannot all live in the way that the Deputy of St. Mary would like us to live and parking is a real issue. If the town is to survive, however much we would love to have no cars in the town, I am afraid the parking has to be provided at reasonable levels to ensure the vitality of the town traders and to enable those who live in the town to get out of town. I have tried experiments with delivering no-parking solutions to houses in the town; I am afraid they have not gone down very well. Deputy Hilton has beaten me up regularly over my efforts in relation to one development and I think she was right and I was wrong and we do need to provide parking. It would be lovely not to but I am afraid that is the way it has to be. Although it is not appropriate to refer to anyone in the gallery directly, one of those in the gallery presently, who is an old school friend of mine, was instrumental in changing my view in relation to parking and the necessity to provide adequate car parking. So, I am afraid if one follows the Deputy of St. Mary’s ideas that will undoubtedly kill the town. Deputy Trevor Pitman was most complimentary. I am sorry to hear that he was burning torches outside my home and in future, as he only lives down the road, perhaps he would like to come in because he is always more than welcome. Deputy Le Hérissier has certainly always been critical of the powers of the Minister for Planning and Environment. I never said that I thought the Minister for Planning had too much power but indeed I may say that after I leave. Deputy Fox answered his own points. I would just like to sum up in conclusion that this is a plan that sets out to deliver a wonderful vision of a regenerated north of town. Most of what I have done in my term as Minister for Planning has been related to delivering architecture I hoped always to be the best. It is not always the best but it is a lot better than it was but that is mostly at micro level. This is an opportunity to create fabulous architecture, fabulous art, fabulous living spaces, fabulous landscaping and fabulous amenity at a macro level to once again ensure that the north of town enjoys that amazing vision that Edmund Nicholls so carefully described in his publication The History of St. Helier in the early part of the 20th century. If we can pull this off and this plan delivers the opportunity to pull this off, this really is the opportunity to once again re-live those golden days of the north of town of St. Helier. It is not just fancy speak; the buildings are largely there. They just need a lick of paint, they need some of their windows replacing in many cases, they need street improvements, they need street beautification, they need a little bit of stitching back together and it will all happen and it will happen easily.

[12:30]

That is the beauty of this plan. It is by a masterful master planner, the Hopkins Team is one of the best teams in the world. Its elegance is in that it is only a few pages, that those reams and reams of paper have been distilled down to a few pages of basic principles that nearly every Member of this House can see and can visualise in only a few years. So, I urge Members to take heart, to rejoice in this elegant vision, I commend the Masterplan to the Assembly and I call for the appel. [Approbation]

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair)

Very well, the appel is called for on the Masterplan as amended.

POUR: 38	CONTRE: 1	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator T.A. Le Sueur	Deputy of St. Mary
Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Senator B.E. Shenton
Senator F.E. Cohen
Senator A. Breckon
Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Senator F.du H. Le Gresley
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Peter
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy of St. Peter
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B)
Deputy S. Pitman (H)
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy M. Tadier (B)
Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

3. Valerie Band House: therapeutic workshop (P.80/2011)

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair)

Very well, the next item is Valerie Band House: therapeutic workshop in the name of Deputy Southern I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to request the Minister for Health and Social Services not to proceed with the closure of the occupational therapy services provided at the workshop at Valerie Band House until current clients and equipment can be transferred to a new workshop at Acorn Enterprises, Howard Davis Farm.

3.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

I will endeavour not to hold Members’ attention for too long and to wrap this up fairly rapidly. I will just briefly talk about the reasons why. This issue came to my attention a long time ago in this C.S.R. (Comprehensive Spending Review) for 2011 - C.S.R. 1 - proposals. I first saw it as HSS S10, a saving of money in the C.S.R. and it was entitled “Redesign O.T. (Occupational Therapy) Services”, which sounds rather bland. It contained a half-time redundancy or job loss in this structure and, therefore, I chose to have a look at that because I was very concerned at the time as a member of the H.S.S. (Health and Social Services) Scrutiny Panel to inquire into where jobs were going. I was particularly concerned with the possibility of reductions in frontline services. I was assured by the department that an occupational therapy assistant post that was going currently provides a woodwork activity for a small group of clients at the St. Saviour Hospital site and that will cease. These clients will be offered alternative O.T. activity within existing services. Now, I was contacted much more recently by the clients who used this particular services telling me that they were very concerned about this closure and, in fact, that the alternative O.T. activity, which was to move them down to the Acorn Enterprises activity, which is similar but not a good replacement for these particular clients. These particular clients have mental health issues and were, at one time, patients with a high demand of mental health services. They were, in fact, working together as really quite a tight-knit band that supported each other in their activity. They took tremendous pride in the level of woodworking issues that they were able to deal with; designing and replacing windows, furniture, all sorts of stores, building from scratch but were no longer heavy users of mental health services. It was their support mechanism that held them together. On the comments of the Minister for Health and Social Services, she says: “When these clients were first referred, most were users of H.S.S.D. (Health and Social Services Department) mental health services but non-currently require such specialist services.” This was propping together, holding, and supporting a group of people. It turns out that they were, to be honest, contemptuous of the replacement activity down at Acorn. They say they are amateurs down at Acorn; they do a rough and ready job, there was no skill involved and certainly no pride and it was not seen by some of these clients as an appropriate place that they could do similar work and give themselves that similar support. Acorn Industries provides very short-term support and some of these clients have a long-term support need. Acorn Industries is focused on getting people back into work or into work in as short a time as possible; inappropriate for these particular clients. Since then, I have been down to talk to these clients and, as I say, some of them are very dissatisfied with the alternatives that have been presented, and the issue is that support for some of these particular people has not been resolved. However, in the meantime the service has been closed down so in the sense that I got a small extension to last Friday; last Friday the workshop closed. In the original documentation attached to this there was a reported £45,000 worth of saving and that has now been reduced to £17,000 because the workshop itself is to remain open. The therapeutic activity is to close and what is going to happen is occupational therapy technicians will use the equipment in this workshop to build ramps for access to a variety of buildings. So it will be still in use, the C.S.R. aspect of it we are told is no longer appropriate; the workshop stays open but the occupational therapy is to cease and the group is to cease. It seems to me that this is an unsatisfactory process on 2 levels. One, there has been a frontline service closed down. I am now told that that is a policy decision that that type of workshop is no longer regarded as appropriate for any clients. That is unfortunate and it has to happen, I am told, and I accept that definition but back in the middle of last year that was not clear and this was presented as a C.S.R. cut. That frontline service was to close. For Members’ attention, note that the closure was hidden because what came to this House was HSS S10 Redesign O.T. Services. I am particularly concerned that when we see C.S.R. 2 in the very near future we will get this sort of technical speak involved and I urge Members to look very carefully at the way changes are presented and the C.S.R. 2 proposals are presented. Look out for the words “redesign” or “restructure” or “reorganise”; they may mean closure. It may mean a service ceases and that is very worrying. I would urge not only the Minister for Health and Social Services but all Ministers to be honest and up-front where they are conducting a closure, ceasing an activity to tell us and not rely on us to investigate and have a look at what has happened. The second thing is that this change may well be necessary, that this type of activity is no longer appropriate, but it was lumped in with C.S.R. 1 and C.S.R. 1 dictated the timescale. What happened is that the person who was in charge of this workshop was told that he had to retire. He was 67, he had to retire and his services were no longer required. When he retired the clients were told: “Bill has retired, we have to close the workshop, and that has taken place in the past year. The fact is by the end of that C.S.R. process in that timescale to save a mere £17,000, 2 or 3 of those clients are now in the anxious position of not knowing what their future is and how they will support themselves. There is a risk - and this is short-term cuts to have long-term disbenefit - that one or 2 of those clients may well suffer a relapse and end up needing intensive mental health treatment, so a little saving of £17,000 may well cost the States heavily. Having said all that, I am aware that the occupational activity has changed and that this particular service has closed and therefore, having highlighted the issues involved, this proposition is no longer relevant and I will not be seeking a seconder and I will withdraw it. Thank you.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well. The proposition is withdrawn. It is your prerogative. The debate has not started and you do not need leave.

4. Public Employees Contributory Retirement Scheme: Committee of Management – appointment of Chairman (P.83/2011)

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

We come therefore to Public Employees Contributory Retirement Scheme: appointment of the chairman in the name of the Minister for Treasury and Resources and I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to approve in accordance with Regulation 3(6) of the Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (General) (Jersey) Regulations 1989 the appointment of Mr. Ronald Amy O.B.E. as Chairman of the Committee of Management for a period of 3 years commencing on 1st July 2011.

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

Members will need no introduction as to the importance of the role of the P.E.C.R.S. (Public Employees Contributory Retirement Scheme) in terms of oversight of the public sector pensions. There are obviously ongoing debates about the role, scope and arrangements of public pensions, which is the subject of ongoing debate. The States is incredibly well served by a longstanding service by Mr. Amy who is a well-known and respected figure in the pension industry. A former chairman and chief executive of Aon Consulting, he has a C.V. (Curriculum Vitae) and an experience in terms of the pension world which is almost unsurpassed, of which he was honoured in relation to his service to the industry. The Treasury is delighted that Mr. Amy is continuing to offer his services as Chairman of the Committee of Management for a period commencing 1st July, and I take this opportunity of thanking him most warmly for the service already given and thanking him for his continued service for the next 3 years and I make the proposition.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded]

4.1.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

If I can just, very briefly, congratulate the Minister and the Pension Committee for managing to retain the services of Mr. Amy. He is, from my experience, extremely professional and it is great to see that he is staying onboard.

4.1.2 Senator B.E. Shenton:

The Public Accounts Committee have no problem with this appointment and, indeed, I sat on the panel with Mr. Amy for a period and he is an excellent chairman. Where the Public Accounts Committee would like to make a point is that there are not any rotation criteria with regard to the membership of the Committee, and the Public Accounts Committee does feel that it would benefit from a freshness of members at certain periods of time. Some members have been on the Committee for a very, very long period and while they have given sterling work and sterling service, the feeling is very much that there should be a rotational policy and a maximum length of service within this board, so I would just like to make that point.

4.1.3 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I also concur with my colleagues that Mr. Amy is a gentleman of considerable ability and given his experience and ability, I would like to ask if the Minister for Treasury and Resources has consulted him on the overall review of terms and conditions of States employees.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I call on the Minister to reply.

4.1.4 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Dealing with the points in order that they have been raised, I agree with Senator Shenton and I thank Deputy Le Claire for his remarks. Senator Shenton is correct in terms of there needing to be some refreshing and some rotation on the board of P.E.C.R.S.

[12:45]

I would go even slightly further than that and I would say that there is a need to establish some clear criteria for what the P.E.C.R.S. is responsible for. They are not only representing the interests of the current pensioners and future pensioners and employees of the States but also have a responsibility for the employer too and, in that regard, I think it is important that one does refresh the membership and put in place the respective tensions of individuals that are going to bring those difficult tradeoffs and challenges and conflicting issues in relation to the debate on P.E.C.R.S. because without any question, there is going to be some big changes that are going to be required in terms of pensions, as most Members of this Assembly will understand. The oversight that Mr. Amy will give to that process in the next 3 years, of course, stands for his reputation and everything that he has brought, but that is not a matter before the Assembly, but it is relevant in terms of the other members of the Committee of Management that we do and I take on the points. In relation to the points raised by Senator Ferguson; I have not personally discussed with Mr. Amy the issues of terms and conditions but they are relevant. There are going to be some necessary changes in terms and conditions and we must have regard for all of the mix of obligations, of deductions, of pensions together with salary increases and other terms and conditions and they must be taken in the round so I am sure that the now improving and strengthened H.R. (Human Resources) Department which we are putting in place within Resources under my Assistant Minister with the oversight of S.E.B. (States Employment Board), which I now no longer sit on, will have regard to all of these issues. If the communication has not happened - and I am sure it has - I will certainly make sure that the necessary people engage with Mr. Amy and the Committee of Management because I know that Mr. Amy certainly will have something to offer in relation to the overall review. So I thank all Members for their support and I wish Mr. Amy every possible success in his important discharge of his duties in the next 3 years.

Deputy J.B. Fox:

I am just wondering if I should declare that I receive a pension, although this does not receive ...

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Thank you, Deputy. I do not think it affects those Members who do. It is merely an appointment. All Members in favour of adopting the proposition, kindly show and against. The proposition is adopted. Now, Minister for Economic Development, I understand you want to test the mood of Members about P.47.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, Sir. I realise that it has been a long 2 weeks and Members are probably quite tired. There is one item left on the Order Paper, which is the terms of reference for the shadow board at the harbour and airport. The proposition is as a result of a proposition brought, P.170 by Deputy Le Claire. This is the amended version effectively which I undertook to bring back to the Assembly. I have spoken today earlier on with Deputy Le Claire and suggested to him, as a number of Members have approached me, to defer this until the next sitting. I am obviously conscious of the length and number of propositions on the Order Paper but, nevertheless, I do not think there is much appetite for Members to come back after lunch so I would just like to seek the mood of the House before deferring this to the next sitting.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Are you formally proposing that it be deferred, Minister? Yes.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, Sir.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak briefly on this?

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Just briefly to confirm, Sir, that I am relaxed about this and if I can do anything to increase my standing on shortening speeches and lengthening time in the Assembly, I will try to do that so I support the Minister.

Deputy M. Tadier:

So if I understand it correctly, the Minister is deferring this. I think that is wise seeing as the chairman of the Economic Scrutiny Panel and the former chairman who may have something to say are not present, so I am certainly happy to support that.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Are Members content this item should be deferred? Very well, that is deferred. That concludes the Public Business.

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I will therefore invite the Vice-Chairman of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) to address briefly the matter of future business. Vice-chairman.

5. Deputy J.B. Fox (Vice-Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

I do not know about the word “briefly”. There seems to be a very long list of additional items that I would like to start with and maybe we could start off with the deferred P.47 that was just mentioned to be added. Additional items. There is an amendment on P.37 of the Draft Control of Housing and Works (Jersey) Law 201- by Deputy S. Power. P.37, an amendment to an amendment on the Draft Control of Housing and Works (Jersey) Law 201-, which is submitted by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel. P.37 of 2011, amendment 2 on the same Draft Control of Housing and Works, et cetera, by the Chief Minister. That is a second amendment. Going on to P.38 of 2011, amendment on the Draft Registration of Names and Addresses (Jersey) Law 201- and the amendment by Deputy S. Power; again an amendment to an amendment on P.38 by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel. P.38 of 2011, again, a second amendment, this time in the name of the Chief Minister.

Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:

Sir, sorry to interrupt the Deputy but is there any need to read out the amendments because all we are really interested in are what propositions are going to be debated and we know that the amendments to them will obviously be on the same day?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well, Deputy, it is a matter for the vice-chairman who is trying to assist Members but ...

Deputy J.B. Fox:

I am trying to assist Members with the list that I have been given and it might just save people jumping up later. Again, we have got an amendment to the Hand-held Devices in the States Chamber: trial, amendment P.77; but I think you might want to say something, Deputy.

Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:

Yes. As the Vice-Chair, I wonder if you would consider deferring P.77, the Hand-held Devices in the States Chamber: trial until 18th July and then the amendment can be taken with it.

Deputy J.B. Fox:

Yes, we were expecting that to come because your amendment cannot be debated on 5th July.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well, are you suggesting, Vice-Chairman, that should go to 18th July?

Deputy J.B. Fox:

Yes, Sir.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well.

Deputy J.B. Fox:

For both the proposition and the amendment. On P.78 of 2011, we have the Composition of the States: further debate before the outcome of the Electoral Commission. As you know, this proposition by Deputy Pitman is scheduled for the 5th and the States have already agreed that the Draft States of Jersey (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 201- requested to the Privy Council, lodged by the Deputy of Grouville, was determined and therefore what I am proposing is that in fact that proposition by the Deputy of Grouville be brought forward to be debated after the composition of Deputy Pitman’s proposition so it runs immediately concurrent afterwards which seems to make sense, if everyone agrees. We then go on to the Draft States of Jersey (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 201-, again P.99, which is comments from the Privileges and Procedures Committee and, again, we suggest that one is also brought forward concurrently to go with the Deputy of Grouville’s proposition. We have an addition in the Pensions Supervisory Benefit - Review, P.105 of 2011, where there is comments presented by the Minister for Social Security to be added and that concludes the first half of the 5th. The following matters cannot be debated until the continuation meeting commencing on 12th July 2011. You have a list already but in addition to that, we have a continuation of an amendment on draft P.85 of 2011, the Draft Civil Partnership (Jersey) Law 201- submitted by the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel. We have a request that P.88 of 2011, Draft Security Law submitted by the Minister for Economic Development should be moved to 18th July and that is all on that continuous week. On 18th July, we also have a request that the Draft Security Interest (Jersey) Law be moved from 5th July ...

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I think that is the one you just mentioned.

Deputy J.B. Fox:

That is the one I have just mentioned, is it not? Yes, sorry. I am just trying to follow them in sequence. Then going on to 18th July Draft Social Security (Amendment), that is P.110 of 2011, an amendment submitted by Deputy G. Southern to be included and finally on that date, a Discrimination Law and delay on pensions reform, P.118, again submitted by Deputy G. Southern to be included on the 18th. On 13th December so far ...

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

September.

Deputy J.B. Fox:

September, sorry. [Laughter] What did I say? December?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

It will soon be Christmas.

Deputy J.B. Fox:

The way we have been going, it might be Christmas. Right, Machinery of Government Review.

Male Speaker:

Oh, not again. [Laughter]

Deputy J.B. Fox:

Do not shoot the messenger please. Machinery of Government Review moved from 5th July lodged by the Council of Ministers, that is P.76 of 2011, followed by the Draft Sea Fisheries (Amendment), P.119 of 2011. This one is submitted by the Minister for Economic Development and finally the Medium Term Financial Plan - sounds simple, does it not - Minimum Lodging Period by Deputy G. Southern which is P.120 of 2011. I submit.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Thank you, Vice-Chairman [Approbation]. Chief Minister, I see you wish to intervene.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I just wondered whether the Deputy had noted that P.76 was going to be deferred. If he could now confirm that.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Sorry.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

P.76 was on 5th July but I have asked for it to be deferred until September.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Yes, that is noted. Deputy S. Pitman.

Deputy S. Pitman:

Yes, Sir. May I ask that P.81 is deferred to 18th July sitting please?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

This is the G.S.T. exemption for health foods.

Deputy S. Pitman:

Yes.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Do you wish to defer that to 18th July?

Deputy S. Pitman:

Yes, Sir.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well. Are there any other matters to address?

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Sir, just one point. There have been several items deferred to the 18th and that is the last week. How manageable is that week going to be, Sir?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well, despite having predicted the length of the Island Plan within one hour, Deputy, I do not like to push my luck but my initial calculation on the 18th of the list as originally put forward was manageable in that sitting on Monday afternoon and sitting the 4 days to the Friday but 2 items have just been added so perhaps the Ministers and others do need to reassess the list. Deputy Tadier.

Deputy M. Tadier:

The question related to continuation days. Could a member of P.P.C. just confirm, for example, we will not be sitting on the Friday or the Monday but we would come back on the week of the 12th which is the Tuesday? Is that correct?

Deputy J.B. Fox:

Well, that was up to the Assembly but that was the proposal.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

It was the initial proposal that we do not sit on Friday, the 8th or Monday, the 11th but clearly ...

Deputy M. Tadier:

Can I just give notice, if the Assembly does change its mind for the Monday, I will be out of the Island on Monday, the 11th and in the unlikely event of 2 propositions that I have got, I would either like to take those before or after, Sir.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Let us cross that bridge as we come to it. I know some Members are otherwise engaged, the Deputy of St. Martin on Friday, and they will no doubt wish to keep that free if they can. Very well. Deputy Trevor Pitman.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I just want to say, Sir, I missed a couple of points. Could Deputy Fox repeat his speech again [Laughter]

Deputy J.B. Fox:

After this session.

[13:00]

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

A minor matter. I have just looked through the list of business on 18th July to see if there is anything that could be brought forward on the basis that we are sitting a week earlier and perhaps, if anything, the only thing I can think of is the Road and Pavements Liability and surely, Sir, that all efforts should be made to try and despatch any business that has got the requisite lodging times to move to the earlier sitting if possible so that we then do not have the backlog of the 18th and perhaps P.P.C. could consider that and even the Deputy of St. Martin invited to put his P.75 at the bottom of the list of the next sitting. I know it is only a small issue but would he be prepared to do that and we can despatch that?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

He is nodding so it appears to me that would be a logical move.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

If there is anything else ...

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well. The Vice-Chairman has referred to it. I was going to draw Members’ attention to the comments the Minister for Social Security presented this morning on the proposition Pension Survivor’s Benefit the Members will find in their pigeon holes. Very well, the Assembly has concluded a long sitting and the Assembly will reconvene on 5th July.

ADJOURNMENT

[13:01]