Question
Following concerns raised over how seigneurial rights could affect any plans to use the Island's foreshore, would the government consider simply abolishing all feudal rights which still exist in Jersey and, if not, how would he justify the continuation of such rights?
Answer
The Council of Minister’s view is that there are no seigneurial rights which would affect the plans to use the foreshore, so the abolition of any remaining rights for such a purpose would be unnecessary.
There is, of course, a precedent in the Seigniorial Rights (Abolition) (Jersey) Law 1966, under which a number of anachronistic feudal rights were abolished. Since such rights may be held by the Seigneurs under, or “of”, the Crown, it would be necessary to obtain the Sovereign’s consent to any such abolition.
However, abolition of any other rights would need to be justified and I am not currently aware of any legitimate reason to abolish such residual rights as may exist.
Question
Could the Minister explain exactly what the impact would be on the plans to introduce a new waste disposal charge if the Parish Assembly in St. Helier refuses to give permission to lift the covenant which prevents the parish from being charged for waste disposal?
Answer
The position of the Public is that there is not a covenant “which prevents the parish from being charged for waste disposal”. Furthermore the covenant, insofar as there was one, is long since prescribed. It is of course a matter for the Parish to seek its own advice. I am however pleased to confirm that it remains my intention to introduce a waste charge consensually which of course will require dialogue and engaging with the Parish of St Helier, but ultimately if there is an impasse between myself and the Parish, I cannot rule out seeking to bring the matter before the Royal Court for a declaration as to the correct interpretation or validity of the covenant.
Introducing a waste charge is no more than an application of the user pays principle. In that respect it is difficult to understand how it could be suggested to be unreasonable, unfair or unjustified for the waste charge to fall upon the shoulders of all Parishes. Any new “user pays” charge would be brought back to the States Assembly for its approval.
Question
Under what circumstances will public sector employees who take up voluntary redundancy as part of the initiative to shed States positions be subject to sanctions (benefit reduced by £92 for 13 weeks) as indicated on the relevant section of www.gov.je?
In more general terms, how is eligibility for benefit payments affected by voluntary redundancy payments?
Answer
The Deputy is referring to the effect of benefit sanctions on Income Support entitlement.
The Income Support scheme is designed to assist households that do not have sufficient income to meet their basic needs. It requires working age adults to take up and remain in employment to support themselves as far as possible. Financial penalties, or sanctions, are included within the Income Support system in respect of working age adults who give up work voluntarily.
The same rules apply for both public and private sector workers. Any person who is claiming or intending to claim Income Support, and accepts a voluntary redundancy package, is likely to incur a financial sanction for giving up work without good cause. The sanction will have the effect of reducing their Income Support entitlement by the value of their adult component for a period of 13 weeks.
For Income Support purposes, voluntary redundancy payments are treated as earnings, and will be applied to a person’s claim at their normal rate of pay. If a person aged under 65 is claiming or tries to claim Income Support after accepting a voluntary redundancy package, they may also be expected to register as a jobseeker, even if they have decided to claim the Old Age Pension from the age of 60 or 63.
Social Security contributions aren't deducted from voluntary redundancy payments but will still be due on any wages or outstanding holiday pay that are received as part of the final pay packet. If a person accepts a voluntary redundancy package they will in most cases be expected to maintain their contributions.
As noted in the question, detailed information is available to public sector workers considering offers of voluntary redundancy or early retirement and individuals should always speak to Social Security before making any long-term decisions, and should not expect to rely on Income Support as a substitute for wages.
Will the Chief Minister explain under what circumstances a public employee who voluntarily resigns from their position, for example, to spend more time with their family, would then be entitled to financial compensation in excess of their annual salary?
Employees leave organisations all the time for a variety of reasons. As an employer, the States of Jersey must ensure it fulfils its contractual and legal obligations to its employees.
[9:45]
In the case of the former Treasurer, is it the case that if she had left for personal reasons, in reality she would not be entitled to financial compensation in excess of her annual salary, and therefore one can only conclude that she did not leave for personal reasons, but perhaps due to a contractual clause being invoked which therefore led to the payment of this large amount of money?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
As the Treasurer herself said upon departure, it was for personal reasons, it was to go and return and be close to her family, and I think the fact that she now occupies a position in her home town shows that that was indeed the case. As I have said, there are contractual and legal obligations that the States, as an employer, must meet.
In the case of the previous Treasurer, a statement has been made by the Chief Minister’s office that the payment was in line with policies and codes of the States Employment Board. Can the Minister explain to us how those policies and codes are constructed in order that we should understand the nature of this particular payment?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
Those policies and codes were reviewed by the previous Comptroller and Auditor General. The Deputy will be aware of a notorious incident where an extremely large payment was made on the basis of a contractual obligation. We underwent reviews of contracts, we reviewed the policy and procedures. The previous Comptroller and Auditor General said that they appeared reasonable, but it is now 3 years since we undertook that review and we have agreed to undertake a further review, because we recognise that for many, these are large sums - indeed they are for the States Employment Board - and we should make sure that we limit them and the need to pay them as much as we possibly can.
Will the Chief Minister either circulate those policies and codes or indicate to Members where they can be found so that we too can study them and see if they make sense?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
I am not sure whether they are in the public domain or not, but if they are releasable, then I will.
I do not think the Chief Minister has answered the question. It cannot be the case that if somebody just resigns for personal reasons because they want to, it is their choice, and they are leaving and not working for over a year, but getting paid for work for over a year, that does not seem to make sense. However, it does make sense and it is understandable that if someone, on the other hand, leaves because of political interference - and that is the official reason, but not necessarily the public reason given - and the clause which invokes that kind of pay-off would be explicable. Out of those 2 choices, perhaps using Occam’s razor, can the Chief Minister tell us which of those 2 answers is most likely, bearing in mind that he is under an obligation to be as open as possible to us and the public?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
Deputy Tadier seems to have surmised reasons which are not in line with what the Treasurer, when she was departing, gave. I think I can only stand by the reasons that she gave. There were certain obligations that the employer then had to meet. As I have said, we understand that when payments of this nature are made, it can cause difficulty, and we will, after 3 years of abiding by a policy and procedure which the previous Comptroller and Auditor General said was reasonable, review it again.
Could the Minister advise how the enforcement of the mandatory requirement for all employers to pay the minimum wage is currently policed and what, if any, cases of non-compliance have been reported in the last 12 months?
Social Security compliance inspectors have powers under the Employment Law to monitor and enforce minimum wage. These inspectors undertake surveys of employers’ records, focusing particularly on new businesses. During such a survey, an employer will be advised of their responsibilities under both the Social Security Law and the Employment Law and all employees’ records will be checked to ensure that employees are being paid at least the minimum wage. Minimum wage infractions are rare. In the last 12 months to May 2015, only one case of non-compliance was reported to the Social Security compliance inspectors. As a result of the action taken by the department, the employer paid the amount owed to the employee and the minimum wage has been paid correctly going forward. In addition, a further 5 instances were proactively identified through the ongoing departmental inspection process. In all cases, the matter was resolved with the employers concerned and the employees have been paid the correct amount.
Can the Minister also advise as to how many cases concerning the non-payment of holiday pay relating to when the employee exits employment have been brought to the attention of the department in the last 12 months?
Deputy S.J. Pinel:
I thank the Deputy for his question. I do not have those figures, but I will get them and circulate them to him later.
Is it not the case that her officers are only entitled to go into a company and investigate on the grounds of whether or not they are paying the minimum wage and they cannot enforce any other articles, including the nature of contracts that are contained in the employment law; the single thing they can do is check on the minimum wage and nothing else in Employment Law? Does she not think it is about time that we had some teeth in the system so that we can check on more than just that issue?
Deputy S.J. Pinel:
I do not think that is quite correct. During the year, May 2014 to 2015, Social Security compliance inspectors carried out a total of 448 surveys on businesses. Inspectors found, through their inspections, an additional 5 employers, as I mentioned before, between these dates who were not paying the current minimum wage, but contracts are checked all the way through the businesses.
Can the Minister clarify whether the officers have the rules in place to enforce the proper application of contract law under the employment law?
Deputy S.J. Pinel:
The Employment Law obliges an employer to maintain certain records, including a record of the employee’s actual hours, in the form of a single document for each pay period, for example, weekly, sufficient to establish that the employer is paying a rate at least equal to the minimum wage. The records need to be kept, because they will help any employee, employer, enforcement officer, tribunal or court to determine whether the minimum wage has been paid. If there is a dispute, the burden is on the employer to prove that they have paid the minimum wage to an employee.
Is that confirmation that it is only the minimum wage that can be checked on by her officers?
Deputy S.J. Pinel:
The inspectors or officers are not only there to check on the minimum wage, but when they do, that is what they do, yes.
As the Minister said, only one case had been found that was being paid under the minimum wage and that the employer had then made the employee’s money up. Were there any other sanctions brought on the employer and what are the sanctions if this continues?
Deputy S.J. Pinel:
The Social Security inspectors are there to make an assessment of whether the employer and employee are both operating under the minimum wage contract. If there is an issue following that, then J.A.C.S. (Jersey Advisory and Conciliatory Service) are involved and J.A.C.S. will advise whether any further detail with the tribunal should be involved. J.A.C.S. have only dealt with one tribunal complaint relating to the minimum wage in the past 12 months.
A supplementary. I do not expect the Minister to have it on her, but could she check the scale of enforcement and what it would be for the employer if they ... well, it is not if they are caught and they pay the money back, it is what the scale of the fine should be in the courts. Can the Minister find out and circulate that later, please?
Deputy S.J. Pinel:
Yes. This is not something that would be enforced under the Social Security inspectors. It would be a tribunal, and as I say, there has only been one tribunal case in the last 12 months.
Can the Minister confirm that the only resolution can be sought from the tribunal process, and also, would she consider giving further powers to the Employment Forum to perhaps determine if the inspection regime is appropriate and adequate?
Deputy S.J. Pinel:
I do not think the Employment Forum necessarily need more powers than they have already. They refer to the tribunal if the case cannot be dealt with at employer and employee level, which is what we try to do to avoid any appeals or tribunal.
Does the Chief Minister consider that new user-pays charges are taxes, and if so, will he acknowledge that under his leadership taxes for ordinary Islanders will rise, and advise how this reconciles with statements made before, during and after the election that a government led by him would only raise taxes as a last resort?
The O.E.C.D. (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) defines taxes as: “Compulsory unrequited payments to general government.” A payment is considered unrequited if the benefits provided by the government are not in proportion to the payments made, so if someone pays a fee that is clearly related to the cost of providing a service, then under the O.E.C.D definition, that would not be considered a tax.
Notwithstanding the O.E.C.D.’s definition, does he agree with the definition of his own Minister for Health and Social Services, who says: “If it quacks, it is duck” and does he believe that that definition will have some resonance with the public, who are going to see what they are paying over the next few years rising under his leadership, when he promised it would not?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
The Deputy, when he is trying to attribute words to myself, it would be quite useful, I think, if in the first instance he at least tried to find some words that I would normally use, because then perhaps I would be able to respond to it. It is quite clear, and I have been quite clear for a number of elections, that if we want the health service that we think is suitable for our citizens, then we are going to have to have a conversation about paying more for it and how we fund it and how we make it sustainable into the future. I have got to say, with the greatest of respect, I would look to the O.E.C.D. for definitions of tax and contributions because they are the experts in that regard, so it is quite simple: if we want the health service that we believe is necessary into the future, then all of us are going to have to pay a little bit more for that service.
Does the Chief Minister accept that the fairest way of distributing taxes is the income tax system, if it is progressive, and does he accept that any other mechanism, whether it is charges at the point of delivery or user-pays charges, will unfairly impact those at the lowest end of our society and not those of the wealthiest?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
During the Strategic Plan debate, we had a debate in this Assembly about taxation and charges measures being low, broad, simple and fair, and those were the measures that we were going to move. I did not hear what the Minister for Health and Social Services said in the comments that are attributed to him, but I assume he said that we have not yet decided on the mechanism and that we would engage this Assembly and we would engage the public with deciding what was the best mechanism for delivering health services into the future, rather than having preconditions about what that best mechanism should be.
Deputy G.P. Southern:
Nonetheless, does the Chief Minister accept that income tax is the fairest way of distributing taxes?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
It is, certainly with regard to raising taxes, but there is also the thought around how contributions can be made fairer than perhaps they might be in some cases currently.
Does the Minister pursue a policy which essentially says that words do not have to make any logical sense, so long as they sound good and get us elected? Indeed, they can even be mutually exclusive, like low, fair, broad and simple, when in reality we know that service charges will affect those who are unable to pay most, and those with the most money, who would perhaps be able to contribute through a progressive tax system, will essentially be let off the hook. At the end of the day, most people are paying more and that is not what they voted for.
Senator I.J. Gorst:
The Deputy seems to have a model in mind of what he thinks might be the choice for helping to pay towards health services into the future. All sorts of models can be changed to offset the effects on the lowest-earning and the poorest members of our community.
[10:00]
Ministers will consider that, together with distributional analysis, when they make a decision about the methodologies that they are going to use or suggest be used in due course.
Does the Minister not think there is a risk that we are moving away from a health service, for example, system which is based on universal taxation to one which is based more on user pays? We are moving away from a system adopted by North European countries, which have very good models of health, to an American system, where we know we have a very costly system of health, which is one of the most ineffective in the world. Is that not something that concerns the Chief Minister?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
We already, as the Deputy knows, have a co-payment system for primary care and other European countries have that model as well. We have got to consider how we manage the income that we are going to need to raise to pay for healthcare into the future, but it has got to be sustainable. There are many systems around Europe where they are not sustainable, where they are considering what the cost effects are going to be of an ageing demographic. We are doing that, and this Assembly will ultimately decide.
I would like to ask questions on the specific details of these new user-pays charges and taxes, but here we are, 8 months and one day since Senator Gorst was elected, and we do not have one iota of detail of how he wants to extract this money from public wallets to provide these services he says he wants to provide. Does he agree with me that it is the cause of cynicism among the public of politics, when we have governments which proceed to do things that they never, ever said before the election that they were planning on doing?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
Once again, I cannot concur with the Deputy’s accusations. We have to engage with the public and we have been quite clear about that. If the Deputy refers to issue documents from the previous government about paying for healthcare in the future, I would have thought they were quite clear. We have had lots of consultation sessions. The previous Minister for Health and Social Services was extremely clear when she spoke about funding of health care into the future. It just seems that now, for political purposes, the Deputy is choosing to forget those public statements.
A final supplementary, if I can. Could he point out where on his election manifesto he said he would introduce health charges, rather than accusing me of playing politics?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
Sadly, I do not have a copy with me this morning, which is most unusual, but I shall endeavour to review it.
Is it the case that the disproportionate number of admissions to A. and E. (Accident and Emergency), particularly at weekends, relate to conditions induced by the intake of excessive alcohol or drugs, and that such admissions deflect medical staff from attending other emergencies and impact upon the overall health budget? Will the Minister therefore introduce a standard charge payable by the patient when their condition is self-inflicted?
While I have some understanding of the Deputy’s line of questioning and can understand the frustration that some people may feel when it appears that their treatment has been delayed in A. and E. by those who appear to be under the influence of drink or drugs, I have to make the point that we are there to treat everybody that reports to A. and E., irrespective of their ailment or however caused. [Approbation] We are not there to judge. Every patient must be assessed on clinical need and the clinical staff will attend them accordingly. In fact, the concept of charging patients who may attend with perceived self-inflicted conditions is fraught with problems. For example, should we charge the short of breath patient who is a smoker, or the heart attack patient who eats unhealthy food and smokes, or the obese patient who fails to take medical advice? While all emergency departments see an increase in attendance of individuals under the influence of alcohol or drugs, particularly at weekends, it does not necessarily mean this is the cause of their attendance.
I have to say, I am somewhat disappointed at the response. I do not wish in any way to suggest that medical services should be not made available to all who require them. All I am saying is that where those services are required to rectify a condition which is self-inflicted, some regard should be had to the requirements of both the medical staff who are providing that service and to the taxpayers as a whole who pay for them and that there must surely be some measure of procedure which could be implemented to ensure that such people do pay. As a crude example, we have parking fines where there is an initial charge which can be appealed against, and I would not wish there to be anything other than an appeal process, so the concerns which the Minister suggest could, I suggest, be fairly easily resolved by putting a procedure in place such as that. I would therefore ask him to reconsider the general principle.
Senator A.K.F. Green:
As I said in my initial answer, the problem is that once you start to look for different reasons for treating people differently, I believe the doctors would not be fulfilling their oath as a doctor. They are there not to judge people, but to treat people, and I would not be part of a health service that did do that. The evidence that I have is that the Emergency Department, although we do not keep significant records on alcohol ingestion and substances in the form of drug-taking ingestion, the evidence is that there is not such a big problem in the department. It is about one patient per hour over the weekend, compared with many other people reporting for medical treatment. The one thing that I will not tolerate is abuse of the staff, and I am sure Members would agree that a zero-tolerance policy, supporting our staff, who should not have to put up with abusive behaviour. But I have to say that people do not have to be drunk to be rude.
This question concerns me greatly. Having worked on the front line in A. and E. Departments and subsequently as a G.P. (general practitioner), responding to people with both mental and physical emergencies, all too frequently unfortunately the behaviour brought about by a mental health crisis can be viewed as a flawed character, rather than a sign of distress and breakdown. I am fortunate: when I am stressed, I do not turn to drugs or alcohol, cutting, violence or bingeing. I tend to lose my appetite, and currently it is quite fashionable to be thin. I also have a support network of kind family and friends and fellow professionals to turn to when facing hard times.
The Bailiff:
Can you get to the question, Senator, please?
Senator Z.A. Cameron:
I can assure the Assembly that it is not generally a place, A. and E., that people choose to spend a large part of their time. It is a place of last resort, when people have failed to find help elsewhere.
The Bailiff:
Sorry, will you get to the question? Senator, will you get to the question, please? This is not a speech, it is question time.
Senator Z.A. Cameron:
I would like to ask the Minister for Health and Social Services, recently in the U.K. (United Kingdom) there was a report that demonstrated that unfortunately, when attending A. and E., only 35 per cent of the time were people with mental health problems able to find the support that they needed. I hope that in Jersey, our A. and E. staff, medical staff, will receive the training they need to treat these people and recognise and treat mental health problems as well as physical health emergencies. Thank you.
Senator A.K.F. Green:
I think there is a question there, and I think the question is around the provision of how we treat mental health patients presenting in A. and E. Of course mental health should be treated and is treated just as seriously as any other physical condition, although they may come together sometimes, and the Senator knows that I take this matter seriously. It is something that I stood on the platform before election and we are bringing forward a new mental health strategy. We have a new capacity law coming forward and all staff will be trained in that. In fact, some staff have been trained already in interim Capacity Law to help people understand the conditions of mental health.
In a different thrust perhaps to the initial questioner, does the Minister for Health and Social Services think that is a good argument, that people who are conscientious drinkers should be given priority treatment at A. and E., given the fact that they have probably paid in lots in the form of duty and G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) on the alcohol, and that if that money was ring-fenced, compared to somebody else who might have an injury and they have never paid into the system whatsoever, the hard-working drinker may feel quite disgruntled when such comments are being made in this Assembly?
Senator A.K.F. Green:
All treatment must be based on clinical need and no other.
The Minister will be aware of the facility at Kensington Place, the Drunk and Incapable facility, where drunks are allowed to recover in a monitored and safe way. Will he continue to support this facility or expand it, if possible, as he sees fit?
Senator A.K.F. Green:
First of all, I must congratulate and thank the shelter for the work that they do there in allowing people who are intoxicated to sober up in a safe place. I have no plans to change my arrangements or my department’s arrangements with them. As to expanding it, that depends on the clinical need. If there is evidence it needs to be expanded, then we would consider it.
Although congratulating the efforts and the action at the Emergency Department - they provide an excellent service - they are often inundated with perhaps cases that would normally be seen by a G.P., and this is an issue that is on the increase because of the cost of G.P.s. Not that I am saying that G.P.s are charging too much, more the issue that some people cannot afford it. What is the Minister prepared to do to negate that problem whereby A. and E. is getting clogged-up with people that would normally perhaps in the past have gone to see their G.P.? What measures could he introduce to prevent that happening?
Senator A.K.F. Green:
While there is no doubt that in Jersey we do have people attending A. and E. that would be better-placed attending their G.P., I have to say that we do not have the problem that the A. and E. Departments have in the U.K., where over Christmas last year some departments were practically brought to their knees by people attending A. and E. that should not be there. It is a problem, but we have an excellent G.P. service and people do use it appropriately and very often can get their doctor of choice. That is why we do not have a significant problem in A. and E. But to come to the question, am I considering a charge for people who should be attending their G.P. rather than A. and E., it is all in the melting pot. This is something that we are working on at the moment. We are looking at whether it is appropriate to have user pays in some areas; we are looking at whether it is appropriate to have a similar system to ring-fence for health, a similar system to the long-term care. We have not come up with our decisions yet. We are looking at it. I have to answer the question the Chief Minister was not able to to Deputy Southern: in June 2001, the previous Minister made all this quite clear in a written reply to him.
Again, I repeat that I am somewhat disappointed at the responses. I believe it is quite feasible to introduce a system whereby those less-deserving cases ...
The Bailiff:
Deputy, it is the opportunity for a question, not a statement.
The Deputy of St. Mary:
I have no further questions then, Sir.
Will the Minister, as shareholder representative, advise whether J.T. (Jersey Telecom) is resisting wholesale access for competitors to its single-line network by restricting customer transfers to 20 a day, and if so, will the Minister raise this with the J.T. board, together with the failure of J.T. to allow wholesale rental on multiple lines and broadband and fixed-number portability so that these matters of public interest are dealt with urgently?
Transferring customers from one telephone network to another is not just a matter of flicking a switch. For that reason, there has been significant system and inter-operator process development over the last few months. J.T. has confirmed that in the very short period since launching wholesale line rental on 1st June, it has limited the number of ports to 20 per day for an initial period only. The reason for limiting the number of ports a day to 20 has been clearly communicated to C.I.C.R.A. (Channel Islands Competition and Regulatory Authorities). Once J.T. has at least one month billing run under their belt to confirm that everything works efficiently then it is expected that switching will speed-up. The approach to applying a limit of this nature is tried and tested. For example, when mobile number portability was introduced in the mobile market there were a limited number of 20 ports per day for the initial period post launch. J.T. has provided a clear undertaking to C.I.C.R.A. that it will be reviewing the appropriateness of a cap on 1st July. In terms of the other products listed C.I.C.R.A. have consulted extensively on these matters and wholesale line rental was listed as a priority. Once this is fully embedded I am sure that C.I.C.R.A. will be assessing the most appropriate next steps.
[10:15]
Could the Minister perhaps expand on his last point of this being listed as a priority? What is the timescale here? There seems to have been a protracted period of prevarication on this issue despite very clear recommendations in 2009 by Regulate with their report, which cost over £100,000. Very little was done on this issue. Nothing was done on this issue by the Department of Economic Development over 6 years. I wonder now he is at Treasury will he consider taking the nuclear option and instructing the board of J.T. to get a move on with this or replace them?
Senator A.J.H. Maclean:
That certainly is a nuclear option the Deputy referred to. I just remind Members - and I am sure I do not need to - that matters relating to C.I.C.R.A. are matters, as the Deputy has alluded to, for the Minister for Economic Development and I am sure that the Assistant Minister, who has delegated responsibility, will be dealing with this. I know it is a matter that is a high priority from his point of view. I cannot give a timescale. Clearly that is not within my remit. I can say that the Deputy asked about whether I would raise this matter with the board. I will at the next meeting raise it with the board and I also suggest the Deputy will have an opportunity to do so himself in a week’s time. Next Monday is the launch of the J.T. accounts. I would encourage the Deputy and all Members to come along and have their chance to speak to the board and executive about matters they feel are important. It is a really important annual event.
Does the Minister accept that progress towards a truly open and competitive market in telecoms is painfully, inordinately slow and will he consider giving increased powers to C.I.C.R.A. in order that it should have some clout to speed-up competition, which he says is going to bring down costs?
Senator A.J.H. Maclean:
As I pointed out, C.I.C.R.A. is the responsibility of the Minister for Economic Development. The Assistant Minister, Senator Ozouf, I know is looking at this matter. I have discussed it with him and he has plans with C.I.C.R.A. to try to speed-up access and the point specifically raised in the Deputy’s question about other products are on the list to be progressed as a matter of priority. I cannot at this stage, because it is not my direct responsibility, give numbers, a clear line or timing, but it is a matter that is important. I agree with both the Deputies in that regard.
Can the Minister account for the increase in void times reported by Andium Homes, due apparently to an increase in refusals through the Affordable Housing Gateway, and advise what measures are under consideration to improve this apparent inefficiency?
Applicants refuse offers for a variety of reasons across all social housing providers, Andium Homes and the other housing trusts. For example, they may not like the area the property is located in or consider the property is not in a good condition or does not meet their specific requirements. Having a void property is an inefficient use of housing stock so when an offer is refused we need to understand the reasons for this and make sure that any concerns are reasonable. In these situations Andium Homes will work with the Gateway team to identify suitable applicants for the homes that become available.
If there has been an increase in void times up to a month, I believe, which is quite significant, it must surely mean that the process through which applicants are allocated to particular housing has increased inefficiency. Certainly, whenever I have advised people applying to social housing I suggested they be very specific about what their needs are and what type of accommodation they want and where they should be going. This obviously seems to be not happening with the new team. What measures can she take to make sure the system gets more efficient in the short term?
The Deputy of Trinity:
We want the system as efficient as we possibly can and the Gateway team works extremely closely with the applicants as well as the social housing providers. But if there are any reasons why the information given to the Gateway team is wrong or not quite as full as possible then obviously that does take time. But people do refuse, as I said, for a variety of reasons and location or perhaps the condition of the property is not how they would expect it to be, unfortunately, and that results in the times of empty houses taking a bit longer.
The Minister has failed to address the core of the question, which is what she can do about the fact that the system appears to have got worse. I accept that people refuse particular offers of accommodation for whatever reasons. Nonetheless the facts state the system has got worse and what steps will she take to improve this in the short term?
The Deputy of Trinity:
As I said, I do not think I quite agree that the system has got worse. There is one per cent, which is about 60 void properties at a time and, as I said, that is one per cent of Andium’s total housing stock of over 4,500, bearing in mind that they have significant investment to make the properties up to decent home standards. That does take time until we have played catch-up. But in the short term Andium has just launched a choice-based letting scheme for those applicants in Gateway’s 1 and 2 Bands and this is a pilot and it has been very successful and they hope to roll it our more in the foreseeable future.
Could the Minister advise whether there is an allocations policy and who it applies to, whether it is the Gateway or whether it is Andium Homes, and when it was last reviewed?
The Deputy of Trinity:
The allocation policy sits with the Gateway team. As they know, there are 6 bands, Band 1 and 2 being the highest priority, especially Band 1. That is under review at this present moment in time.
Would the Minister be able to advise when that review will end and will the Members will be able to have a copy of that?
The Deputy of Trinity:
I think the review should finish by the next couple of months. As regarding Members having a copy, I will wait and see what the review says first. If it is appropriate I will release it to Members.
The Minister has failed again to answer the questions as to what she is going to do about this clearly signalled deterioration in the service. Nonetheless could she take the opportunity to explain to Members a little more detail, clarify what the choice-based system of Band 1 and Band 2 involves?
The Deputy of Trinity:
I am happy to send that information around to States Members. It is when a limited number of vacant properties in the Andium stocks are advertised and they are advertised to households in Band 1 or Band 2, and then the households themselves can express an interest in which properties would suit their needs. Once the interests have been received then the manager can carry out an assessment and has allocated a property according to the highest ranking applicant. It has been very successful and I am happy to send out more information about it.
Have there been any discussions with local housing trusts regarding the possible introduction of a scheme to provide for sale their housing stock to existing tenants in an initiative similar to the Right-to-Buy scheme in the U.K. and if not, why not?
I am pleased to say I have held very positive discussions with the affordable housing providers about supporting greater home ownership. However I am in favour of such trust schemes, but this policy needs to be matched with additional supply to ensure there is no reduction in the net supply of affordable rental homes.
It is open to any Andium housing tenant to buy any property, even if it is not the property they are living in. Is this right transferable across the housing trusts, i.e. a 3-bedroom house comes vacant in Andium, you have a tenant in a trust who wants to buy. Are they at this present time even made that offer? Is it not total double standards? The Minister wants to sell a certain amount of homes. Surely they are all social housing stock, the majority all funded by money from the States.
The Deputy of Trinity:
The principle is right but Andium sell approximately 15 or so homes a year on a deferred payment scheme and this has been in place since 2008. The level is sustainable at this present rate, but to put it out to more social providers we need to increase the housing stock. Otherwise if that unit is sold it can be out of social rental ad infinitum.
The Minister is correct to be concerned about protecting the housing stock but does she agree that in circumstances where properties are sold-off to tenants, where appropriate it is imperative we have a proper ring-fence system so that those properties remain as affordable homes and a system, perhaps whereby first refusal is given back to Andium or the social housing Gateway is put in place before any of these properties are sold-off?
The Deputy of Trinity:
Yes, and Andium do that as I understand it. If someone has bought a house and they wish to sell it for whatever reason I think it is right they have to sell it back to Andium so they can relocate it, either selling it on or put it back into social rental.
Will the Minister undertake that similar provisions should be extended to other social housing providers if that is also going on?
The Deputy of Trinity:
I am standing up, Sir, with my leg up and down. I would like to think it could be extended to other social housing providers but they need to increase their stock. Some of the social housing providers are very small, cushioned together and they have very small stock. So, if you take out even 2 or 3 the stock is gone, and going back to increasing more supply, which I hope we can do with the fields that have been rezoned in the Island Plan.
Referring to the sustainability of what the Minister is doing, does she accept that any sales are likely to make the system less sustainable in that we have a proven shortage of social rental homes and can she update Members on how many people are waiting on the list in Band 1 and how many sales she has made in the last quarter?
The Deputy of Trinity:
There are quite a few parts there. It needs to be sustainable and Andium with their business plan feel that 15 or so houses are sustainable until we get new supply up and running. Regarding the Gateway numbers, I have them here and I am happy to circulate. As of May 2015 in Gateway there were 1,082 and Band 1 was 222. This shows a decrease compared to June 2014 of 1,269. I am happy to circulate those numbers.
Provided they are sold at a reasonable price, surely the funds can then be recycled back into the system enabling more homes to be built. This unfortunately did not happen during the Thatcher era in the U.K. and a huge number of homes were sold and not replaced. Can the Minister confirm that the funds are being recycled and then put back into more social housing in which case you could expedite the process and provide more funds for more homes over a shorter period?
[10:30]
The Deputy of Trinity:
It is being recycled, so to speak, back into Andium but it still comes down to physically building the stock. The Island Plan has rezoned some sites as we know and they are on an 80/20 split with Samarés and De La Mare, so there will be some more units coming on line, and those 2 sites have identified 55 new affordable units for sale. So, it is coming but it will not happen overnight, unfortunately.
I was prompted to bring this question because we have the Gateway where everybody goes in. You may be allocated Andium or you may be allocated a housing trust. My concern is to do with voids in Andium. Some very desirable properties, normally 3 beds, I know are waiting 7 to 8 months, even a year because they cannot get an Andium tenant to buy them. They cannot buy them because they cannot get the mortgage. There may be a tenant who is just a few years back been put in a housing trust who has the funds. It is about equity. It is about asking those tenants who are all social housing tenants whether they would like to buy the Andium property. It is done across Andium and I would like the Minister to assure the House that this is something she will look into seriously. I am not asking for the amount tomorrow to be sold-off. I am asking for all social tenants to be treated the same.
The Deputy of Trinity:
I would like to think they are all treated the same. I would like to extend this more but at the end of the day it is lack of stock, and we know that we have not built as many houses as we need. There is a need and hopefully, with the bonds that have been secured, that building is taking place. We know that Ann Court will be for social rentals but that is going to take 2 or 3 years to come off. We need to get on and build.
Once a living wage for Jersey has been calculated and the Living Wage Foundation established in Jersey would the Minister be prepared to recommend to the Council of Ministers that the States of Jersey becomes an accredited member of the Living Wage Foundation and thus ensure that all employees, and in particular the employees of sub-contractors, are paid the living wage?
The living wage report that has recently been produced by social security professionals found that Jersey’s minimum wage plus income support already satisfies the requirement for a living wage when compared with existing schemes in other jurisdictions. The States of Jersey already pays a fair wage for its employees and its sub-contractors are required by law to pay at least the minimum wage. It would, of course, be premature to agree in advance to sign-up to a scheme that does not yet exist and whose calculations are therefore untested, but Ministers would consider appropriate evidence put before them in due course.
When the Department for Social Security presented their recent report on the concept of a living wage the accompanying report from the Economic Adviser was very brief. Would the Minister be prepared to instruct the Economic Adviser to prepare a more in-depth report that provides the information on both the benefits and the economic challenges or tackling low pay?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
The Deputy believed it to be brief. However, I think it covered the salient points and I am not sure there is further work that could be usefully undertaken but I will explore whether there is.
Will the Chief Minister commit himself to work to achieve the release of the data on which the conclusions of the living wage report were based - released into the public domain from the authority that holds this data - so that Members of the States in particular can examine the basis on which the conclusions of the living wage report are based?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
We have already made those inquiries and requested that we be allowed to do so because it is not our data. The initial response was that we would not be given that permission but I will certainly request that we are given permission to release that third party’s data and if not if there is some other form in which some of that could be released, because I accept that it is important.
In case the Minister had forgotten the size of the economic report from the adviser, that is it. This is a report that is 40 pages. This is 5 on the economic impact of the living wage in the U.K. I think perhaps the Minister should recommend that more work is done on that. Having said that I would also like to ask: the minimum wage legislation was implemented to prevent extreme exploitation of workers; does the Minister agree that this important piece of social legislation should now evolve to tackle the wider issue of low pay? The challenge today is that so many people in Jersey who earn the minimum wage are still finding themselves subject to in-work poverty and relative poverty.
Senator I.J. Gorst:
I do support the minimum wage and I think the best way to deal with some of the issues currently that the Deputy is rightly raising is through the minimum wage. He talks about the economic report. It may not be lengthy in page numbers but I think the information it contains therein is good and some of the economics are difficult because if we look to the United Kingdom and into London, the percentage of those helped through the introduction of a living wage has not been very great. So, yes, it has helped those individuals but surely a far better approach is to try to work with the Employment Forum to see quicker increases in the minimum wage.
Would the Minister inform the Assembly what difficulties, if any, have been caused by the decision of England and Wales that prisoners cannot at the present time be relocated to a prison in the vicinity of their family and friends and state how the prison plans to manage high-profile prisoners who are required to complete a long prison sentence under these circumstances?
The number of prisoners seeking transfer to England and Wales is currently very low, 9 at present, so there are no significant difficulties caused by the current embargo on transfers. The prison service routinely has to manage high profile prisoners and in the vast majority of cases does not require any change to normal prison regime. Following risk assessment the prison governor will make appropriate adjustments to the regime for identified individuals if deemed necessary. While the embargo is in place England and Wales will still consider exceptional cases referred by management for operational reasons.
What discussions were taken by the Home Affairs in the U.K. and the Minister for Home Affairs before this embargo was again reintroduced? It was lifted in the summer of last year and then reintroduced in December of last year. What discussions took place with our authorities before they just put this embargo and said we will not take any prisoners back?
The Deputy of St. Peter:
I have had no direct consultation with the Home Office in the U.K. The prison governor is made aware of the embargo as it is introduced. It is something that has come and gone with recent times, given the position in the U.K.
While I do not have any problem whatsoever in the repatriation of prisoners, am I correct in assuming that the States of Jersey pay all fees for prisoners transferred to the U.K. and abroad?
The Deputy of St. Peter:
I do not know the exact answer to that question. I can endeavour to find out. I would assume it would be yes, but I shall check.
I would be glad if the Minister for Home Affairs could check that because if we were paying I am surprised they would be turning down prisoners. Could she find out the exact reason then why we are not being allowed? The Minister says 9 is not a problem. They must plan for 9. If it is not paid for in the U.K. when will the prison population become a problem?
The Deputy of St. Peter:
If I could just be clear, when I understood the previous speaker’s question I thought he was referring to the physical cost of the transfer, i.e. transport costs. That was how I was referring to his question. The residential costs depend on the residency of the individual who is being transferred to the U.K. prison. To move on to Deputy Martin’s question, it has now escaped me. I apologise.
I will stick to one question. There are 9 at the moment. When does it become a problem? If this embargo continues what would we be likely to see the population at? The Minister must know in 2013 how many prisoners did transfer to England and Wales and on the average when this starts to become a problem for our prison and overcrowding, because it is a one-prison-fits-all scenario here.
The Deputy of St. Peter:
The current position at the prison is we have 153 prisoners, which is a little higher than it was on average last year. But the current position is not a problem. The situation does not vary among exactly the number of prisoners because we have a full-time staff and that staff is worked out on an average figure, so one or 2 prisoners or even 9 does not make a great deal of difference. The number of transfers is not a large number each year and therefore it is at the moment a manageable thing. As I said in my initial answer, the U.K. is happy to accept and negotiate with us at times when there are specific needs to be met by Jersey prisoners and if the governor makes a particular request to them they generally do help as best they can.
Further to a response on a question on 4th February 2014 by his predecessor that he had met with the States of Jersey Development Company the day before and was: “... absolutely clear with the S.o.J.D.C. (States of Jersey Development Company) that their buildings are to be progressed on a fully let basis”, can the Minister confirm that the minutes of that meeting reflect this and state exactly what the minutes record, if anything, in this regard?
The minutes of the meeting do not mention the level of pre-let for any office buildings in the Jersey International Finance Centre.
Has the Minister seen that, if he could confirm that?
Senator A.J.H. Maclean:
Yes.
This Minister was asked a question on the Waterfront by Deputy Hilton with supplementaries from Deputy Higgins and myself this February, and with every opportunity to tell us that the goalposts have been moved. He did not. I have read the Hansard twice now and he has 3 opportunities when he stands up and says about pre-lets and it is under the conditions where this Assembly approved. Why did the Minister not take the opportunity to bring this Assembly up to date and tell us the goalposts have not been moved, they have disappeared?
Senator A.J.H. Maclean:
The goalposts had not moved. In fact I was unaware of what Senator Ozouf had said previously. When I was answering a question to Deputy Hilton it was to confirm whether what had previously been said was the case. My understanding was that when this Assembly approved P.73/2010 that was when - if I can use the terminology of the Deputy - the goalposts moved. That was when this Assembly moved from the original Harcourt arrangements, which was the whole of the development by one third party developer. That is why the condition of 200,000 square feet was put in place. When P.73 was approved by this Assembly it was on the basis of a phased approach and the 200,000 square feet had gone. When Deputy Hilton asked me the question I assumed it was referring to comments made in relation to that, not the 200,000 square feet, which has since arisen and I have since corrected.
The Minister was not asked a question about that. The question of Deputy Hilton was about who was going to occupy the building. Was it a quango? Was it the States? It went into the amount of the Minister confirming it would be on previous agreements from the States. The Minister says he did not know.
[10:45]
It is terrible he did not know. If he did not know it is bad and if he did know it is even worse that he did not inform this Assembly. Which is right? Is he negligent, because he is negligent both ways and I would like to think he did not know but if he did not know it is very, very bad?
Senator A.J.H. Maclean:
I am not entirely sure what the Deputy is suggesting I did not know. Perhaps you could clarify. I think I have made the point clear from my perspective but if she could clarify what she means.
Deputy J.A. Martin:
There was no mention in the answer on Hansard of the 200,000 square feet. The Minister replied to myself, Deputy Hilton and Deputy Higgins that the pre-lets will be on what was agreed in this House. If he knew that it had moved he should have informed this House then. He did not. If he did not know somebody is doing the wrong job.
Senator A.J.H. Maclean:
The pre-lets are on the arrangement of what was agreed in this House and that is quite simply what was agreed by the Assembly in 2010 under P.73. That is when the arrangements changed. Prior to that was the arrangements with Harcourt and that was when 200,000 square feet was put in place specifically to protect the Island and that was perfectly reasonable bearing in mind the position Harcourt had internationally with a development in Las Vegas that left that area with a hole in the ground, which clearly we did not want to have occurring in Jersey or the associated financial risk.
The issue is that the previous Minister used the words “a fully let basis”. He did not mention the 200,000. He said “fully let” and that does indeed reflect what was in P.73 of 2010. If it proposed that a specific development is undertaken directly by S.o.J.D.C. before committing to construction costs, S.o.J.D.C. will have to secure a sufficient level of legally binding presales or pre-lets to fund the costs of constructing the first phase of the scheme. Not to get a loan, which is what the Minister is now saying, but to fund the cost of constructing the first phase of a scheme. That is the reality. It is very generous of the current Minister to say the previous Minister made a mistake but I think what was committed to in P.73 was to engage in legally binding presales or pre-lets from the total cost of the development. Does he not agree?
Deputy G.P. Southern:
I am not sure what the question was there. The Deputy is right. He is reading and quoting from the memorandum of understanding that was approved as part of P.73/2010 and he is correct insofar as it talks about covering the cost of construction. Indeed, that is exactly what the process here is with regard to the borrowing for building number 4, which is the first one. The Deputy also mentioned fully let and 200,000 square feet. In fact, previously in Hansard there were 2 references by my predecessor to both 200,000 square feet and indeed fully let, which was the basis of the question I have answered this morning. I hope I have clarified both of those, that they are historic, certainly the 200,000 square feet is.
If no one else has a question I will ask a final supplementary. I think the point is - and it has been elucidated and will no doubt come out more thoroughly in the debate - that it seems the Council of Ministers has sunk to a new low at a point where we have learned this morning that Senator Ozouf has not only been away on States business but has been taken ill, and our thoughts are with him because it is never nice to be ill, especially when travelling. But this Council of Ministers has sought fit to say that he made a mistake when all the previous Minister for Treasury and Resources was doing was abiding by the States decision that was made, which said we must commit, we must secure sufficient level of legally binding presales or pre-lets to fund the cost of constructing the first phase of the scheme. We have not done that. We secured enough to secure a bank loan and it does not cover the costs of the scheme. Therefore something has changed and will he Minister admit now that we have and met that test and then Senator Ozouf was correct and that he is the one that is wrong and has potentially inadvertently been misleading this Assembly.
Senator A.J.H. Maclean:
That is a new and interesting angle coming from Deputy Tadier. First of all, I have not said anything other than I assume that Senator Ozouf has made a mistake. It is a matter for him to correct when he is back in the Island and in a position to do so and I am sure he will be more than happy to do so. What I can confirm is, and I have said it already this morning, that in P.73/2010 it made it absolutely clear the way in which this development was going to be managed and, in particular, the M.o.U. (Memorandum of Understanding), which Deputy Southern a moment ago quoted from, made it clear about the level of costs, as far as covering construction that was necessary per building. Phase 1 of 6 buildings, each one of those buildings is a sub-phase and Building 4, which is the first one to be constructed, is sub-phase 1A. There is enough value in that building, as a result of the lease, to cover the cost of construction. That has been verified independently by the bank providing the funding and that is why it is in a position to be able to go ahead and that is where we are.
Would the Minister consider amending the Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007 to allow single parents to continue to receive the lone-parent components of income support after their child turns 19, so long as their child is still in full-time education?
Members will be aware that we are in a period when States departments have been given a clear objective to limit any expansion to their budgets and, indeed, a target of achieving substantial savings in order to meet the demands of the next Medium-Term Financial Plan. At a time when all benefit expenditure is under review I do not think it would be sensible to pre-empt these challenging decisions by reviewing any one component of income support in isolation for the overall levels of support available to a household. At present, officers from my department are working hard to find proposals to meet our M.T.F.P. (Medium-Term Financial Plan) responsibilities. They are still a work in progress but details will be communicated to Members as soon as possible. I would like to thank Members for their patience in awaiting further detail of these changes. I can, however, confirm that a parent of a young child in full-time education on-Island is supported through the weekly payments of the basic adult component of £92.12 in respect of that young adult, as well as additional help towards their reasonable accommodation costs.
There was an aspect of that answer that frankly I was astounded by. Would the Minister agree that the current situation where it cuts off at the age of 19 is unnecessarily arbitrary and does not take into account individual families’ different circumstances? Does she believe it is right that families with one parent will be the ones having to bear the brunt of a budget restraint, as she has suggested?
Deputy S. Pinel:
No, the lone-parent component was designed to offer increased financial support to single parents with a child or children. When a child reaches compulsory school-leaving age, which is the end of the school year in which they have their 16th birthday, they switch from receiving the child’s rate of income support to the higher rate of adults. This increases the amount the parent receives for them from £63.98 to £92.12. Despite this, the decision was taken to extend the lone-parent component until a young adult’s 19th birthday. This was done in order to maintain the additional support until the end of the secondary education.
Does the Chief Minister believe that issuing an open invitation to over 7,000 States employees to consider voluntary release was the most efficient mechanism to achieve targets for a reduction in a number of States posts? Will he further inform Members what the external advisers have contributed so far towards achieving his targets?
Redundancy is never an easy option in any organisation and it is better that people can leave voluntarily, rather than under compulsory redundancy. Offering voluntary redundancy, albeit under strict conditions, can assist in the reshaping of the public sector. It is one of the measures being used to control expenditure and head count. If we do not achieve our goals under a voluntary scheme then compulsory redundancy will become an option. Our external advisers are acting as critical friends and advisers to the Council of Ministers as we evaluate the options available to us to achieve our goals while working towards balancing our budgets by 2018/2019.
Does the Minister have any draft proposals for where he sees these reductions in numbers taking place? Is it most likely in T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) say or is it most likely in another department? Where does he think that the target in fact will be?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
That is not how these processes work. People come forward when it comes to voluntary redundancy and they offer up themselves. The department, together with line managers and those working on the shop floor, as it were, then think about whether services can be reorganised so that a particular post does not need to be re-recruited to and that is the approach that we are taking. We are looking right across the departmental structure to deliver the efficiencies and savings and redesign.
Does that not mean then that individuals, whether senior management or other, are going to be making hundreds of individual decisions on particular jobs throughout the service? This sounds to me like a very inefficient way of organising things. Surely it would be far better to have targets for particular services which are more likely to need reform.
Senator I.J. Gorst:
Then the Deputy will be challenging us for an unintelligent thought-out approach where we were unnecessarily making people redundant and we are not prepared to do that. The service has to be changing or stopping, inefficiency has to be driven out and that is the approach that we are taking.
Does the Chief Minister share my concerns that those most likely to choose to take voluntary redundancy are those who are most likely to be able to find alternative employment? Those on salaries above their level of competence are the least likely to leave. The U.K. currently has twice the number of public service managers, compared to the E.U. (European Union) average and are they really the ones best placed to be making the assessments as to who should be made redundant? What measures are there in place to prevent this?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
The Senator makes a good point about restructuring management and it picks up again on Deputy Southern’s point, that there are managers right across the departments sometimes managing similar functions. It is those structures that need to be delayered and we need to look at the administration and reduce inefficiencies. That is the approach that we are taking and we are doing it in a joined-up together way so that the central functions know what is happening and we can make informed decisions about whether those posts are legitimately not needed into the future, rather than the scenario that the Senator fears.
This is really a follow-on from that, the Minister’s answer for interest from 7,000 States employees, would they take voluntary redundancy? We were only told very early this year that the departments or Ministries were looking at what functions they were going to stop, what functions they were going to outsource and then what functions they need to maintain. Only yesterday the Chief Executive Officer said it is the post, not the person. If they feel the post must stay then the person cannot go, even if they are terrible at their job basically but the 7,000 is across the board. This is not thought through, it is too soon, you do not know who you need, the work has not been done. Would the Minister not agree?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
Absolutely not. The Deputy makes some good points about needing to do it across departments, about the post having to go, about the saving needing to be delivered, not based on personality. In the scenario where an individual is not performing that is one of the reasons why we are introducing performance management. It is one of the reasons why we are working for a new pay structure, so that we can deal with all those historic issues as well.
The Minister has just said every point that I made was a good point but he has not agreed that they have done the work to back up what I have said. It should only be the posts that are being targeted once the work for ceasing, outsourcing and maintaining has been done. He did not agree he had done that. Can the Minister now agree that all my points were good and valid? [Laughter]
Senator I.J. Gorst:
As much as I would like to be in a position to be able to say that I agreed with all of the Deputy's points, I agreed with the majority of her points.
[11:00]
The point I did not agree with was that we should not be undertaking and seeking expressions of interest with regard to voluntary redundancy in this early stage. It is a methodology which is used in the private sector and it can help, so the Deputy at the back is groaning about that fact. But it can help to see where efficiencies can be delivered and it gives others an understanding of individuals in posts that may be able to be removed. While I agree with most of what the Deputy was saying, that single point about it being too early, I could not agree with.
The Chief Minister has talked about driving out inefficiency and at the same time as talking about voluntary redundancy for 7,000 States employees. When they hear that a certain employee of the States has been able to leave a job, essentially, voluntarily and be paid a pay-out, whose salary could have covered 5 or 6 nurses, teachers and manual workers, what kind of message does it send to those 7,000 States employees who are asking to resign, give up their jobs voluntarily, when we cannot even drive out these kind of inefficiencies at the very top levels of civil service?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
We have been doing so and the number of such payments and agreements have reduced over the period of the last 3 years since I became Chief Minister and that is a commitment that I gave. I have said again this morning that we will review those policies and procedures, which have now been in place for 3 years, again.
In the global context of driving out inefficiencies and in redundancies, will the Minister give an undertaking that there will never again be a Treasurer or someone on that level who resigns for personal reasons but gets a pay-out of more than a year’s salary, while we are asking other people to resign voluntarily?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
The Deputy seems to misunderstand what voluntary redundancy schemes are. Voluntary redundancy schemes are where people say that they will volunteer to be made redundant and they receive a payment for such. Therefore I am not quite sure why the Deputy would expect me to give such …
Deputy M. Tadier:
That is not the question, the question is, can we expect to see inefficiencies such as the type that the Treasurer received in more than a year’s salary being paid to her for doing nothing when she resigned and walked into another job, which is not something that other employees will have the luxury of? Can we expect to see those kind of things not occurring in the future under his leadership?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
Other employees will be able to receive payment for agreeing to be voluntarily redundant and then walk into other jobs and that is part of the process. I refer the Deputy to the previous Comptroller and Auditor General’s report with regard to payments and such likes of departing senior employees. He will see there in that report that the Comptroller and Auditor General says it is a tool which should be available to employers as and when they need to and, therefore, giving a blanket we will never do that again would not be a good or appropriate thing for an employer to do.
Deputy R. Labey:
My question has been answered, well it has been asked. [Laughter]
The Minister has said that he does not have any idea at this stage where the voluntary redundancies are going to occur. However, he is due to lodge the Medium-Term Financial Plan come 30th June but will he know in the next 2 weeks where those cuts are going to occur so that we may study the Medium-Term Financial Plan and know what he has in mind or will he be returning in 2 weeks’ time with exactly the same vagueness and no detail on how to produce those £125 million savings? Finally, can he address the second part of my question, which is what is the role exactly of his external advisers have contributed to his targets?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
There are so many questions there I have forgotten what I was being asked. The Deputy knows because not only have I said it but also the Minister for Treasury and Resources has said that the Medium-Term Financial Plan will have detail for 2016 and then just high-level numbers for the remaining years. We propose to put that to this Assembly in a year’s time to give the detail of the remaining 3 years and we are going to go on and debate that shortly. I have already answered with regard to the Deputy’s question about the external advisers.
Deputy G.P. Southern:
Could the Chief Minister clarify because I did not hear any reference to the advisers?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
In my opening response I referred to the external advisers. I am happy to try and endeavour to provide an answer to the question, which I obviously did not provide for Deputy Labey, who did not ask his question. The advisers are acting, as we have said, as critical friends and advisers to the whole process of the Council of Ministers, helping us to evaluate the options available to us in order to deliver balanced budgets by 2018 and 2019.
The Bailiff:
We come to questions to Ministers without notice. The first question period is for the Minister for Social Security. Deputy Martin.
When income support was introduced, after much consultation it was agreed that a mother of a child who was not of school age, which is compulsory at 5, would not have to actively seek work until that child was in school. The Minister is proposing to bring this down to 3 years 3 months ... for mothers of a child for 3 years 3 months. What consultation has she been having with Education to make sure there are the nursery places? What consultation has she been having with private nurseries to cover the 23 hours of 3 years and 3 months? Finally, what is the number of mothers this will affect in this economy where there are very few part-time jobs, especially at 20 hours?
I am not quite sure where the Deputy has got her 3 years and 3 months from. The change is going to apply to when the child is in its fourth year, so when its fourth birthday falls in the school year, as opposed to when it falls in the fifth year at the moment. There has been consultation with Education and Education supply 20 hours per week free nursery school at the moment. If a mother is on income support she will be asked to look for a job during that time, as opposed to having 23 hours when she would otherwise not necessarily be looking for work. It is all tied-in with Education’s 23 hours per week and if a mother - or father, for that matter - finds a job then hours either side of the 23 free hours will be catered for.
The Minister is saying it is not just part-time work, it is full-time work that they are asking. The Minister did not give me numbers of mothers or, as you say, fathers this will affect. I am just concerned that there will not be enough places or who will be given priority in nursery places? They say someone who they would like to see in work or is it a child that might need to be at nursery?
Deputy S. Pinel:
It is not a question of full-time work. I was just saying that either side of nursery times in case shift work was involved or a job that started, for instance, at 7.00 a.m. until midday, then the nursery school would probably have done 9.00 a.m. until 12 Noon and the income support would cater for the additional hours outside of that. It will initially affect about 100 people.
Has the Minister read the latest I.M.F. (International Monetary Fund) report in conjunction with the O.E.C.D. which clearly states from its research that: “Inequality holds back economic growth and that the best way to boost economic growth is to concentrate resources on the lowest quintile.” How does this match with her intention to reduce benefits?
Deputy S. Pinel:
I think there is the discussion of reduction in benefits, that has not taken part in this Assembly, is something that will become apparent when the Medium-Term Financial Plan is revealed in a few weeks’ time. No, in answer to the Deputy’s question, I have not read that report but I understand the reasoning behind it.
But will she do so because in addition to suggesting that the best way to achieve economic growth is to concentrate on the lowest quintile, it also suggests that reduction in employment protection is also a mechanism by which economic growth is not achieved? Does she accept that also?
Deputy S. Pinel:
Yes, I will undertake to read the report when I have time outside of Questions without notice. I think the lowest quintile the Deputy refers to is possibly the section of Jersey that is on the minimum wage and we have a very good income support benefit system which does prevent in-work poverty and people falling through the net, for those who are able to claim income support, i.e. who have 5 years’ residency.
Could she produce figures to back up that statement that income support prevents in-work poverty because it does not?
Deputy S. Pinel:
As is mentioned in the Living Wage report that although we have not, in that report, come up with any particular figure, it is deemed that the level of minimum wage plus benefit in Jersey would equate to what might be considered a living wage in London.
Firstly, I must congratulate the Minister on bringing the Discrimination Law through this Assembly and as a fervent believer in absolute equality of each and every human being on this planet I look forward to yet more equality enshrined in law to come. However, as a fervent believer in the absolute equality of all, I am somewhat troubled by this. When the draft law P.6/2013 was first debated the accompanying report said this: “The Minister expects that protection from discrimination is likely to be proposed in the following order: race, sex, age, disability.” I am not a religious man myself but I truly believe that religion or, for that matter, the right to non-religious beliefs should also be included in this phased approach. Could the Minister, therefore, assure the Assembly that this will indeed take place and, if not, why not?
Deputy S. Pinel:
There is no proposition at this stage to have a religious discrimination characteristic added to the Discrimination Law. The order that was assumed in the proposition that the Deputy mentioned race was adopted as the first characteristic because it appeared to be the easiest one to take the overarching Discrimination Law through the States and through Privy Council. Sex discrimination or gender discrimination, as some might like to say, was next because that is tied-in with the family-friendly law which had already been passed by the States and intends to come into force on 1st September and now that the States have agreed for Sex Discrimination Law they will come in together to balance each other. Age was then the following characteristic and this was tied-in with the extending the pension age from 65 to 67, so to bring age discrimination in with that. Disability discrimination, which I quite understand a lot of people would have liked it to have been higher up the list, but it is going to be quite the most difficult characteristic to come under the law because of the effect on small businesses with having to adopt premises to comply with the regulations. That is due to come into force, if the States agree, 2017/2018 and that will take up all the time we have. Whether we look at religion after that it has not been ruled out.
Would the Minister consider empowering the Employment Forum to investigate much more closely the causes and consequences of low pay or consider establishing perhaps an independent low-pay commission, as exists in the U.K.?
Deputy S. Pinel:
I thank the Deputy for his question. The Employment Forum, which does assess the minimum wage, is an independent body, which is directed by the Minister for Social Security to address the minimum wage. As I have said many times before, as has been agreed by this Assembly, the intention is to increase the minimum wage as far as economically possible, depending on economic circumstances, to a mean wage of 45 per cent by 2026, so the forum, as an independent body, address this. They are already addressing it now, they started in April and their findings will be released at the end of September.
The U.K. is endeavouring to achieve the same in 5 years, in other words, this term of Parliament, why is this Government not prepared to do the same over a 5-year period, rather than in 11 years?
[11:15]
Deputy S. Pinel:
The 11-year period was agreed by the previous Assembly and has been effected, it did increase and then it had to stay at that same level in order to reflect the global economic situation which had affected Jersey as well. I am hoping that this year, with an increasing growth and economic activity, that the Forum will see their way clear to increasing it by more than one point or 7 per cent, I think it was last time.
We have just heard the Chief Minister state that details of what is proposed in the M.T.F.P. will appear for the first year, 2016. Will those details include details of what benefit changes are being proposed for the first year of the M.T.F.P.?
Deputy S. Pinel:
Yes.
I just would like to bring the Minister back to my question earlier. The Minister stated this would affect 100 mothers - probably will be mothers - who will be asked to … I get the figure 3 and 3 months but if the Deputy insists it is the age 4, mothers of the children aged 4 to be actively seeking work. I do not know who she has consulted with. I do not think the Jersey Childcare Trust have been consulted. I do not think private nurseries have been consulted. But I really hope the Minister does know her customer because some of these vulnerable parents of vulnerable children, if they feel forced or scared that they may be forced into work, may have one only alternative - has the Minister done those figures - and that would be to have another baby? Has the Minister done the figures on the 100? If 10 of these people feel forced to go back to work and they decide the only alternative left open to them is to have another baby, where does that leave her figures?
Deputy S. Pinel:
I thank the Deputy for her question, there is a twofold answer. I object to the word “force” being used because the Back-to-Work team are very, very capable and professional in their attitude to getting people back into work. This is offering work as an alternative, which would be just the same in the workplace as for people on income support. Most people would be returning to work in a workplace situation at 6 months or a year. The other end of the scale is the Deputy mentioned having another baby as being the only option. In some cases these mothers and/or fathers would not have worked for possibly 10 or 12 years, having had 3 or 4 children and the longer people are out of work, it is a proven fact because it is far more difficult to get them back into work. All we are trying to do is replicate for people what happens in the workplace. Nobody is being forced to work and, of course, it would be part-time until such time as a full-time job was available.
Referring back to the conversation we had earlier on the living wage, does the Minister accept that should the Island adopt a level of the living wage that it is appropriate that Government, in particular, encourages the use of the living wage and that this Government will lead the way by ensuring that it does not engage with issuing contracts and tenders with companies that do not pay the living wage?
Deputy S. Pinel:
No, I will not give that guarantee. Governments are not responsible for calculating or setting living wage rates. Employers choose to register with a campaign group if they commit to using the living wage rate. There has been a very limited take-up of living wage rates among employers in typical low-wage sectors.
I have a constituent, 50 years old, who has been redundant 3 years, wants to work, is on the Back-to-Work programme with Social Security but is having no success. I just wonder if there is an initiative, a bigger initiative, that could be focused on getting those 50-pluses back to work.
Deputy S.J. Pinel:
Yes, thank you for the question. That is exactly what Back to Work are concentrating on, on the 50-plus but also those who have been out of work for a long time, and you mentioned 3 years. There is a huge emphasis on that which, because it has been so successful with the emphasis placed on the 19 to 25 year-olds, we are now moving the emphasis because we have the resources to do it, to concentrate on that area of people.
One area of concern I had as a G.P. was that some people who have been unemployed for a number of years possibly had learning difficulties and that had never been assessed. I wonder whether there is any move to look at that area and whether, in fact, these people have significant problems and it is not their own lack of trying to get a job but whether they have the ability to do so.
Deputy S.J. Pinel:
That is also taken into account with the Back to Work team who will work with many other institutions or associations such as Talking Therapies, with J.E.T. - the Jersey Employment Trust. So there is a lot of symbiotic working with other associations when there is that defined lack of ability.
The Bailiff:
That brings the first question period to an end. We now come to the second question period of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services. The Connétable of St. Mary.
Thank you, that was quick. In March during the last section of questions without notice, the Minister discussed with me and the Assembly filter-in-turn junctions and advised me he would be walking around St. Helier analysing the different kinds of junction. Can he advise what the outcome was of that walk, please?
The Constable is not going to like what I am going to say because the analysis of one of those was to remove one of the filter-in-turns outside the hospital because it was not working. So that junction is going back to its former status.
A supplementary. I am not cross with the Minister at all because it is patently obvious to most motorists that that junction was not working. I am glad the penny dropped. My question at that time had been we have a lot of junctions in very close proximity, especially in St. Helier. Some of them are filter-in-turns and yet junctions with apparently similar characteristics very close by are not. Will there be some sort of standardisation?
Deputy E.J. Noel:
That is something that I hope to bring up at the workshop that we are organising for the 13 road authorities and the 13 police authorities on Friday next week.
Some time ago the Connétable of St. Saviour, Deputy Maçon and myself met with the Minister and some of his team to discuss road safety issues on Longueville Road. I was particularly interested in making safer the junction of Longueville Road, Rue des Prés and Rue St. Thomas, a potentially lethal combination of bad parking, blind corner and speed. It was concluded that T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) would source some temporary traffic lights to install at that junction in the near future to assess if that would help. The near future, in my mind, has come and gone and still I look forward to a time when the traffic lights will mildly inconvenience me for my own safety. Will the Minister please make a commitment to get this sorted out before the end of July and, if not, why not?
Deputy E.J. Noel:
We have sourced a supply of the equipment and we are just waiting for confirmation from the Parish that they are willing to make a contribution towards the cost.
I wonder if the Minister would care to speculate on the financial and social advantages and benefits of couples of any sex or denomination or no denomination at all being able to get married at places like La Rocco Tower, for example, or any of the holiday lets on the Minister’s portfolio. If he supports the idea, will he support Deputy Doublet’s excellent initiative from within the Council of Ministers?
Deputy E.J. Noel:
This does not come under my remit as Minister for Transport and Technical Services, but not wanting to incur the wrath of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel I am happy to confirm to Deputy Labey from St. Helier that personally I have no objection to these landmark sites being used for such ceremonies. However, I believe it is the Constable of each site that gives the licence.
A local resident - a self-professed plant nut - has high hopes to develop botanical gardens in the Winston Churchill Memorial Park in St. Brelade’s Bay. Currently, this is a free park. The proposal is to fence off and charge people to visit the proposed amenity. As T.T.S. are responsible for the maintenance of the park, can the Minister provide the Assembly with his views with regard to this proposal and outline any negotiations that have taken place so far to date?
Deputy E.J. Noel:
I thank the Deputy of St. Brelade for that question. We have had discussions with the proposers of the scheme. I have made my position very clear to them that in terms of what they are proposing I am agnostic. I want them to carry out full consultation not only within their Parish but Island-wide and I also want to ensure that they have a robust business case. Because what I want to avoid is, one, that I believe they should have a significant public backing for this scheme; but, secondly, that if it failed for whatever reason that the public would not be taking on a liability in terms of the remediation works to get the park back to its current status.
There is a great deal of concern with regard to these proposals within the Parish and a groundswell of opposition to them. Constable Pallett has called for a public meeting at St. Brelade’s Parish Hall on 25th June at 7.30 to discuss the proposals. Will the Minister consider attending that meeting or, if it is not possible, could he send an officer along instead?
Deputy E.J. Noel:
I am currently trying to clear my diary for that particular evening because I do intend to be present.
Have there been any decisions made to sub-contract out services currently provided by T.T.S. and, if so, could he provide the Assembly with details of these?
Deputy E.J. Noel:
Inevitably, the savings identified that we need to make by the department will mean restructuring and will need re-evaluation of the service priorities and vacancy management following retirements, et cetera. These will be necessary to drive through the efficiencies and savings that we need to make. We need to see what the outcome of the voluntary release scheme produces and to see what type of areas of the service would be affected. So currently we have not come to any final plans or decisions about which areas of the services will be redesigned, but we are looking at the whole range of services that we provide.
What processes will we use to ensure that the work will continue to be done to the same standards as when the States were employing staff directly?
Deputy E.J. Noel:
Well, at the end of the day we are entrusted to provide the services that the Island needs and it is on the basis of need. So any services, if we did go down the route of outsourcing and not doing it by direct labour, would have to provide the service to at least the same standard and, obviously to make it worthwhile, would have to be at an overall reduced cost, otherwise there is no benefit in outsourcing that particular service.
Can the Minister report any progress in the sales of Avanchi cards in the past 6 months following his imposition of large-scale fare increases for cash-paying passengers on the bus service?
Deputy E.J. Noel:
I am advised that the 10 per cent switch from cash to card use has been maintained, but I do not have the current figures. I shall endeavour to find out.
Referring back to the question on the traffic lights on the Longueville Road - the test that we were supposed to have - could the Minister please tell me when he asked the Parish for the money because I have no record of this? I feel that if he has not already asked us for the money he is passing the buck.
Deputy E.J. Noel:
I am advised by my officers that no specific sum has been requested from the Parish but we have asked for a contribution towards the cost of this trial. I do not know who my officers have particularly spoken to. They might not have spoken to the Constable directly. They may have spoken to the Parish Secretary.
A supplementary. My secretary actually talks to me so I would have known if this had come through. [Laughter] I would like to know.
[11:30]
There is no point in asking me for money if you do not know how much you are asking me for. So, please do not blame the Parish of St. Saviour for your fault.
The Bailiff:
Is there a question there, Connétable?
The Connétable of St. Saviour:
Yes. Is he blaming the Parish of St. Saviour for a breakdown in communications?
Deputy E.J. Noel:
I am not blaming anyone, far from it. What I have simply said is I understand that we have made a request for a contribution from the Parish towards this trial and we are waiting for a response. I will chase it up and liaise directly with the Constable in short order.
Could the Minister please put to bed some rumours that are going around that when the police station is finally built there will not be enough room for even the police vehicles, let alone honorary vehicles, to park underneath?
Deputy E.J. Noel:
Again, that comes under my Property Holdings hat and I am sure the chairman of Corporate Services will not mind me answering it so I will do so. The provisions for parking at the new police headquarters have not changed at all, as far as I am aware, since it was all debated in this Assembly some 2 years ago.
Sorry to ask the Minister that question because I thought Property Holdings had gone to T.T.S. It is a bit like the hokey-cokey. You do not know who is in or out. [Laughter] But as I cannot follow up on a supplementary on that one, on Green Street the same happened with Havre des Pas improvement group and myself and Deputy Labey and the Constable. There were promises made and the Minister for Transport and Technical Services unfortunately has not been able to get back to us. Could he update us on what he is planning to do with Green Street?
Deputy E.J. Noel:
Green Street, I have gone back to Deputy Labey and the Constable. I am minded to bring in a 20-mile an hour limit for the whole of the Havre des Pas area and I am also minded to put in what is known as a Jersey crossing in the southern part of Green Street. I am waiting to hear feedback from the latest Havre des Pas Improvement Group meeting, which happened last week. I am waiting to get a copy of the minutes from that, but I am happy to progress those matters. What I have asked is for it to go to the St. Helier Roads Committee to get their backing for it and I have also if necessary asked for it to go to a Parish Assembly.
Following on from that, would the Minister, as part of the St. Helier overview that is happening and any overview of the whole traffic system around St. Helier, consider Green Street and it being made one way and having the pavements widened and having perhaps the No. 1 bus route looped around so that you can go into town and out of town from Green Street or Havre des Pas? Would he undertake to make sure that is in the mix because that is what everybody wants down there, I think, almost.
Deputy E.J. Noel:
The Deputy has hit the nail on the head there. The current issue - and we are making Green Street one-way - is the bus service that uses that street in a 2-way operation. With regards to making it one-way and widening the pavement and making it a much more pleasant place to be in, it is exactly the same as our vision for the rest of St. Helier. To do that it needs funding and I certainly - something that we will be debating later on today - see the profits to be generated from the International Finance Centre as a potential source to fund such projects and to enhance St. Helier for many generations to come.
Further to the questions earlier on regarding Longueville Road, to the best of my knowledge all the roads in that particular area except one are States roads, so why are the Parish being asked for a contribution?
Deputy E.J. Noel:
Quite simply, the Parishes are being asked for a contribution to this trial because T.T.S. has limited funds and going forward - as will be explained when the M.T.F.P. is lodged at the latter part of, I believe, this week and certainly by the end of the month - Members will see that substantial areas of infrastructure budget have been removed for the next few years, so we can only do what we can do with the money that we have available.
In view of that comment, I wonder if the Minister would agree to assist the Parishes with safety improvements on Parish roads financially as he expects Parishes to assist with States roads.
Deputy E.J. Noel:
That is a very good question from the Constable. [Laughter] Unfortunately, the answer is no. This is a trial to see if it would work and it does have an impact on Parish roads as well as T.T.S. roads.
About 6 months ago, in answer to a question I asked about the removal of asbestos from La Collette, the Minister responded that he would have an answer a few months later. I was just wondering if the Minister could update the Assembly on where we are with the possible shipment of asbestos from the Island.
Deputy E.J. Noel:
We are waiting to get a formal written response from D.E.F.R.A. (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) in the U.K. The initial unofficial response that we have received has not been one that we would have liked, which means that as soon as the confirmation has come through I will probably be having to make a decision to go to my Ministerial colleague, the Minister for Planning and Environment, to seek to allow us to dispose of asbestos on-Island at La Collette in the specially designed pits, not on a temporary basis but on a permanent basis.
The Bailiff:
That brings questions without notice to an end. There is nothing under J. Under K the chairman of the Comité des Connétables has a statement to make about the Island-wide rate.
I wish to inform Members of the cost to ratepayers across the Island of the Island-wide rate for 2015, which has been determined in accordance with the Rates (Jersey) Law 2005. The 2015 annual Island-wide rate figure is the 2014 figure of £11,839,028 increased by the Retail Price Index for the 12 months to March 2015 of 0.6 per cent, resulting in a sum of £11,910,062. In accordance with the Rates Apportionment (Jersey) Regulations 2006, 55 per cent of the annual Island-wide rate figure is to be met from the domestic rate and 45 per cent of the annual Island-wide rates figure is to be met from the non-domestic rate. A sum of £6,550,534 is, therefore, to be raised for the domestic rate and a sum of £5,359,528 for the non-domestic rate. The rates are determined by dividing the sum to be raised between the number of quarters assessed on domestic and on non-domestic property. The rates, therefore, will be 0.7 pence per quarter for domestic ratepayers and 1.23 pence per quarter for non-domestic ratepayers, which is the same as last year.
The Bailiff:
Are there any questions of the Chairman? No, very well.
The Bailiff:
We now come on to Public Business. The first item is P.42, the Draft Public Finances (Amendment of Law No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations, lodged by the Minister for Treasury and Resources, and I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.
The Greffier of the States:
Draft Public Finances (Amendment of Law No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 201-. The States, in pursuance of Article 69A of the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005, have made the following Regulations.
The Bailiff:
Minister, do you wish to propose the principles?
Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):
Yes. In fact, I would like to ask my Assistant Minister, the Deputy of St. John, to act as rapporteur for this item.
The purpose of this amendment is to introduce greater flexibility to the way in which the States expenditure is set in 2016 to 2019 Medium-Term Financial Plan. It is important that the proposed amendment is fully considered alongside the uncertain financial and economic position the States is currently experiencing. In 2011, the Assembly of the day approved the new medium-term financial planning framework whereby overall income targets and maximum annual States spending limits were set for a period of years equivalent to the term of the Council of Ministers. The aim of this framework was to provide greater control of States spending while at the same time providing funding certainty for departments through the approval of minimum annual departmental spending limits for each year of the M.T.F.P. This is something the Council of Ministers believes must be retained. The framework also aims to provide flexibility to manage emerging financial pressures and changes in priorities within the overall approved spending limits through the annual growth pot and through the allocation of an annual sum for contingency. We must learn from the first M.T.F.P. and also from the vagaries of the dynamic financial and economic world we live in and the implications, both positive and negative, that financial changes at this level can have on the long-term finances of the States in a very short timeframe. The key element of this amendment is that for the second and any subsequent year to which the 2016 to 2019 M.T.F.P. relates the draft regulations give the option of either including a full breakdown of expenditure in the M.T.F.P. or coming back at a later date. It is the Council of Ministers’ intent that the 2016 to 2019 M.T.F.P. will include total States income targets for each year, total maximum expenditure limits for each year, total net capital expenditure limits for each year in line with the existing legislative requirements. The report will also include for 2016 only departmental spending limits and an allocation for central contingencies. I am sure that all States Members will agree we must ensure that in future our medium and longer term plans have sufficient flexibility to accommodate further economic and financial downturns. In fact, the Comptroller and Auditor General when reporting on financial management highlighted in her report and was repeated by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel that there is a force of rigidity in resource allocation for the duration of the M.T.F.P. As the M.T.F.P. establishes not only an overall resource envelope but also allocations to departments it impedes adaptability and responsiveness, a significant disadvantage in a period of both retrenchment and reform. As the Assembly are fully aware, the latest forecasts for the period 2016 to 2019 show that income will remain significantly below previously estimated levels and, therefore, we are required to make substantial sustainable changes in the way in which the States is administered in order to live within these revised income levels. The Council of Ministers is conscious that although there is an improvement in the longer term economic outlook there still remains significant uncertainty in the economic outlook for the Island and income forecasts for the period up to and beyond 2019. Therefore, they require time to make difficult decisions on significant levels of efficiencies, reductions in services and benefits, and where there is a well proven, fully justified case the need for additional funding. It is for these justifiable reasons that the Council of Ministers is not in a position now to propose detailed departmental revenue spending limits for the period 2017 to 2019. In recognising the concerns raised by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel and their adviser, we will be accepting their amendment with the understanding that they are in acceptance of ours. On that basis, we thank them for their time and their input to this amendment. I would strongly argue that this amendment is the sensible, pragmatic way of ensuring that we do produce an M.T.F.P. which ensures that the States agree detailed funding allocations in the short and medium term which are robust and stand up to scrutiny and meet the changing States structures which are required to meet the challenges the Island Government is currently encountering. The alternative is that the Council of Ministers allocates unsustainable departmental allocations now which do not reflect the significant changes in government which the Council of Ministers is working hard on to progress. The Council of Ministers is in the process of developing plans to address these issues and has committed to lodge these detailed plans by the end of June 2016. I commend the regulations to the States.
The Bailiff:
Is that seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles? Deputy Le Fondré.
Sorry, Sir, I was suddenly thinking we were going on to our amendment but, of course, that will be at the Articles. The short answer on the Public Finances Law: it is an incredibly important piece of law because it looks after how we spend our money. It is the framework that we set as the Assembly, effectively, that Government and the Council of Ministers can operate.
[11:45]
Therefore, any changes need to be looked at pretty carefully. The panel has used the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, C.I.P.F.A., as its adviser on this matter. On the basis of the comments from the adviser, the panel felt initially it could not support the amendment to the Public Finances Law as drafted, the reason being that the regulations create the potential for the Medium-Term Financial Plan to be totally inadequate in terms of being in principle our mechanism for robust medium-term financial planning. That was the potential impact of the regulation as drafted. However, the panel did also recognise the basic gravity of the situation with which we as an Island and as an Assembly are faced and concluded that provided there was a sunset clause incorporated into the proposed changes, then it could support the amendment to the law as a one-off strictly time-limited amendment. Now, there has been some discussion of the precise nature of the amendment. However, I can confirm we had involvement with the amendment being proposed to our amendment and we are prepared to accept it. I have to say we were not prepared to accept the earlier amendments as the Assistant Minister and the Minister will be aware. I should also note that our adviser was of the opinion that the timeframe that should be allowed for those proposed changes should be shorter, probably in the order of 6 months, whereas the actual period is roughly a year. But we have accepted in practical terms this is where we are. Therefore, our support for the Regulation was conditional upon the acceptance of our amendment as amended by the Minister for Treasury and Resources and I thank the Minister and the Assistant Minister for the comments in this regard. If it were not the case, then our concern about the impact of the initial change would be so high as to warrant calling it in for further consideration, but we obviously shall not be doing that based on the assurances we have just heard. So, our amendment introduces a sunset clause into the Article that is being added such that the new Article will only be applicable for the next M.T.F.P. After that, it will fall away. It also ensures that any subsequent changes to the M.T.F.P. in this period can only be proposed with the lodging period that applies to any original amendment to the M.T.F.P., which at present I think is 12 weeks. That was not clearly the case in the original wording proposed. On that basis, I am very happy to be supporting the regulations as amended by our amendment as amended.
The Bailiff:
Does any other Member wish to speak? I call on the Assistant Minister to reply.
I will just briefly thank the Chairman for his points. There was some difficulty concerning wording and there were some concerns over how long this may be extended to. Due to the communication and discussions we have been able to have, unfortunately a bit later in the day than what we should have been going through this particular detail, we are grateful to the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel and particularly their adviser in assisting us in bringing this amendment forward to assist with future interpretation. So, on that basis I commend the Regulations.
The Bailiff:
All Members in favour of adopting the principles kindly show?
Deputy J.A. Martin:
The appel, please.
The Bailiff:
The appel is called for. I ask Members to return to their seats. The vote is on whether to adopt the principles of the Public Finances (Amendment of Law No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations and I ask the Greffier to open the voting.
POUR: 30 | | CONTRE: 2 | | ABSTAIN: |
Senator A.J.H. Maclean | | Deputy G.P. Southern (H) | | |
Senator I.J. Gorst | | Deputy S.Y. Mézec (H) | | |
Senator L.J. Farnham | | | | |
Senator P.M. Bailhache | | | | |
Senator A.K.F. Green | | | | |
Senator Z.A. Cameron | | | | |
Connétable of St. Clement | | | | |
Connétable of St. Lawrence | | | | |
Connétable of St. Mary | | | | |
Connétable of St. Brelade | | | | |
Connétable of St. Martin | | | | |
Connétable of St. Saviour | | | | |
Connétable of St. John | | | | |
Connétable of Trinity | | | | |
Deputy J.A. Martin (H) | | | | |
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L) | | | | |
Deputy of Trinity | | | | |
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S) | | | | |
Deputy E.J. Noel (L) | | | | |
Deputy of St. John | | | | |
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S) | | | | |
Deputy S.J. Pinel (C) | | | | |
Deputy of St. Martin | | | | |
Deputy of St. Peter | | | | |
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (S) | | | | |
Deputy R. Labey (H) | | | | |
Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H) | | | | |
Deputy S.M. Bree (C) | | | | |
Deputy of St. Mary | | | | |
Deputy G.J. Truscott (B) | | | | |
The Bailiff:
Deputy Le Fondré, you indicated you do not want to scrutinise this any further?
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):
Yes, on the basis of the assurances received.
The Bailiff:
Very well, we then come to the amendment lodged by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel and I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.
The Greffier of the States:
Page 11, Article 1. In paragraph (c) – (a) in the heading to the inserted Article 8A after the words “Medium-term financial plan” insert the words “for 2016 to 2019”; (b) in paragraph (1) of the inserted Article 8A, for the words “A draft medium-term financial plan” substitute the words “The draft medium-term financial plan for the financial years 2016 to 2019”; (c) in paragraph (2) of the inserted Article 8A, for the words “Where such amounts for the second or a subsequent financial year are omitted from a draft medium-term financial plan –” substitute the words “If such amounts for the second or a subsequent financial year are omitted from the draft medium-term financial plan for the financial years 2016 to 2019 –”; (d) for paragraph (2)(d) of the inserted Article 8A, substitute the following sub-paragraphs – “(d) a draft addition adding amounts for the financial year 2017 must be lodged no later than 30th April 2016; (e) a draft addition adding amounts for the financial year 2018 must be lodged in sufficient time for it to be debated and approved by the States before 1st January 2017; (f) a draft addition adding amounts for the financial year 2019 must be lodged in sufficient time for it to be debated and approved by the States before 1st January 2017.”; (e) in paragraph (5) of the inserted Article 8A, after the words “a draft addition” insert the words “referred to in paragraph (2)(e) or (f)”; (f) after paragraph (5) of the inserted Article 8A, add the following paragraph – “(6) The minimum lodging period that applies to a draft medium-term financial plan shall also apply to a draft addition (whether lodged by the Council of Ministers or, in accordance with paragraph (5), by the Minister).”.
I am not going to say too much. Essentially, as I said, the purposes of this Article or the changes are to bring a sunset clause to this Article, in other words to put some very specific dates for when it is applicable, after which it will no longer be applicable. We are accepting the amendment, so do I propose this as amended, effectively, or ... if I can seek some guidance?
The Bailiff:
It will probably be quicker if you proposed it as amended. That is in order as far as you are concerned, Assistant Minister?
The Deputy of St. John:
Yes, we are happy with regards to the amendment.
The Bailiff:
For the sake of form then, I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment to the amendment, the second amendment to the amendment.
The Greffier of the States:
For paragraphs (d) and (e) of the amendment substitute the following paragraph and renumber the remaining paragraph accordingly – “(d) for paragraph (2)(d) of the inserted Article 8A, substitute the following sub-paragraph – ‘(d) a draft addition must be lodged no later than 30th June 2016.’.”
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:
Obviously, this is an amendment by the Minister for Treasury and Resources. Basically, what this means is that the latest that any changes to the Medium-Term Financial Plan for 2016 to 2019 can be lodged by is 30th June of next year. After that it reverts back to ... well, effectively, that clause falls away and we are back into the normal process for a Medium-Term Financial Plan. On that basis, I propose the amendment as amended.
The Bailiff:
Is that seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? All those in favour of adopting the amendment kindly show? Those against? The amendment is adopted.
The Bailiff:
Assistant Minister, we now come back to the Regulations as amended. Do you wish to propose them en bloc?
Yes, thank you.
The Bailiff:
Are they seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? Those in favour of adopting the Regulations kindly show? Those against? The Regulations are adopted. Do you propose the Regulations in Third Reading?
The Deputy of St. John:
Yes.
The Bailiff:
Are they seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? All those in favour of adopting the Regulations [Aside] ... the appel is called for. The vote is on whether to adopt the Public Finances (Amendment of Law No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations as amended in Third Reading. I invite Members to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting.
POUR: 31 | | CONTRE: 2 | | ABSTAIN: 0 |
Senator A.J.H. Maclean | | Deputy M. Tadier (B) | | |
Senator I.J. Gorst | | Deputy S.Y. Mézec (H) | | |
Senator L.J. Farnham | | | | |
Senator P.M. Bailhache | | | | |
Senator A.K.F. Green | | | | |
Senator Z.A. Cameron | | | | |
Connétable of St. Lawrence | | | | |
Connétable of St. Mary | | | | |
Connétable of St. Ouen | | | | |
Connétable of St. Brelade | | | | |
Connétable of St. Martin | | | | |
Connétable of St. Saviour | | | | |
Connétable of Grouville | | | | |
Connétable of St. John | | | | |
Connétable of Trinity | | | | |
Deputy J.A. Martin (H) | | | | |
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L) | | | | |
Deputy of Trinity | | | | |
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S) | | | | |
Deputy E.J. Noel (L) | | | | |
Deputy of St. John | | | | |
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S) | | | | |
Deputy S.J. Pinel (C) | | | | |
Deputy of St. Martin | | | | |
Deputy of St. Peter | | | | |
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (S) | | | | |
Deputy R. Labey (H) | | | | |
Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H) | | | | |
Deputy S.M. Bree (C) | | | | |
Deputy of St. Mary | | | | |
Deputy G.J. Truscott (B) | | | | |
The Bailiff:
We now come to the Esplanade Quarter development: Scrutiny review and referendum, P.44, lodged by Deputy Tadier of St. Brelade, who has also lodged an amendment to his own proposition. Unless there is any objection, I will ask Deputy Tadier to propose it as amended. Would you please read the amendment, Greffier?
The Greffier of the States:
The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion − (a) to request the Minister for Treasury and Resources to give directions to the States of Jersey Development Company Limited in accordance with Article 22(a) of the Articles of Association of the company that no binding agreements should be entered into by the company for the development of new office accommodation on the site known as the Esplanade Quarter, St. Helier, and no preparatory building works should be started, until the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel has presented to the States the final report arising from its current Scrutiny review of the project; (b) to agree that, following the presentation of the Scrutiny Report referred to in paragraph (a), no agreements for development of office accommodation on the site should be entered into, and no preparatory building works should be started, unless the development proposals in question have been approved by the majority of those voting in a referendum held under the Referendum (Jersey) Law 2002, and to request the Minister to give further directions to this effect to the company.
I am glad to be proposing it as amended. If it is convenient and helpful for Members, they can look at the short report which accompanies the amendment, which outlines how it should read now in the amended form at the bottom of page 3 and on to page 4. Essentially, some things have changed and it is interesting that developments can happen pretty quickly even though the whole history and saga of the Esplanade Quarter itself may have taken quite a lot of time to get to this point. It seems that something has happened whereby things seem to be rushing along very quickly - some would say even too quickly - whereas these things may otherwise take some time. I think also perhaps since I wrote this initial proposition things have changed insofar as in some of my report one talks about the possibility of other uses for the site. For example, I would have liked to have seen perhaps a cultural centre being developed down there, which would have not necessarily happened organically or through the private sector. We do know that public office space can be and is being built by the private sector, but I think that the argument has probably moved on there. So this is not so much about what one in an ideal world might like to put down there. We know that people have spoken in the past about hospitals being down there, about much more affordable social housing being put down there as a priority. We have heard from our own Minister for Housing this morning that we do not have enough of that, yet it seems that what we are getting down there is more office blocks, which one would argue there are some of in town and there is already Grade A office space being built. Of course, these kind of considerations are being looked at in the round by the Scrutiny Panel. We will look at their terms of reference in a moment to see exactly what they are doing. It has to be said that from what I have seen of the Scrutiny process going on, they have been doing a thorough job there. They have been asking what seem to be the right questions very diligently without necessarily giving Ministers and the S.o.J.D.C. an overly hard time but making sure that the relevant questions are asked. From what I have seen there still remain many questions that are not being answered satisfactorily or are not being answered at all, and I think this is the key issue. This debate has moved on from being simply about buildings going on to the Waterfront to one about process. It is to do with the democratic process and it is also to do with the Scrutiny process, so that of the Assembly and that of the Scrutiny process. Process is important because people are human and people can and do, with the best of intentions, get things wrong. I would ask what got us to this point where there is so much public discontent from a wide cross-section of society. I think it would be disingenuous if any Member of this Assembly did not recognise that whether one is a staunch supporter of the plans and will unquestioningly press that button today, whether one came here with an open mind, or whether one will vote against this or is inclined against the development anyway, one has to recognise that there is much public disquiet and opposition to this scheme for various different reasons. I do not think that we can simply say, as the Council of Ministers seem to have been doing, that this is simply down to misinformation, that they have not been getting the message out there, that the public have not understood the facts fully. Because I think in reality it is to do with the public understanding very well the facts, that something is not right here, that political undertakings have been broken, that it appears that U-turns in policy have occurred and both the Assembly and the public have been taken for granted.
[12:00]
In terms of the process and checks and balances, we need to consider what was agreed to and understood in P.73/2010. Interestingly, that is what both sides seem to be drawing from and there seem to be different interpretations. We have already had some of that come up this morning during question time. Now, Members may not necessarily have a copy of P.73 in front of them from 2010, although hopefully with technology they may be able to call that up more readily on their iPads, et cetera. But let us look at a couple of the relevant parts of that document and let us look at perhaps the structure. We know that S.o.J.D.C. is an arm’s length body which has been set up by the States Assembly. It has a shareholder representative, who is the Minister for Treasury and Resources, and that Minister for Treasury and Resources can change from Assembly to Assembly or from day to day depending on the democratic mandate of this Assembly. We know that there are responsibilities incumbent on S.o.J.D.C. to the Minister shareholder and there are responsibilities incumbent on the Minister for Treasury and Resources to the Assembly. Ultimately, we are the shareholder on behalf of the public. Page 21 talks about responsibilities of the scheme and it talks about the responsibilities of the Minister for Treasury and Resources. It says he should be politically accountable for S.o.J.D.C. under the proposed arrangements. It is also for the Minister for Treasury and Resources to maximise the long-term value of the States’ interest in S.o.J.D.C. and to ensure that the company operates in accordance with the agreed policies of the States of Jersey in order to promote accountability, transparency and awareness in the commitments of that body and the undertakings. It is also important for him to bring relevant States decisions to the attention of S.o.J.D.C. directors and it seems that with the Esplanade work what had been promised to this Assembly, what had been understood and what had been voted on has somehow changed and something has gone wrong. So let us look at what did change and, as I have said, we have touched on that before. P.73 on page 14, which is not just in the memorandum of understanding but here in the main body of the report, at the very bottom of page 14 it does say quite clearly: “Sales. If it is proposed that a specific development is undertaken directly by S.o.J.D.C., before committing to construction S.o.J.D.C. will have to secure a sufficient level of legally binding pre-sales or pre-lets to fund the costs of constructing the first phase of the scheme.” That I would contend - and that seems to be what I have heard from the Scrutiny process - has not happened. It is very easy to listen to a presentation from somebody who wants to sell you something, whether it be a scheme or whether it be a Council of Ministers who want you to support a particular proposition on a day, to listen to them and to listen to a very skilled salesman as to why the scheme is okay and why the process has been followed. But the test that has been set here by this Assembly, and it has been written by the Council of Ministers of the day, presented to this Assembly and then agreed on, that is what we need to abide by. Remember here, we are not the bank who is lending the money to the States of Jersey Development Company. They need to be sure, of course, that there is enough security for their purposes that the loan will be paid back and it is probably not that big a risk at the end of the day when the company you are dealing with is backed up by the States of Jersey with their good ‘rainy day’ fund and their high credit rating but remember that is not the test that we, as an Assembly, applied when we voted on that P.73/2010 and it is not the rule that we should continue to apply seeing as nothing has changed since then. The reality of it is that the costs of construction have not been met because they have not secured a sufficient level of legally binding pre-sales to fund the costs of construction. This was quite obvious from what I heard at the Scrutiny Panel the other day when the Minister and others were saying: “Oh, yes, but actually the bank takes into consideration the unlet floors and the whole value of the site. The fact that the building will be sold on afterwards and that is all collateral. It is all security and that is what the loan was based on.” But remember this is not about securing enough pre-lets to secure a loan, which a bank will lend to a government body, this is about meeting the tests and quite rightly de-risking the project in such a way that it meets the process that is underlined and which this Assembly agreed. That has not been done and if the Ministers want to prove that it has been done it is going to be very difficult for them to do it today because that is exactly what the Scrutiny Panel are looking at. On that note I think it is important to look at the Scrutiny process and what they are looking at in their terms of reference. Quite simply it falls into different categories, we do not have to read it all out, but it is essentially to consider whether the 2008 masterplan for the Esplanade Quarter continues to represent the best socio-economic value of the States of Jersey on behalf of the public of the Island. I think that is critical. This is not simply about whether the scheme can work, although I think even that is being brought into question; that is what is being looked at at the moment. It is also about the socio side of it which is often forgotten. Lots of new Members, perhaps, when they came into the States, talked about the 3-legged stool and if you take one of those legs away, the stool falls down. So here we have got socio-economic value, hopefully the environmental value will also come into that and we will, perhaps, come back to how other Members made promises before the election and to see whether they will keep them today but that is perhaps a slightly different matter. They are going to look at the commercial viability of the scheme in the context of the masterplan. They are going to provide an up to date assessment of the benefit to the Island and I think up to date is critical because when this scheme first started, this was quite a long time ago, it was certainly pre‑2008, pre-Lehman Brothers crash, and it was certainly before we saw a big lot of office blocks going up adjacent to the Grand Hotel which are being developed by the private sector, which are not fully pre-let but I think which have got, presumably, sufficient number of pre-lets to fund the development there and which will be all Grade A office space. It will be interesting to see how that works alongside the State capitalist venture that we have got going on at the moment; how they compete with that. This is really fascinating from somebody who is not necessarily opposed to State capitalism when it can be shown to work and provide a return for the taxpayer but that does not seem to be necessarily the case here. They are looking at whether the pre-let conditions were comparable to market industry expectations. There is a lot of secrecy that is shrouded alongside what is being offered here. The Council of Ministers quite helpfully circulated a timetable and their comments and it seems to me, if I was a betting man… and I am not, saying that I am not a betting man although I try not to gamble with taxpayers’ money as this Council of Ministers seems intent on doing. I do not think that the scheme would have been progressed quite so quickly were it not for the fact that there was, (a) a Scrutiny report that was going on and Scrutiny review going on at the moment, and (b) that there was a proposition on the table for this debate here today. We can look at the timeline on the Council of Ministers’ comments which needs to be updated to take into account an event that happened this morning but let us refresh our memories of what has happened perhaps in the more recent times. We know on 7th December last year the Scrutiny Panel decided to review the Esplanade Quarter. I lodged my proposition on 28th April 2015 saying that we should wait to see the viability of the scheme, until Scrutiny had reported back. In the meantime that was lodged for debate ultimately today, so a good window there. I decided that it was important to consult at least some members of the public in my constituency, so a public meeting was arranged, as Deputy Truscott knows, he attended it as well, on the platform so that we could hear from members of the public and it was reasonably well attended for a Parish meeting. In fact it was well attended compared to many Parish Assemblies that I have seen and unanimously, people had come along to hear ... it was a balanced debate. The Minister attended, for which I am grateful. Some members of S.o.J.D.C. attended, which I am also grateful and unanimously at the end they said: “Yes, we think you are right. We do need to see all the facts. We need Scrutiny to do their job, to report back and to let us know what happens” and this occurred on 20th May. What happened is that 2 days later legally binding pre-lets are signed, 2 days after the meeting and of course that meeting would have been advertised a good week before. So in that space of time they had pre-empted this debate and said: “We will enter into that anyway”, even though I believe it would have been good governance on the part of the Minister for Treasury and Resources to have reported back to S.o.J.D.C. and say: “You might not like this. You might consider the Scrutiny process on this proposition as an irritant to what you are trying to do but in the greater good of things for the democratic process to go through. Really what you should be doing is not entering into any legally binding agreements, albeit that you might have signed the heads of terms with UBS on 18th March. Hold off until we have cleared this because democracy is important. The Scrutiny process is important and we would like you to hold back on that.” Not only did they do that but we find out that on 29th May a contract was signed with the construction contractor; that not only are they happy to enter into a legally binding pre-let for a very small part of the building they go ahead with Camerons and say: “We want you to now start building even though we know that we have got a States debate coming up.” This seems to me, at best, to be bad process - bad sportsmanship if you like - but it also seems that it is tactical and that is the best way that one can undermine a proposition which is reasonable and which people seem to be universally supporting because at the end of the day it is just asking for a process to be concluded so that we can all be satisfied that due diligence has occurred. This morning I found out that at 7.00 a.m. a tow company contractor has been asked to go down there to start clearing away any cars from the car park that have not been moved. That is this morning at 7.00 a.m. before we are even in the States Assembly so that those cars can be taken away even if development is halted for another few weeks until we wait for the Scrutiny report to come back. This is what we seem to be dealing with and whether or not those things are coincidental, whether it is just the fact that this timeline would have been adhered to anyway. For me there are too many coincidences in there but even if that were the case those decisions could have been delayed deliberately and, I think, without the risk of creating these clauses which now may be very costly to come out of. I think that is what does not sit well with the public. We already have an arm’s length body, which is very difficult to get accountability with in the same way that you might have with a States body. There is, of course, a stream that is going through current government about efficiencies, about creating more of these quangos. It is not a particularly nice term. I like the term quango unchained, if you like, which I came across. It is quite difficult when more and more accountability is given away but it is done by this Assembly and that we cannot ask the questions that we would expect to know and in fact the Scrutiny process we know has been hampered. I think essentially this is a debate which one could very easily get bogged down in detail. I hope that is not the case because we have a process and a forum which is much better at looking at these questions of detail and those things are happening at Scrutiny. Where possible they are happening in the public domain. Ministers, the board is being held to account. Information has been requested. We know that there are non-disclosure agreements that have been signed. We know that during that whole process that Scrutiny has been held up. The timeline has been held up because information has been not been given forward. I was very shocked when I heard the fact that the Scrutiny Panel had been asked to sign a kind of confidentiality agreement which no one had ever seen or heard of before in terms of a parliamentary democracy asking elected members to become personally liable for these documents in case. It is quite extraordinary. Luckily that was not agreed to and another way forward was found.
[12:15]
The information has not come out. We do not know the sums that are being talked about and I hope that perhaps, without necessarily stepping into the overly political arena of pro and contra for the scheme, that the Scrutiny Panel will be able to give us some clarity about the value that their work is adding. What I would say though, perhaps to conclude - I do not want to keep Members unnecessarily long although this is an important debate - is to address a couple of the issues that arise from the Council of Ministers’ comments. Perhaps just to summarise, they quote from the same document that I quoted on page 4 of their comments saying: “That there must be sufficient legally binding pre-lets to secure the first phase of the scheme.” They say this test has been met. I say that the test has not been met and I think the Scrutiny Panel strongly believe that this test probably has not been met and that it is unlikely to have been met because the definitions have changed. Interestingly enough, the comments also say that it was due to the Scrutiny review taking place that they were told in February 2015 in a submission what the new rules were regarding pre‑lets and that is on page 4. A test was explained by S.o.J.D.C. to the Scrutiny Panel in a written submission to their review dated when; dated on 27th February 2015 as follow: “A sufficient level of legally binding pre-lets will need to be, (a) sufficient to secure third party private finance for the construction of the building using only the pre-let land and that building and expended pre‑development costs for the S.o.J.D.C. equity.” Well, that is not what P.73 said. P.73 said that we need to have sufficient pre-lets to secure the costs of it, not to secure finance for the construction. So that is when things have changed, if the Minister would like to say otherwise, but that is when things have changed and we have first been informed about it on 27th February 2015. The only way we found out about that is because of the Scrutiny process which is going on and their review. We would never have found out about that because the Minister for Treasury and Resources possibly himself did not know and if he did know he should have come back to the States and told us about that. So I think I am going to leave it there. I think that the Scrutiny process needs to be allowed to continue. I think these kind of questions and the Scrutiny process has already shown its value, despite the comments of the Minister for Treasury and Resources that this process is happening far too late. I do not agree with that. I think Scrutiny needs to be responsive and as things change, as new evidence emerges, it is incumbent on them to do sufficient checks and balances because at the end of the day, this is no disrespect, the Council of Ministers, the Minister for Treasury and Resources is far too close to S.o.J.D.C. as a developer to necessarily be able to scrutinise in an objective way. I do not mean that to be disrespectful but I think that probably goes without saying. I use the analogy that even though I trained as a linguist and I like to think that on occasions I can string a sentence together and sometimes string a document together that when I put something together I can reread it 3, 4, 5 times and be really proud of it and then I will send it to somebody and they will find loads of typos in it, loads of mistakes. Not loads hopefully, but they will find mistakes, errors, et cetera, without necessarily even going into stylistic criticism. That is because it is easy to fall into and lapse into group think. When you support something thoroughly, when you support the finance industry, when you want to see economic growth, when you want to see a sustained economy of course it is easy to jump on the bandwagon and say: “Yes, we support this.” We are finding that in our own Parish to do with the botanical gardens. I support the idea of botanical gardens. It is something I wrote in 2008 but I do not do that at all costs. I need to see the detail, the devil is in the detail, and ultimately the detail here has not been provided. It is now been provided slowly and for the sake of 4, 6, 8 weeks, and this is where I hope to hear from the Scrutiny Panel, we talk about a sizeable delay. I asked: which is the most damaging to reputation? Is it to say: “Hold on now, do not do any development now. Wait until we have got the full facts.” Is that more damaging or is it more damaging to have an Ernst & Young report coming out which potentially says: “The States have got their figures wrong. The States of Jersey have got their figures wrong. The Ministers have got their figures wrong.” They have endorsed it in the Assembly even though they did not have all the facts, or is it better for the job of this Assembly to say: “Hang on. We do need to make sure we get all the facts. This Assembly historically is known for making, by and large, on the whole, the correct decisions because they use due diligence and do not rush ahead”, and I think that the positive Jersey way is to take things step by step, make sure all the boxes are ticked, have due respect for the public; yes, absolutely. Have due respect for the professionals we are dealing with but make sure all the bases are covered and that is how we, as an Island and as an Assembly, can make correct decisions going forward. So I make the proposition.
The Bailiff:
Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any other Member wish to speak?
I am a member of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel which also comprises of Deputy Le Fondré, Deputy Brée and the Constable of St. John but I am speaking as an independent Member in as much as ... although I fully support the finance industry I would request Members accept certainly (a) as amended. So just to delay for a few weeks until we can issue our report to Members.
Jersey has a long history of living within our means, of running a surplus rather than deficit and not resorting to loans or debts. This policy has provided us with a long period of stability and made us an attractive place to invest in. As has already been mentioned, the proposals to develop an international financial district were made in a very different climate, prior to the financial crisis and major technological advances that have improved communication and resulted in a rapidly changing employment landscape. The impacts of climate change are also increasingly being recognised. So what will attract future businesses to Jersey? Is it the availability of our office space or is it more significantly the speed and cost of our internet services which have a bigger impact on productivity and profitability nowadays. Another big factor is the quality of our environment. It is hard to measure the impact of having a green space versus an office block. I think the impact of this decision, which has major financial implications, will be felt by future generations and we need to be sure that we are taking the public with us in this decision. So I think that something of this size and significance should be put to a public vote but at the very least we should await the Scrutiny report, with the full knowledge that it has the backing of the Assembly and the people of Jersey, which would then end future uncertainty and investors who take up the proposal of moving into an office could be sure that they will have the support of the public. I, for one, when I sing in the future Beautiful Jersey, our national anthem, want to still be able to sing this with pride and meaning.
I very briefly wanted to just sound an alarm really to Members that the outcome of this proposition does have implications beyond whatever you think about the finance centre. The whole Scrutiny process is such an integral part of our system of government [Approbation] and the Deputy of St. John and all of the members of Scrutiny in the previous terms have worked so hard to build up the Scrutiny process and to make it the effective check and balance that it is today. If we choose to vote against this proposition you are also voting to undermine the whole Scrutiny process. So I would consider that when you are casting your vote. Also I just wanted to mention that new Members, we did have the opportunity to meet with members of the S.o.J.D.C. shortly after we were elected, and we raised many of the questions that the public are asking, quite innocently, without knowing, I think, lots of us, the background or the detail, and I am afraid our questions were not answered then. So these same questions are coming up time and time again and I would urge the new Members to just recall what we were told then and consider accordingly.
I just rise because I have been asked previously as well. I just want to make some brief comments regarding where we are on the Scrutiny process and so I am speaking effectively as the Chairman of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel. Members will be aware we are undertaking a review into the Jersey International Finance Centre and will probably also be aware that information we have requested has not been provided to us on a timely basis. We concluded that a specialist adviser with significant expertise in valuations would be needed, in particular given the technical nature of the submissions received. The fact that a specialist adviser was to be appointed was notified to Treasury roughly mid-March and the appointment was confirmed roughly midway through April and the advisers visited the Island for 2 days in May. The information that had originally been requested on 12th March from Treasury was finally received on Monday, 1st June. We are of the opinion that the advisers we have appointed are of the highest calibre. By way of explanation the lead partner was, until the beginning of this year, the chairman of the R.I.C.S., that is the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, Global Valuation Professional Group Board. The group acts as keeper of the R.I.C.S. valuation professional standards, also known as the Red Book. Their brief is mainly to perform a financial appraisal of the Jersey International Finance Centre conducted having regard to R.I.C.S. Red Book standards. As the proposal is to develop the Jersey International Finance Centre in phases they will conduct an appraisal of the first building now proposed and then comment upon the conclusions that are implied for the remaining phases of the Jersey International Finance Centre and their potential viability. The advisers are presently awaiting further information from Treasury or the States of Jersey Development Company which are important to allow this work to be undertaken. When the final piece of information has been received I am advised it will take approximately 2 to 3 weeks for our advisers to report back to us. We will release that part of our report as soon as practicable after receipt of their conclusions but I emphasise that the time period is always approximate and it is very dependent upon how quickly the information is received. We obviously had significant delay as to where we are now and that then hits upon because of the availability of key personnel, due to other commitments such as holidays or whatever. So I, therefore, do need to correct briefly something I said at a presentation yesterday which is while the main part of the brief is an overall appraisal of the Jersey International Finance Centre, as I have just stated, there will be an evaluation of the first building as part of that. Now, I do emphasise we do not know the outcome of their likely findings; that is the point. They will be objective and they will be professional. It is our job to try and inform this Assembly on particular matters and I trust the Assembly will agree we are trying to tackle a very difficult subject in a proper and professional manner. Irrespective of the outcome of today we will complete our work on this matter because that is our responsibility to this Assembly and also to the public who have, it would seem, quite some interest in the outcome of the report. As regard to the proposition in front of us as amended, as a panel we have discussed this and we take the view that much of this is about supporting the Scrutiny process and therefore on that basis we will be supporting the proposition. I shall stop there but I hope that gives some information to Members as to where we are, what we are trying to do, particularly the calibre of the advisers we have in place.
I understand how difficult this is, this particular issue, for Members of this Assembly and indeed for many of the public. I attended, as Deputy Tadier has said, the public meeting at Communicare that he organised. Last week we organised a drop-in session at the Town Hall followed by another public meeting where we invited members of the public in the interests of trying to explain in greater detail the purposes behind the development and how we had reached the position that we are currently in. There was also a States Members briefing yesterday as well, which those who were able to attend, I hope, found helpful and I will come on to some comments that were made in that briefing in a moment. It is clear to me, and I am sure to everyone here, that this is a highly emotive issue fuelled by a certain amount of misinformation.
[12:30]
In a sense this proposition is about the very functioning of our democracy and our way of government; points that Deputy Tadier, in a sense, made himself and for those reasons I accept and confirm that I find it particularly difficult. What we are asking in the proposition, or what Deputy Tadier is asking in the proposition, is for the International Finance Centre development to stop until the Scrutiny process is completed and I understand and have great sympathy for that principle. Under normal circumstances I would support it, but in this instance I believe it is too late and would be too costly and potentially too damaging to our reputation even for a relatively short delay, which is what is being asked for. The agreement and the building work for the first building, known as building number 4 are about to begin. That is because all permissions are in place, funding is secured from a bank with no States guarantees or letters of comfort, as have been previously been mentioned, and legally binding contracts have also been signed, not only, as Members will be aware, with a tenant but also with a building contractor. To even delay the start of the building would incur, as a result, significant costs but the damage of such action in terms of a delay or to stop the development altogether, this late in the stage, would be far greater and far wider. As an example, it would seriously damage, if not end, the ability for the States of Jersey Development Company to be taken seriously by other prospective tenants. Why would any prospective tenant take the time and incur the considerable costs of entering into negotiations with the States of Jersey Development Company that could be stopped by factors outside of their control? I believe that by agreeing to this proposition it would effectively see the end to S.o.J.D.C. and an end to this very important development scheme. A scheme that we have spent many years and many millions of pounds on, since it was first established in the 2002 Island Plan. Yes, as long ago as that, 2002. In 2006 it was decided to commission a masterplan followed by an extensive public consultation. Since then the concept has been debated no less than 5 times by this Assembly and work has proceeded in line with each of those democratic decisions. Why do we need this development? I think it is perhaps worth just spending a short time going over some of the facts. Jersey does not have enough top quality accommodation for large firms. That is a point that many people question. There is, in fact, currently only 15,000 square feet of Grade A office space, we use the term Grade A a lot; it means modern, up to date, office space, available today in Jersey and that represents only about one per cent of the total office space that is available. There is little choice for existing businesses therefore to expand and in the finance sector alone we have seen 400 new jobs created in the last year. A recent survey of businesses in the finance sector specifically has identified the intention to create up to a thousand new jobs over the next 3 years. New businesses, thinking about moving to Jersey, have very little choice about where to base themselves. Only last week, as an example, a new inward investment business viewed all the available space and was very disappointed with the choice and the quality. As a result they have committed to temporary space until new is built. Last year we had a similar situation when one of Europe’s largest hedge funds found themselves unable to secure suitable office accommodation. This situation opens the door to other jurisdictions so that they can attract businesses to their shores at a time when we need them here. We need them to create employment and to generate revenues for our economy. The finance industry is, after all, Jersey’s largest employer and a fact to remember is that 90 per cent are Jersey local employees who operate within that industry. Indeed, despite some doomsayers, finance has seen job numbers recover from the low point of the recent recession, 11,900 employees, back to today’s figure of 12,700, which is very close to the all-time peak. It is up to government to provide the necessary environment for this industry, in fact all industries, to remain here in the Island and indeed so that we can attract new inward investment business that is so vital to the future growth of our economy. The private sector has not, for whatever reason, supplied the necessary space. We need to provide the facilities that businesses need, such as competitors in places like Dubai. In Dubai, it was only in 2004 that they only had 75 people working in their financial services industry. The Dubai Government backed and funded the Dubai International Finance Centre. Now it employs nearly 15,000 people and represents about 12.6 per cent of their G.V.A. (gross value added). I am delighted that a major tenant has signed up to base their Jersey operations in the new Jersey International Finance Centre. I think it is really positive news for the Island. It demonstrates, among other things, growing confidence in our economy. It means businesses are beginning to feel more optimistic about the future. A scheme that is not just about office space; we must not forget that phase 1, the 6 buildings on the car park site, are not purely about offices. More than 50 per cent of that site will be community space; parks, water features and so on. No private developer with profit as their sole motive would have been able to or indeed for that matter be willing to provide so much quality open space for the benefit of the community. The requirements we are imposing on the Jersey Development Company are reducing the value of the land but that is because they are delivering significant additional benefits in the interests of Islanders. Ministers understand that change is often controversial. The flooding, for example, of Queen’s Valley was a very unpopular move but where would we be now if we had not made that difficult decision and there have been many others like the creation of the tunnel or indeed the social security system which was introduced back in the 1950s. At that time I think it attracted, in the Daily Graphic, stories about potatoes, tomatoes and other missiles being thrown. Clearly we have not got to that stage here but nevertheless it does demonstrate yet perhaps ... somebody was saying in the background, but it does demonstrate there have been very many highly contentious decisions that governments over the decades have had to take in the longer term interests of the majority of Islanders and that is clearly what we are here to do; to take difficult decisions that are in the long term interests. We would not be serving our community if we did not supply, in my opinion, the high quality accommodation in terms of offices that businesses clearly require. It is important for Members to remember the former Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel on the subject of Scrutiny and the absolute need and importance. I have confirmed several times, and indeed only yesterday at a hearing with Scrutiny, that I fully support the Scrutiny process and that is why at the beginning of my remarks I made the point that I find this particular debate difficult. But to remind Members, and I have mentioned this before, that the former Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel were themselves thinking about reviewing this particular development, the Jersey International Finance development and do not forget that was back in February of last year, February 2014; some considerable time ago. However, following a confidential briefing that that panel received at the time from S.o.J.D.C. containing all the facts that they required, the Scrutiny chair, the former Senator Sarah Ferguson, said, and I quote directly from her, and she made this quote in this Assembly: “They had received sufficient information to satisfy themselves as to the viability of the project and would not raise any further questions.” Last month we had USB, as I have mentioned, giving their reasons for wanting to sign up to the new development. They said they needed new, efficient premises located in the commercial centre of St. Helier for their business to continue to flourish and that is a really important point. I would like to take the opportunity, if I may, to clear up the issue of how the construction costs of Building 4 are being met. No taxpayers’ money is being used in the construction of the Finance Centre and as I have said there are no guarantees in place either from the States from Jersey. S.o.J.D.C. is, as Members will be aware, a limited company and they are borrowing from banks like any other developer would chose to do or have to do. As with any commercial lending the bank thoroughly checks the viability prior to the lending. The bank commissioned an independent valuation of Building 4 which found that with the UBS pre-let the value of the building was £28.5 million. Taking away costs it leaves a £7 million surplus on the value of the building over borrowings although this reduces to £4.2 million when current unlet space is fitted out. I would just like to clarify a point made in the briefing to States Members yesterday about this, there was a mention of the £7 million and I would like to clarify that with the full building, not just the space let to UBS, with the full building fitted out then the headroom, which is the important point, is £4.2 million. That is the headroom above the borrowing compared to the value of the building. That is an independent valuation undertaken for the bank. Next I would just like to clarify the requirement of the pre-lets. Again, we have discussed this morning the issue of pre-lets. I do not think I want to spend too much time on it. The 200,000 square feet related to Harcourt and it was made absolutely abundantly clear in 2010, under P.73, that that position was no longer relevant and the phasing was going to be the issue that was going to move forward to de-risk and manage more appropriately the development. I would like to turn to the Esplanade masterplan point and this demonstrates the period of time that this issue has been debated and considered. The Minister for Planning and Environment of the day brought the masterplan to this Assembly in 2008 and it was endorsed. He then updated that particular plan in 2011, changing the sequencing and designating the construction of office buildings as the first phase of the work. The Esplanade masterplan is not a straightjacket; it is a vision, a flexible living document that must be allowed to evolve and respond to changing circumstances. The Jersey Development Company is working within the parameters of the masterplan, taking a phased approach to the development. Work is due to start on each building when enough tenants are signed up to make that building financially viable. Phasing the development in this way allows the Jersey Development Company to construct a financial business centre that will suit Jersey’s needs as they develop over the coming years. We need to adapt intelligently to a rapidly changing global economy driven by technological and regulatory developments and changes. Communities that do not recognise the fast-pace of change will decline and will face, without doubt, economic difficulties. That is how we will ensure that new jobs are created and that is how we will raise the revenues to fund our vital public services. Establishing a finance district is a key part of the Council of Ministers’ vision for the future of St. Helier as a vibrant place to live and work. These offices are needed. We have talked much about the fact that there are 13 potential tenants altogether interested in a total of 330,000 square feet over the next few years. So why should we not delay work on Building 4, the key point and purpose of this proposition, specifically until the Scrutiny report is completed? When the Council of Ministers proposed the establishment of S.o.J.D.C. in 2010 the proposition contained clear rules on phasing the development and on managing risk by requiring sufficient legally binding pre-lets to cover the constructions costs. The Assembly has democratically debated and agreed the plan and it has agreed the means of delivering the plan. In response S.o.J.D.C. has commissioned the detailed plan, secured the planning permissions, entered into the legally binding agreements with a tenant and local construction company. As the Assembly has given the scheme and the S.o.J.D.C. a democratic mandate we cannot, in all reasonableness, and without significant financial and reputational damage, freeze all development works while we wait for the panel report.
[12:45]
Any delay would also result in considerable financial cost, as I have mentioned, to S.o.J.D.C. who would breach its legal terms with the tenant and contractor and damage our reputation as an Island and the credibility, in my opinion, of the legislature as a reliable partner. We do understand Islanders’ concerns and Members, and we have listened to those concerns. Our response is not to stop this development in its tracks. It is to use the flexible nature of the masterplan as a demand-led scheme to ensure we respond to the changing needs of Jersey as the development progresses. Indeed what is about to commence is construction of the first building in the first phase that will take in total an estimated 10 years. So the Scrutiny review, which is principally looking at the whole development, will still have a very important role to play. This particular review is too late in respect of stopping Building 4 or I would respectfully suggest that it is too late in that regard due to the commitments that have already been made. The current panel’s review commenced last December and although there have been some short delays in supplying some commercially sensitive data, and that is a matter I have commented on in this Assembly before, and it does need to be rectified; the code of conduct and arrangements between Scrutiny and the Executive, we cannot be in a position - I made this point to the Scrutiny Panel yesterday - where Scrutiny do not get all the data they need but equally especially when we are dealing with third party companies owned by the States, there has to be protection to allow commercially sensitive data to be handled appropriately. I do not think the systems are correct at the moment and we do need to rectify that. So there was a delay and I accept the fact there was a delay and it was a very difficult position that I found myself in trying to balance the interests of all the various parties in this respect but nevertheless the Scrutiny function is underway. The Scrutiny expert was appointed on 1st May and the Chairman has given an outline as to when they are planning to report. But if we stop this development today by supporting this proposition the States of Jersey Development Company will suffer, as I have said, losses. In line with States decisions they have entered into these binding agreements. Perhaps even more importantly we have got the issues around reputation. We should not, in my opinion, and in conclusion, place ourselves in a position where the democratically elected Assembly makes decisions, contracts are entered into and then we have to break those contracts because of a change of mind or the need for a delay at the last minute. What confidence can the finance industry have in us if this is how we were to operate? How does this look, more importantly, to international investors who value stability and certainty? I ask Members to reject this proposition. Scrutiny, as I have said, still have an important role to play in delivering their report with regard to the overall development. I would finish by making a point that was emphasised to those Members that were able to attend the briefing yesterday and that was because the Scrutiny review is perhaps 4 or 6 weeks away, according to the Chairman, there is going to be an agreement, and there was an agreement, that no further legally binding pre-lets would be entered into until that report has been tabled and that report has been published. I think that is, hopefully for Members, a sensible and pragmatic way forward. As I have said, that is the position. I would strongly urge Members not to accept this proposition because it would cause significant damage, in my view, and I ask for it to be rejected on the grounds stated.
The Bailiff:
Before we adjourn, can I just give notice to Members that the Greville Bathe Fund: appointment of Jurats - Proposition 66 - has been lodged by the Minister for Treasury and Resources? The adjournment has been proposed. The States now stand adjourned until 2.15 p.m. this afternoon.
[12:50]
[14:17]
The Bailiff:
We resume the debate on P.44. Does any other Member wish to speak? If not ... Deputy of St. Ouen.
I have found this a difficult debate to get my thoughts together upon. It is clear to me that the Scrutiny process has not been respected because, at the outset, from public comments made by the board of the S.o.J.D.C., it appears that they regarded a Scrutiny report as an irritant. It seems to me that obstacles were put in the way of a Scrutiny report with a delay, a rather inexcusable in my mind delay, in providing information that Scrutiny necessarily needed to have. Scrutiny must always have a freedom to examine any policy and the implementation of any policy decisions by Ministers at any time, and it matters not that a previous Scrutiny Panel had chosen not to conduct a review at a particular time; a future Scrutiny Panel must always be free to revisit the question. I must express disappointment at the way the Scrutiny process has been treated. However, I also have difficulties with this proposition because we are being asked to halt a process. I think we must bear in mind that the Scrutiny review was announced, I think in December, and pre-let agreements could have been signed the day after that Scrutiny review was announced. Deputy Tadier knew that, the panel knew that and we all knew that, but no one has been suggesting, until recently, that S.o.J.D.C. should halt all its negotiations until Scrutiny has reported. I have to ask myself what has fundamentally changed since the Scrutiny review was announced, and I cannot see that fundamental change. In my professional career I have worked on the periphery of the finance industry and it has been said to me many times in recent years by those in the finance industry that the Island does need modern Grade A office accommodation. I am in no doubt that we need that quality accommodation and that we are in competition with other global finance centres to attract business to the Island, and location and the facilities where those businesses are going to base themselves are important. I have in mind that the decision to proceed with an international finance centre has been taken many years ago, and over time that decision has been confirmed and ratified in this Assembly, and the S.o.J.D.C. is the body that has been charged to deliver the decisions made by this Assembly and to return the public benefit that has been envisaged. So they have negotiated a pre-let and are continuing in their negotiations; they are doing precisely, it seems to me, what the Assembly asked of it. This Assembly is sometimes known for its habit of revisiting its previous decisions, and I believe it is better to act consistently for this Assembly to have the respect that decisions have been made. We have charged a body to go out and implement those decisions. What does it appear to look like to the world, to the members of the public if we now say: “Well, we want to revisit that decision again”? What has fundamentally changed that causes us to do that? I do not believe there has been such a fundamental change. We should not renege on commercial agreements, on any agreements; we are the Government of the Island. The practicalities are that S.o.J.D.C. has gone out to do the job it was requested to do and has entered into these agreements. How can we ask it to renege now on those agreements, to not proceed with the pre-let, to halt the construction which it has agreed? That is an absurd message for government to send out to anyone it is dealing with that, whatever we decide may, during the course of the process, just be thrown up in the air once again and everything is left to be decided again at a future date. No one is going to treat the States of Jersey seriously with that sort of reputation behind us. We should not, as a responsible body, renege on agreements, and there is also the question of the financial cost of doing so, because I note the proposition asks for a halt to matters until Scrutiny have issued its report. But what happens on the day after Scrutiny has issued its report? S.o.J.D.C. is still charged to go out and deliver what we have asked. It seems everything is thrown up in the air, we are all at sea, S.o.J.D.C. does not know where it is meant to be going, the Council of Ministers are asked to come back to this Assembly; what, and revisit a decision that has already been taken? No. I think the proper course of action is to accept that these decisions have been made lawfully and properly, in line with a direction given by this Assembly, and we must abide by what has been done in our name and not allow this Assembly to renege on commitments made in accordance with longstanding policy. The Scrutiny review, whatever its content, will still be of value because these decisions remain limited to Building 4, but I do not believe it is at all in the public interest to call a halt to create what I consider would be a long period of uncertainty in which the States are held up as an indecisive, vacillating body. I am grateful. [Approbation]
Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:
Excuse me, Sir, may I ask a procedural question? Can you advise the Assembly, Sir, whether the proposition is able to be taken separately, (a) and (b), or whether it must be taken in its entirety?
The Bailiff:
Well, I think that would be a matter for the proposer.
Deputy M. Tadier:
Sir, it is my understanding, and I do not see why not, that these can be taken separately; I will propose them separately. I think that they can be voted on independently and both of them being valid; so if (a) was adopted but not (b), or vice versa, that that would be a valid position for the States in which to find itself. Hopefully, that is a position shared by the Chair.
The Bailiff:
Very well, if the proposer does not mind, I will just think about that while the next speaker is speaking. Deputy of St. Martin.
I am pleased to follow the Deputy of St. Ouen, because if there is one issue among very many that is a constant criticism of the States system, it must be the time it takes us to get things done. The ability, when in private practice, to make a decision and have it enacted almost immediately, is one that many of us sorely miss. When it comes to property then we are, as a collective, experts at taking for ever to do anything; whether that is to buy, to sell, to develop or even to maintain. We only have to look at St. Saviour’s Hospital or La Folie or the time it took to decide on the old Abattoir site. Then, when we do decide to sell, as in the case of Piquet House, we cannot even manage that properly. Here, with the Waterfront, we are once again attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We should be celebrating the fact that we have a tenant who is prepared to commit to a future in Jersey. We should be celebrating that this development gives our local people a chance to share in that future. We should be celebrating the fact that we have here the start of the next phase of our international business and finance sector; a sector that is crucial to our economy, crucial to our ability to fund the 3 other priorities that we have identified: health, education and the future of our capital. Others will be seeking to assure Members on a wider range of issues this afternoon but, as Minister for Planning and Environment, I thought I should cover a few points that specifically refer to planning issues. The planning history of the current Esplanade project has its roots in the Esplanade Quarter Master Plan endorsed by the States in June 2008 and amended in March 2011. The first detailed application for Building 4, the subject of this afternoon’s debate, was approved in August 2013. By comparison, approval for another application received for a large office development next to the Grand Hotel was given in the very same month, on 12th February 2014, and commenced on 4th June last year, 4 months after approval, 9½ months after submission. I use that comparison only to show how fast things can be done and how fast things do happen. We can all see for ourselves how speedily this site is progressing. The permission for Building 4 covers 2 elements of work: being the building itself and the temporary car park for the space that is lost on the Esplanade. Earlier this year, the perimeter landscape for the Building 4 plot was removed by the developer, and the department investigated the complaints about this. The conclusion was that, while the loss of trees and planting was approved, the work had, in all likelihood, been undertaken outside the required hours. The department, however, did not pursue this matter, given that there was not an unreasonable level of harm to local amenities. The Building 4 permission was subject to numerous conditions, and the department are in receipt of submissions to discharge all of these, which should be concluded very shortly. The temporary car park is already in place; indeed, the first opportunity to use it, I understand, was this morning, and conditions relevant to that element of the work have all been agreed. The temporary car park reminds me once again of one of the issues we have faced with our own Waterfront development, because the current car park on the Waterfront site is also temporary; built just to take cars while we decided on suitable development on the site. If ever there was an example of the consequences of our own inability to make decisions and take firm action, here it is. It has taken us so long that the flora in and around the site is now semi-mature and, as Minister for Planning and Environment, I am not at all happy about removing it, but the car park was never meant to be permanent.
[14:30]
Single layer open car parks are the worst use of land. Cars need parking but either underground or multi-storey, not what we have there at the moment; land is just too scarce here in Jersey to use valuable space in this way. The car parking issue in St. Helier needs resolving and the Minister for Transport and Technical Services, the Constable and myself, among others, are committed to working together to find the best solutions but not by parking cars in this way in this car park. The current plans allow for more spaces for cars than we currently have and, eventually, cars will be underground, where they ideally should be. If I could now, I would just like to speak very briefly about the future St. Helier project, one of our strategic priorities. We know that this Waterfront project will help to fund improvements in and around our capital but, even more importantly, is how key the development of the finance quarter is to the future of the St. Helier project, because, by moving businesses into top-quality office space, we free-up older office space to be redeveloped. That redevelopment may well be for residential accommodation and, if it is, then it helps us to provide even more options for people to live in St. Helier; the main thrust of the Future St. Helier project. What do Members want: car parking? Well, there will be: underground, where cars should be. Do they want open and green spaces? Well, there will be that as well. A significant percentage of the total site will be open, green and publically-accessible. Do Members want jobs? Well, jobs will be secured as these buildings are constructed, not only during construction but, more importantly, after. If Members want schemes that contribute to the rejuvenation of St. Helier, then these buildings will contribute directly to making our capital an even better place to live, to work and to visit. What do Members really want to achieve for the future of their Island, for the future of their Islanders? We have heard, and will continue to hear this afternoon, much about risk. I completely agree, but for very different reasons. I ask Members to consider very carefully the risks they are taking by voting in favour of this proposition. We need car parking, we need open, green public space, we need jobs. We need to stop the trend of saying no to everything. We need to be strong and decisive and we need to move ahead. I would urge Members to reject this proposition. [Approbation]
What a shroud-waving speech we have just heard from the Minister for Planning and Environment, and, of course, who does not want everything that we think and we are told this 16,000 square feet is going to supply? Just I do not really get to that same conclusion. Is it 200,000 square feet? Is it 16,000 square feet? Why only last year did the then Minister for Treasury and Resources again confirm 200,000 square feet? Even in the last year I have been at meetings as a district Deputy with S.o.J.D.C.; I think at one point the Minister for Planning and Environment was there, before he was Minister for Planning and Environment; we even asked him: “Are we tying your hands too much? Is 200,000 square feet ... is the pre-let sell too high? Can we do anything to get this moving?” No mention that we would only need a few thousand; cannot even get that, because at the time they were in discussions with the Royal Bank of Canada. From the email, you will see that for at least 80,000 square feet. Again, why did not anyone come back to this House? The Minister for Treasury and Resources, and someone else has mentioned, we only have 15,000 square feet of Grade A office space. I am just wondering, I am not quite sure why private developers are not building it. Maybe it is because, exactly the same reason, that there is over 2,000 to 3,000 residential planning applications that have been passed, and developers are not building them because they cannot sell them, they cannot make it pay, and they are sitting on them. So no one is biting their hands off, no one is then going in and saying ... yes, sorry, we have for Andium, we have gone out and borrowed £250 million, but we did that through this House. He also mentioned we turned away an international hedge company last year because they could not find office spaces. I am no expert on finance, but we were told we must bring hedge companies here; they are high-wealth, low footfall, they will not take up much office space and they will not need to employ too many people. All the Ministers are nodding. So if they could not find an office to fit their people in, it is not that, it is exactly what Senator Cameron was saying: they rely so highly on high-speed broadband, they hedge their funds on the internet and they have to get there before the next hedge fund gets there to make the money. That is basically how it has been described to me, because I understand betting, and you have got to be that number one. It is no good being second in that race. [Laughter] The Minister for Treasury and Resources also asked us to be brave, and I have heard this so many times. Like those States Members who introduced social security when there was demonstration, but they stood firm. I tell you something, they were true States Members, they did it voluntarily and not one of them would stand for any of these shenanigans that have been going on over the last few years, and especially the last few months on this development, they would not have stood it and they would have discussed it among themselves; it would never have come to this. For a little bit of history, let us put it in: firstly, we had the whole masterplan, I was up at Girls College for 2 days, a weekend, we had the masterplan. Then it had to be Harcourt; they were the best thing since sliced bread. Then someone luckily brought a deferment on that when suddenly they found themselves in a multi-billion pound court case in the States; not in this States, the United States. You really could not make this up. As for Scrutiny; I am not sure if I know when there was so much contempt for Scrutiny and the rest of the Members of this Assembly, by the Council of Ministers, to be so low. It is only outweighed by the contempt for the whole of this Assembly by the public out there. High contempt: over 2,000 people the other Sunday were at the Waterfront; they were not my voters, they were from the leafy Parishes. I was there 2 or 3 hours talking to these people saying that this was their money. It was not just a demonstration and they were astute enough not to say: “Do not build anything” but everyone kept talking to me about risk: damaging the Island’s reputation. Who has done this? Who went into these “behind the scenes” in the last few months when they knew Scrutiny was looking at it with UBS? I do feel sorry for UBS; I would feel sorry for any companies who have been caught up in the middle of this. Then I am told: “Well, we have got to keep the Island’s reputation and damaging the future of finance, damaging this.” No, we are not damaging this if we support this today. Firstly, we are giving a vote of confidence to Scrutiny, we are telling the people out there we are listening and we are saying, and the rest of you really should be saying: “No. You are not getting away with this.” I do not even believe it was the whole Council of Ministers who knew about it; I am not sure what this Minister for Treasury and Resources knew about the reduction, and I am not even sure when he did know, but somebody knows too much and the powers that be behind the scenes have been running around signing heads of lease and terms that supposedly we cannot get out of or we cannot delay for 4 weeks. Well, you would only need a massive, terrible winter; 4 weeks of rain would delay any building site. It is absolutely mad. UBS are in offices. Have they signed a time when they have got to get out or are we paying them to come out at a certain time? That is another question. We do not know the conditions. As I say, I absolutely do feel sorry for UBS; they are caught in the middle of this. Then we go on: what a private developer would not do. On the bottom of page 3 on the comments of the Ministers, it says: “The development will secure a financial return to the public, estimated around £50 million, on completion.” Then in the last paragraph it says: “As the masterplan progresses we will make sure that we can use this money for much-needed regeneration of our town.” Well, of course, I am a town Deputy, the Council wants this money, this is on the Waterfront, open spaces, parks. There was a winter garden. But the Minister in his speech said: “We are going to sink the road.” It has already been mooted to Scrutiny or by Jersey Financial Development Company, that £50 million might be looking a bit dodgy, it could be £32 million. Now is this before, is this after we have paid for all this or is it: “It is jam tomorrow.” Nothing is proven and if there is any evidence, why? Because, do not forget, the Minister knows everything that has been told to Scrutiny but they do not know what their well-respected independent advisers have got to say. They are reporting on everything. That is the only element the Ministers or the Council do not know. As I say, this will be an independent adviser who knows what he is talking about; and I am not saying the one who is advising S.o.J.D.C. does not know what he is advising, but sometimes when you want figures to work for you, you know how to present them. Lastly, it is what Deputy Tadier said. I drove my daughter and her boyfriend in today quite late, dropped her off by Sand Street. There is security on the Waterfront car park, it is fenced off. I would not be surprised while we are even having this debate if they have not got the diggers in just to keep on digging, as you say, Council of Ministers; you really have no respect for Scrutiny. I can see, basically, the nods when people speak, like people do respect your point of view, but do not be fooled; this does not go any way to support Scrutiny, it does not come to where the truth is, it is contempt for the public and it is not a vote of not having finance here. I am absolutely a supporter of finance and jobs for our children in the future but, then again, nobody even knows, not that we will not have finance, but 20 years down the line, with technology, will we all be working in shiny great offices on the Waterfront? I am virtually here and I could be virtually anywhere. On that note [Laughter] I do not virtually hope that this will be supported; it is a small delay, it is the Assembly saying that they do really respect Scrutiny and they have a lot more respect for the public who know, and these are the public that know: they want to know they are getting the money for their buck.
The Bailiff:
I have been asked by the Connétable of St. Lawrence to rule on whether paragraphs (a) and (b) can be taken separately. The usual approach is to leave that to the request of the proposer, and the Chair will respect that, unless the result would be completely contradictory. In this case, paragraph (a) deals with the position of the Minister for Treasury and Resources between now and the delivery of the Scrutiny Panel report. Paragraph (b) is concerned with the request of the Council of Ministers to act within a month of the Scrutiny Panel report, and therefore it seems to me to be quite possible to reject one and approve the other and, in those circumstances, if the proposer wants to take the vote separately, then he can. If I may say so, the thing that has caused me a slight difficulty is that if paragraph (a) is not adopted it would be surprising if paragraph (b) were then adopted because, in the interval, the States of Jersey Development Company would be entitled to continue making binding agreements and going full-steam ahead with building works. Conversely, if (a) is adopted, then it would be surprising if (b) were not adopted because there would be a freeze until the panel reports, and then nothing more guaranteed to come after that time, whatever the panel might say. That might be thought to leave S.o.J.D.C. in a slightly difficult position. But those would be matters for Members to consider, and the analysis I have just given is entirely a matter for Members; it can be rejected. The 2 paragraphs theoretically do not conflict with each other and so we will take them separately. Does any other Member wish to speak? The Connétable of St. Clement.
I find myself in agreement with Senator Cameron when she said that the world is a different place now than when this project was first mooted and those changes, in my view, make it even more essential that we proceed with this development without any further delay. [Approbation] I am reminded that I think this is the sixth attempt to delay, defer or to cancel this project, and nothing could be worse for the Island at this present time.
[14:45]
This Island has done very well… this Island has done extremely well economically and financially; certainly since the war. I think because of that some people seem to think that the world owes us a living, and that is not the case. We, the people of this Island, have to work for a living, to work for our economic success, to work for our financial success. If the Island is to continue to prosper we, the States, the Parliament of this Island, the leaders of this Island, have to show the confidence and belief in our future, and we can do that by rejecting this sixth proposition to defer, delay or cancel this project. If we do not show the belief and confidence in our future, no one else is going to do it for us. Our competitors certainly will take full advantage of our uncertainty and our nervousness. The world of finance has changed significantly since 2008 and the world has become even more competitive. All of the time major finance houses, major finance companies are considering, asking themselves: “Do we need a major, a huge presence in all of these places: in Jersey, in Guernsey, the Isle of Man, in Gibraltar, in Cayman, in Singapore, in Hong Kong, in Dublin?” Perhaps they will think, some of them: “No, we do not. Perhaps we need a little bit of consolidation. So where are we going to go?” What are they going to do? They are going to look for jurisdictions that have the expertise to run their businesses, they are going to look for jurisdictions that have political stability, they are going to look for jurisdictions which have benign tax regimes and they are going to look for jurisdictions that have suitable and attractive office accommodation. We can offer all of that but, remove just one of those things, and we remove all of them and we become a very unattractive jurisdiction for these people. I do not agree with Deputy Martin that there is contempt for the Scrutiny process. Quite honestly, whatever the Scrutiny report says, what really matters is the marketplace. It is the market that will decide whether the finance centre will be completed in the way that we originally envisaged. If the demand for the office space is not there after this first one is constructed, it will not happen. If the demand is there, of course, they will happen. If we want to have a sound economic future for the people we represent, then we must reject this proposition. [Approbation]
We gave heard some fine words and some fancy cakes in this particular debate, but let us cut through some of the frippery and the flummery and take a look around us; literally, take a look around at this Chamber. What do you see? You see some political representatives of the people who live in this Island. You see a scattering of ex-businessmen. What you see is a political body; you do not see a business body, you do not see Jersey plc. So the next question is: so what are we doing involving ourselves so deeply, up to the elbows, in the marketplace that the Connétable of St. Clement has just referred to? Are we builders of office space? No, we are not, we are a political body. So when the Minister for Treasury and Resources points to the possibility that, if we do not go ahead now this could be the end of S.o.J.D.C., is he saying: “And that is the end of our involvement in” what he says, his words: “creating the necessary environment”? What should this body be doing? Creating the necessary environment for the market to work, to flourish. It should be enabling, protecting those parts of the market, the financial sector, the office sector, the office building sector, should be making regulations that enable that to happen. Is the Minister for Treasury and Resources saying that the market is broken? Well, is he? Because otherwise why are we interfering in the market? I presume he is. He then goes on to say: “And if S.o.J.D.C. were to somehow not be able to carry on with starting this first building, Building 4”, would that mean, as he suggested, that there will be no further development? And they are at this moment building, I think it is 80,000 square feet, right opposite where we are due to eventually build Building 1. It is there. Is the Minister telling us that once this 80,000 square feet is completed, Dandara will not be looking around and saying: “Right, next one, please. Here is 60,000 square feet” or: “30,000 square feet”, and this particular site, we have just bought. Is he saying, when he says: “Unless we go ahead now, we will see this investment through S.o.J.D.C. over the next 10 years for completion of the Waterfront plan, otherwise nothing will happen”? That is simply not the case. When we had the presentation yesterday, there were some 22 or 24 of us there, I think, we were told that the masterplan was so important that, should the market not lift and we be left with, I think it was Building 4 and Building ... I do not know what that building is in front it, Building 6, perhaps, we are left with 2 buildings, and then we could just abandon the masterplan and we will put in the underground car park and Bob is your uncle, we have 2 buildings and that will do, if the market does not take off. So where are we? Here we are with our supposedly low-risk approach in which we have been assured on 3 occasions that S.o.J.D.C.’s buildings are to be progressed on a fully-let basis, 3 times we have heard that: March last year, December last year and March this year; 3 times we have got those assurances. Now, think what the public out there, your voters, are thinking about this: (a) they are saying: “What is the States doing getting involved in building of office space? That is surely has no place in the market place.” They have said that very clearly in the past 6 to 9 months, that we should not be interfering with the marketplace. They have also heard the figure of 200,000 square feet, which came in with the Harcourt development originally. Why did we put in that safeguard for 200,000 square feet pre-lets with that particular case? Because via, I think he was the Constable of St. John at the time, the public made their views known, and they had heard about the court case in the U.S. (United States), they had heard about the big hole in the middle of Belfast that was not going to be filled, that was not going to be developed. Through that particular Member, through a Back-Bencher, they had expressed their reservations and that is why we brought that safeguard in. Since then we have heard repetition of this: “Without pre-lets, we will not be going ahead; with pre-lets we will be going ahead.” We have seen in the 2011 version one of the blocks fully pre-let, the other block, and we heard this yesterday, 63 per cent pre-let. The public heard this. They are not daft. That sounds like a reasonable, safe process. We wonder why now the public are making a fuss about it; now we have got: “Oh, we can do this particular block with a quarter of the office space pre-let, and that is perfectly safe.” Members of the public are saying: “Ah, but is it? That is significantly different to what we have been told before, right up until earlier this year, the end of last year. Come on. My leg feels as if it has been tweaked” say the public: “It is being pulled, perhaps.” We have heard an awful lot about those magic words in the area of finance and business, which is confidence. Unless we go ahead, we risk losing confidence of the business sector. I am suggesting that, unless we put in this pause, and it is not a reneging, it is a pause in the development, that is all. Unless we put that in, and this proposition enables us to do so, then the confidence we will be losing is the confidence of the public, and we as a political body absolutely need that, it is essential. So what I am suggesting is that again, as we did way back when we first started on this route, we listen to the people. The reservations that they had there over Harcourt we listened to, we put in a safety mechanism: 200,000 square feet of pre-lets. I am suggesting that, once again, we do the wise thing as politicians and listen to our public who are saying: “And we have got reservations about this.” This time, the safety mechanism we have got to put in there is much less significant than 200,000 square feet of pre-lets, and complete pre-letting before we develop anything. It is about a 4 to 6 week deferment of proceeding. Because the public out there perhaps do not know an awful lot about what happens in that strange amalgam of business, politics and the public, but one thing they have heard is the means by which we hold our Ministers to account - our government to account - is called Scrutiny. Some people may be saying: “Here we are again where we are driving straight through that checking mechanism that is Scrutiny and saying: ‘No, we will not wait for your report, we know what we are doing, we are signing the contracts and you cannot do anything about it’.” Once again we will be disrespecting the Scrutiny process which the members of the public, and they will know it, how it works in detail that they know that is their safety mechanism. That is what they want in place. So for the sake of 4 to 6 weeks I urge Members to listen to their public and put that safety mechanism in ... it is a mere 4 to 6 weeks, and as I say, it is a hiatus, it is a pause, it is not reneging on any agreement. Unless we do that I think we risk losing the respect of the public out there.
I think we need to look at this a slightly different way. Irrespective of Members’ views on the Jersey International Finance Centre, whether you are for or against it, this debate is about Scrutiny and it is important to the process of government, and not about the rights or wrongs or the amount of square footage rented out of the Jersey International Finance Centre. We all recognise the importance and value of the finance industry to this Island. To suggest otherwise is being disingenuous. But this debate goes to the very heart of government and its integrity in the face of public scrutiny. A question that I have asked various Ministers, including the Chief Minister, in public hearings is as follows: “Do you fully support and encourage the role and process of Scrutiny at all levels and in all areas of government?”
[15:00]
Without exception they have all answered yes. I would therefore suggest that they should live up to their words. Members should also consider very, very carefully how they vote on this proposition for to vote against it you are setting a very dangerous precedent and that precedent is that the Executive does not care about the Scrutiny process. Scrutiny is the only mechanism to ensure that the correct checks and balances are in place. That is what makes a healthy vibrant government. Aside from general elections, Scrutiny is the only mechanism by which the public can directly engage with government. Scrutiny is the only way in which the decisions of Ministers can be reviewed. Also I would remind all Members of this Assembly that we are all elected representatives of the public and as such we are here to serve the public interest. We are here to listen to the public voice and we are here to give an arena for their concerns. I would also like to leave this last thought with Members of the Assembly. It is never too late to do the right thing. I would urge all Members to vote in favour of this proposition.
Firstly I will declare that I am a member of the Corporate Scrutiny Panel. We have heard a number of arguments today, one of which being Jersey’s reputation. I hesitate as to what sort of reputation we might achieve if only one building is built, and we have one building and a burger van which we can then proudly say: “This is our Finance Centre.” Surely we need to properly scrutinise the situation and find out whether all 6 buildings are going to be delivered and this is why the 200,000 square feet was put in place in the first place to ensure that we will at least have a centre as opposed to a single building half let with a burger van. We have also heard of misinformation. Misinformation often comes because the full and correct case is not put forward. It is widely known that the Council of Ministers or the Minister for Treasury and Resources ordered a report way back before my time called the King Sturge Report. This report has never been released and yet according to the Minister for Treasury and Resources we have had 5 debates on this issue, but this House has not been given all the information held by the Council of Ministers in order to carry out that debate. That is a very serious matter. I shall not repeat my words on Scrutiny because they were very ably and more ably put than I can do by the Deputy of St. Clement, Deputy Brée, because Scrutiny is an extremely important part of government and we cannot bypass it just because it is inconvenient. I urge people to support this because a small delay is less expensive than a catastrophic disaster.
I am delighted to follow both of those speeches. I think the very last sentence from the Constable of St. John was very appropriate. If that were the one sentence I would use to sum up the argument in support of this proposition that would be it. The Deputy of St. Ouen in his speech used a phrase when referring to Members of this Assembly. He said: “We are the Government of the Island.” That is not true. We are not the Government of the Island. We are the Assembly, the Parliament of the Island. The Government of this Island is the Council of Ministers, it is not the States Assembly. We as a Legislature, our job is to appoint and then hold account the Government of his Island. So if we were to somehow absolve that responsibility and act as nothing more than a rubber stamp of what the Government tries to do to this Island then frankly what is the point in this Assembly even existing? We have a process here that we should be following, which is to let Scrutiny do its job and when they come back with the information will be better informed, able to make the right decision and ultimately if there are questions that need to be asked, if it turns out in fact that the Government is on the right track but a few little things need tweaking, then the end result we get will be all the more better because we will have paid attention to Scrutiny. I simply do not buy this argument that somehow if we delay a few weeks it is going to be the end of the world. I think that argument insults the intelligence not just of myself but of members of the public who have had that put to them. Not just that, but I think there have been several other things that members of the Government have said that frankly I think they should apologise for. I remember hearing on the radio not too long ago one member of the Government who said that one of the reasons the public were against this was simply because they just did not understand. Talk about patronising. I think that is a highly offensive thing to say actually. As I came into the Assembly this morning I stayed outside to chat to some of the people outside and I spoke to a whole variety of different people. One person I spoke to was a chartered accountant who had worked for several very, very big businesses in his time who was mortified at the way this was going ahead because of the questions he believed were not answered. I spoke to people who have been campaigning on issues like this since before I was born, so it is not as if some people have read one or 2 articles in the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) and have then appointed themselves to be an expert on this. It is people with decent professional backgrounds in this area and people who have been involved in this for decades and decades who have expressed concerns at this. Frankly, I think the Government, when they have attempted to answer questions from the public, they have not done a good job. Now I admire some of the members of the Government who took the time to come and meet members of the public, to take part in public meetings and take questions from them. That is an important thing to be doing in a democracy but I do not believe they will have convinced a single person in any of those meetings that what they are doing is the right thing. Most of those people will have left with more questions than they will have thought were answered. So I think the Government should be apologising for the bad job they have done in the run-up to this and the best way that they could show their apology would be to reverse their position and say: “Actually we will hold this off for just a few weeks to let Scrutiny do what it is meant to do and then we will have a bit of a rethink and then we will move forward in the best interests of the Island with all the facts available to us.” That to me seems like an entirely moderate position. It seems like an entirely sensible and rational thing to do. On that basis I would hope that Members would see this as something that can be done, that would hopefully restore a bit of faith in politics among Islanders because we have had an absolutely massive protest at the Esplanade. We have had huge engagement with public meetings, something that does not happen very often in what is normally quite an apolitical Island. What is happening here is not the end process of an effective democracy. Before this debate I went on both the Chief Minister’s website and to the Minister for Treasury and Resources’ website to check their election manifestos to see what they said about this and there was not one single word about it on there. So please let us not pretend that this is some sort of paragon of democratic virtue, this process that has resulted in this. What we need to do is take a step back and let Scrutiny do its job.
I, like some Members of this Assembly, and members of the public, could come up with many reasons why we should not proceed with the International Finance Centre. In my heart of hearts I do not believe in the fundamental principle that it is the role of government to play at property developer. Even though we are doing so at arm’s length I believe that Government’s role is to facilitate and stimulate the environment where private developers have the confidence to risk their expertise and resources. However, I can see that we have passed the point of no return and this is now no longer an option. We can argue ad infinitum about the quality of architecture, again let us not kid ourselves, what could have been a golden opportunity for a stunning world class Waterfront was lost years ago when it was agreed to build a Waterfront hotel based on the design crib from a Russian tank factory. If I am honest I do not believe that most of us here today will live long enough to see the £50 million return. Along with my colleague, Deputy Martin, I think it is a case of jam tomorrow. We find ourselves today on a course set by previous administrations. Although there may have been the opportunity for a review after the last election it has clearly been decided to stay on a course by the Ministers who are hopefully privy to more commercially sensitive information and have undertaken their own due diligence, and we have to put our trust in their integrity. We are in this place not to make populace decisions but to make decisions that we believe are the right way forward from where we find ourselves now, and to be in the best interests of Jersey and our future generations. If we leave this matter festering on the table, as is proposed, and everyone continues to poke it with a stick it will do Jersey Limited no good whatsoever in the eyes of the world. Support for the farming industry and tourism sectors remain important, as is the encouragement of emerging opportunities like FinTech and other niche markets. This is all well and good but let us not kid ourselves that the finance industry is and will continue to make Jersey’s economy tick for the foreseeable future. Our people are out there selling Jersey as a steady, reliable, safe and well-regulated place to do their business. What message will we be sending out today if we say: “But by the way there is no great office space available if you want to bring your business here or indeed to upgrade to if you are already here and have a vision to stay.” Like it or not it is an inescapable fact that the finance industry brings a quality of life to this Island and its people and must be protected and nurtured at all costs. If this Assembly does not send out the message that Jersey is open for business what hope for our future prosperity? For these reasons I will not be supporting these propositions.
Firstly, I would just like to touch on the members of the public who were outside this building earlier on at a very well-organised get together. I would rather say “get together” rather than “protest”. Perhaps it was a protest, for some people it was. For some they had reasoned arguments. For some the answer was going to be: “No; now what is the question?” There was many a time when I did engage outside for a good 20 minutes and I enjoyed the chat that I had with most of those outside. Some were very vociferous, some were very polite. I asked them what they wanted. “What do you want? What do you want? Not what we as States Members want but what do you want?” Some of the answers I got back: “We want jobs.” Well, the finance industry is great for jobs. “Oh no, it is not. No, we want jobs for local people.” 90 per cent of the jobs in the finance industry are filled by local people. Going forward more and more of those graduates, as soon as they become graduates, before they become graduates, are being snapped-up by those within the financial services industry. “What do you want? What do you see for the future?” “St. Helier. We would like to see a St. Helier with a soul in it. We would like to see a St. Helier where we could enjoy our life, where we could live.” If you do not have the Finance Centre the chances are you will not get the regeneration of St. Helier that is so important. This is not just about a Jersey International Financial Centre. This is about St. Helier. This is about its regeneration. This is about spending that money forward and making plans and freeing-up some of the wonderful real estate that we could have if some of that finance centre was put together and some of that free space in other parts of St. Helier were freed-up for regeneration.
[15:15]
To make them better places to be. Many years before I joined the States I did not really know a great deal about the finance industry. I have never worked in it. I was never particularly a big fan of it. I did not really know what it did. But when asked my opinions on many occasions it was not really where my interest was. Tourism, that is where we should go. Agriculture, that is where we should be. Those are the sole reasons that Jersey is what Jersey is. That is all fine. That is great except when you get down to looking at the figures of it. Suddenly you get down to the real importance of the finance industry and like it or not, a fan or not, the reality is that if you want an industry that supports all other industries in the Island, that spends £1 million per day in other services outside of its own finance industry then you look at the finance industry because that is what it does. It spends £1 million in everything from carpet fitters and decorates to builders, to people that supply photocopiers, to everything else. £1 million a day. There is not another industry doing that. It brings in 40 per cent of our G.V.A. Its footprint is very good, 25 per cent. That is it, but 40 per cent of our G.V.A. It is very important. Yesterday I was lucky enough to attend a series of meetings throughout a very, very long day where in London we met a lot of potential inward investors. The message there was: “Jersey is open for business.” The message there is: “We are very confident of our future.” That Jersey is the place to do your business. There were some very, very powerful people within the rooms that we were in, that were listening, were taking note and are very interested in being part of Jersey. Now what we are going to do is say: “Oh, actually we are not really sure now. Can we hold it off for a little minute? I know we have signed an agreement with someone but, you know, just wait a little bit longer. Let us mess around UBS, shall we? We have signed a lease with you but, you know, it might cost us a few quid to get out of it.” That is not where we should be. We need to woman-up, man-up, stick our chest out, be a little bit more confident about what we do because that is what the rest of the world is watching. To support this proposition would be a catastrophe, reputation for us throughout the financial world. Think very carefully about that. Our masterplan is a masterplan that is flexible. That has always been said. The masterplan of the Esplanade Quarter is flexible. It is flexible enough to be able to incorporate other suggestions should they come along at the right time. It is phase by phase. Who knows, we might even get a hospital down there as well. But at least it is flexible enough to incorporate it but then we will have to find some money to pay for it. What about Scrutiny? Scrutiny is crucially important. I think this entire Assembly recognises how important Scrutiny is and how important a role it should and must play and will play. The overall principle of Scrutiny looking at the Jersey International Finance Centre will happen, is happening and will continue to happen. The first building, we have signed a lease. Sorry, about that. We have actually done some business. This is not the time to stop it. Nor should we attempt to. Of course should we be involved in building; what do we know about building anyway? What do we know about telecoms? What do we know about harbours? Flying aircraft? We do it in other forms. This is just another form of that. I cannot support this proposition. We must allow the first phase of that development to happen. It should happen on a schedule. It should give confidence to other people that wish to take out leases that I feel confident are coming our way. Jersey is open for business and the message we must send out is that we are open for business. Of course we are listening to the public outside. I listened to the 50 people outside. I take note that whether you believe on 900 to 1,000 or 2,000 people, that massive demonstration, I take note of that as well. There are another 98,000 people living there. There are 12,000 people in the finance industry. I take note of what they say as well. I take note of all those other people that benefit from the finance industry as well. I take note of all those people that want a job in the future. My child, your child, your grandchildren, whoever it may be. They all want jobs that are well paid. They want jobs that focus on what we do best. What we do best in the world is finance and financial industries. It is our golden goose. It is laying golden eggs for us and we must support it. You may support it by rejecting this proposition. [Approbation]
I do not think we should question the motives of the protestors we walked through on our way in this morning. I think we should celebrate the fact that those people are engaging with us and engaging in politics and exercising their right and, as I say, I think we should celebrate it, and I think we should recognise that the no campaign, SOS, et cetera, have a lot of questions about this development because they have not been given enough information by the architects of this scheme, the Government of Jersey, the Council of Ministers. I think, to be fair to the Council of Ministers, the Chief Minister and the Minister for Treasury and Resources have said that information going to the public about the benefits of the Jersey International Finance Centre has not been good enough. We have not engaged well enough with the public on this and the Council of Ministers should deploy their best weapons in this ... I am not going to give them a lesson in P.R. (public relations), it is not my job, but I have to say if you sit down with Senator Ozouf, for example, he can convince you that black is white, but his arguments on the Finance Centre - and I spoke to him - ring true with me. I have to say that it is a difficult one for me because I have the same concerns about S.o.J.D.C. as the Constable of Trinity, but I might vote with Deputy Tadier today but I will not necessarily vote with him 8 weeks down the line or with the Scrutiny review or what have you, because I agree with everything that has been said about supporting the Finance Centre. How are we going to pay for an ageing population if we start to put the brakes on our economy? The maths do not add up for me. It does not make sense. But I do not think that message has been communicated well enough to the people of the Island and that is why we are in this situation. What strikes me as odd is that the Scrutiny Panel announced that they were going to do this review almost as soon as they were formed. It was before Christmas I think. I stand to be corrected. But it was pretty ... I cannot hear the Deputy but it has been going on a long time. Why was this not foreseen and why was it not headed off at the pass, if you will excuse my grammar, why was it not stopped earlier? Why did the Council of Ministers not come to this House and ask for that Scrutiny review not to take place because of the potential disaster that they are saying will happen today? I do not understand why they did not do that. In fact they took part in it. The department have taken part in it. The Ministers have taken part in it. I have been to watch it myself. So it feels odd to me that we are now saying: “Oh no, we have let a floor and a half, so you have got to stop your review, Scrutiny Panel.” It does not sit well with me. I think when people have asked me about whether I am in favour or not of the Jersey International Finance Centre, and I have had a lot of these conversations, I often say: “Well, it is immaterial whether I am in favour of it or not because effectively the Island has returned at the last election, the architects of the scheme” in the form of many of the Senators to my right. But I did start to have a look at that in a little bit more detail myself. In other words, has the Government got a mandate because of the last election and on the one hand it does but on the other hand it is not so clear. If you, for example, revisit vote.je, the site, and have a look at the manifesto of the Chief Minister or the Minister for Treasury and Resources, the Assistant Chief Ministers, and look for the words “States of Jersey Development Company” or “Esplanade Quarter” or “International Finance Centre”, if you look for those key phrases they do not appear in any of the manifestos online in the vote.je website. To a certain extent we are here because the architects of this scheme, our Government, did not want to confront that issue at the election. I think it was probably perceived as a vote loser and so really do they have the mandate? Was that really addressed? Did they go out there and wave the flag for the Jersey International Finance Centre? I am not so sure. The Constable of Trinity mentioned the hotel on the Waterfront but let us not forget, the original plans for that hotel had a beautiful rooftop restaurant and a roof garden. It had an area for a nightclub or casino if they were going to be allowed to do that. It had underground parking and it had balconies on all the windows, and that is what we ended up with, and those were the plans. The worry with this is, as the Constable of St. John has said, that a similar thing is going to happen with the Jersey International Finance Centre. But I am also aware of what Deputy Brée of St. Clement is saying, that it is not really this debate is about the Jersey International Finance Centre, it is about whether Scrutiny should be given 6 weeks to complete their review, which they began months and months ago. It seems to me that that Scrutiny Panel are in fact carrying out due diligence on the scheme and due diligence needs to be carried out on the scheme. I am afraid it is tough if the Minister for Treasury and Resources does not want them to do it and rather he do it himself. They are engaged with it now and they should complete their work.
I had not intended to say anything but I have heard some really excellent speeches I think during this debate on both sides, but there have been a couple of things that have really jarred with me that I want to talk about just to put my feelings for this on record. There have been some diverse opinions. I thought the speech of the Deputy of St. Ouen was excellent and that really started me going because he spoke a lot of sense. He spoke about Scrutiny, in respect of Scrutiny, and also spoke, though, about timing and the timing of the events that have led up to the situation we are in now. Other Members have spoken about Scrutiny and I just want to put it on the record that I do not believe that we are holding Scrutiny in contempt, not at all. You only have to look ... and some Members have got very short memories. I think it was only one sitting ago or maybe 2 - my memory goes as well now - but a really, really complex and very controversial item, the incorporation of the Ports of Jersey went through this Assembly. I will not say on the nod because it was given great consideration, but it went through with an incredibly easy passage and I think that is almost entirely down to the fact that the incorporation of the Ports Scrutiny report had been excellent, it had been well received and it had been well considered by Members. I think to say that we do not value Scrutiny is simply not true in the light of that transaction on its own. That is one thing that I really felt needed to be said. Now, the Deputy of St. Ouen also said that we need Grade A office accommodation. I have worked in the finance industry a long time and he is absolutely right, we do. Deputy Martin talked about hedge fund managers and the fact that she was virtually here and could be virtually here anywhere, basically. Of course, we live in a very virtual world, but for collaboration and for lots of different reasons, people still socially get together. This is going back quite a while, but I spoke to one of the earlier hedge fund managers that came here just after he had arrived and I said, very proud of Jersey: “You must be really glad to have come here.” He said: “Well, we arrived here. We dusted our suitcases down. We looked at each other and we almost got back on the plane and left. This Island, despite everything we have been told, could not deliver us the superfast broadband we needed.”
[15:30]
Now, obviously things have moved on a lot since then but he said: “We really came down here and we looked at ourselves and thought: ‘We have made a huge mistake’. The infrastructure is not in place here.” Now, things, as I say, have moved on, but the need for an integrated building, a building where the technology is available seamlessly delivered to your desk, delivered to wherever your portal happens to be ... you cannot deny the fact that we need that. The question for me is: how much do we need and at what cost? Now, those are items that, of course, the Scrutiny report, hopefully, will give us more insight into. But, as we have heard from the Minister for Treasury and Resources this morning, the work of the Scrutiny report is not wasted if we do not accept this proposition. That goes on. The report is much bigger than just the one building that we are talking about starting work on at the moment. I would just like to say to Deputy Martin, when I was maybe 11 or 12, going back quite a long way now, I used to sit round the television, which here in the Island in those days was still black and white. I did not get colour until I was 16 and I remember it vividly. Raymond Baxter, Judith Hann - they used to fascinate me. Tomorrow’s World was brilliant. I can vividly remember ... I think it was the demonstration of a fax machine and it was magic that these pictures and documents disappeared from here and came out over there and I was assured by Raymond Baxter that by the time I had left school I would be in a paperless office and I would have so much free time I would be having robots doing all my work and it just has not happened. So we have to be realistic. Here and now and for the immediate foreseeable future, we do need Grade A office accommodation. It is very difficult. Another thing that somebody said, and Deputy Labey said it just now, he said the States of Jersey, the Government, were the architects of this scheme. Now, of course, the S.o.J.D.C. are the architects of this scheme and we have formed them. We have put the assets into them to do, virtually as arm’s length as we can, a very, very specific project for which we as a Government did not necessarily have the skillset to manage and deliver properly. We have entrusted people who we hope will have that. I am very disappointed that, as I believe they are the drivers of this situation, now having put things at arm’s length ... although, let us be honest, this Assembly is impossibly incapable of putting anything at arm’s length. We send our remuneration to the States of Jersey Members Remuneration Board and as soon as they make a decision we instantly tear it to shreds. We are not good at putting things out and letting people do the job that we have, after a lot of deliberation, entrusted them to do. But I am very disappointed, and I will put this on record, that the S.o.J.D.C. have not been able to sell this scheme properly to the public because I believe that now, at this stage of time, it is not the Government’s job to be doing that. I believe it was their job to be doing that. I do not believe they have done that job well and I think they are jolly well paid for not having done that job very well and I hope they will listen to that. Maybe they will not like what they say but I think it will ring true with a lot of the members of the public because, like other speakers, I have asked people specifically: “What is it you do not want to happen with this development?” and a lot of them were very vague. A lot of them had some specific ideas, some of which we know have been discounted, about the use of public money to fund it. We know there was genuine misunderstanding about that and I think that could have been put right and put in the public domain a lot clearer and a lot better and I do not necessarily think it was this Assembly’s job to do that. Some people could not articulate. For some people it was the car park; they did not want to lose that car park. Well, we have heard a lot about that and it was a beautiful car park. It was probably one of the most expensively beautiful car parks anywhere. I mourn the loss of that car park, too, but at the end of the day we trust that we will get that back. There is a genuine concern, as Senator Cameron said. Senator Cameron said: “Things have changed,” and there is a genuine concern that things have changed. But, then again, plans like the Waterfront, and lots of other things that we do, do not happen overnight. They do not grow overnight. We spend a long, long time debating them and a long time putting them in train and they are like ocean liners. Once they have left port they are very hard to turn around. The Scrutiny report: I understand and I totally accept what the Deputy of St. Ouen said, that Scrutiny must be free to revisit, to change its mind, to go back and to dig in at any time. That is, without question, true. But having had assurance from previous panel that they did not think there was any need for a report, I think it is quite reasonable that things moved ahead and things happened. When another Scrutiny report, quite appropriately, said: “No, we want to look at this” it has to be on the basis that things are not static. Things are moving. I think we have come to the situation where there is an unfortunate clash of timing, but that is nobody’s fault and it is not disrespectful to Scrutiny. Just a couple more points, I think. I think I have probably almost said enough but there is something that a couple of Members have talked on. They have talked about finance - and I think it might have been Deputy Norton - that finance is really the engine room for our economy and it certainly is. He said it supports what other industries do. It certainly does. The public often hark back, depending what era they are from, what the principal industry was when they were young or growing up or in business: “The States has not supported the tourism industry enough. The States has not supported the agricultural industry enough. If only more investment had been made here, this would have happened. If only this; if only that.” Do we want to be the people that future generations look back on and say: “We had the goose with the golden egg” as somebody said: “We had a strong vibrant finance industry. If only we had supported it at this crucial time we might still have it.” Do we want to be the people that future generations talk about in that way? Certainly I do not. Yes, I do have concerns. I really do have concerns but I am more concerned at the moment about ... there is a saying that I was told by an ex-Army gentleman who does a lot of work with States quangos and others. We were talking one day at some reception and he said to me: “If you give an order and then you suddenly have a doubt about it and you immediately give a counter-order, what you get is disorder. Sometimes you have to go through a process even when, at certain times on the periphery, you are not quite sure that everything is lining up as you had wanted it to because you because you have got to have some confidence that all the work that you have done is going to pay off.” Deputy Labey said he looked at all the mandates - somebody else has said this - and nobody mentioned the finance industry. Well, I venture that is because at the time of the last election we had just had Scrutiny saying: “No, it is fine. Go ahead. This gets the green light from us.” The fact that we had had X, Y and Z debates over time leading up to that and the fact that, to all intents and purposes, for people who are following a train of orders, a train of command, we had debated it., we had made a decision and we had put things in motion to get things going. That is probably why, because we thought we had dealt with it. I have got concerns but my concerns over this particular building do not mean that I think we need to delay until the Scrutiny report. I think the Scrutiny report will be incredibly vital. I think it will give us a lot of information we do not already have. I am hoping that it will prove to be as objective as we have been led to believe by its chairman that it will be and I look forward to receiving it. But at the moment, on the basis of what I said, even though ... I am touched by what the public have said, but there comes a time when we have to stick by the decisions that we have made because if we do not we are making no decisions and a government that makes no decisions at all does not serve its people. [Approbation]
The Constable of St. Mary has said a lot of what I wanted to say but I do have a bit of history in going up against the Development Company, which used to be called W.E.B. (Waterfront Enterprise Board), of course. There are perhaps not many Members here who remember the Waterfront Enterprise Board, but I have the scars to prove it. Before I tried to stop the Esplanade Quarter scheme going ahead in 2011, I tried to stop the Abattoir scheme from going ahead. I was part of an embattled Planning Committee, none of whom is here now except myself. Before I tried to stop the Abattoir site being turned into what is now Liberty Wharf, I tried to stop the creation of the leisure pool and I wrote a Back-Bencher’s proposition of some 40 pages, which was described by then Senator Syvret, or he may have been a Deputy then, as the best Back-Bench proposition he had ever read. I withdrew that because, when I read the comments of the then Policy and Resources Committee, I realised that it was simply not going to fly through the States. Members may think that shows a lack of resolve, but one thing I have learned in nearly 20 years on the States is that when you know that your arguments are not working and when you know that people are not listening to you - and I should say that when I tried to stop the Esplanade Quarter scheme there was no public interest at all in my suggestion that we could turn it into a central park for St. Helier - then you think: “Well, I can either stay on the sidelines and I can do as Senator Breckon did, I can keep bringing it back and other Members trying to stop anything from happening, or I can try and work with the company that has been set up to try and make sure that what is created is the best possible scheme.” Perhaps I did not get there in time to help the leisure pool - but, of course, that building will not be there for ever - but I think that the Liberty Wharf scheme has turned out really well. I do not put that down to myself, although I had some influence in how the bus station turned out. Now on the Esplanade Quarter scheme I have engaged - to use a word that has been used this afternoon a few times - with the Jersey Development Company and I am pleased to say - it may not seem important to some people - that the water features will no longer be rills of one inch because I managed to convince the directors that there is not a health and safety problem when you think of the sea across the wall. I am pleased that they have listened to the arguments I have made about retail and the threat that the scheme could pose to the main town in terms of retail and hospitality and it was pleasing to see a tweet during a recent debate where the director said that there would be no retail in the Esplanade Quarter scheme, no significant retail, because if somebody wants to buy a shirt, which is the example I always use, let them go back into town and buy their shirt. If they want a fine restaurant, let them go into town to eat out. I do not want this place to be a wasteland after dark, but nor do I want it to suck the life out of town. I believe that, by working with the Development Company, what is eventually built on the site will be better as a result of that and that means that I will be able to sleep at night and face the voters in due course and explain why I supported it. I do not accept, and I speak as a chairman of a Scrutiny Panel, that this debate about Scrutiny. I do not accept that if we do not support Deputy Tadier it will be showing contempt for the Scrutiny process. As Members have already said, this subject has been the subject of Scrutiny already. It has been the subject of several Back-Bench propositions, which in themselves amount to a scrutiny of the project, and none of them have told us to stop what we are doing. Indeed, I think it is important. We had the phrase from Deputy Mézec: “A massive show of opposition to this scheme.” Now, I have been to a couple of meetings. There are about 40 people in St. Brelade. There were about 60 in the Town Hall. I did not attend the ring of defiance but I think numbers vary about that. Certainly this morning in the Royal Square there might have been 100 people. I do not know; I did not count them. But I do not call that a massive show of defiance. I once had to come to the States when there was a bus strike and the Royal Square was practically full of people baying for my blood. So I know what the Royal Square looks like when it is full of protestors and it was not full of protestors this morning. Like Deputy Mézec, I stopped outside and I engaged with some of the protestors. Once they stopped saying: “No, no, no” in my face, I said: “Can we have a discussion about this?” I was then able to talk to a couple of the protestors about why I thought this scheme that is being proposed would be good for St. Helier. One of the protestors I noticed carried a sign saying the single word, not “No” but “Integrity”, which I thought was quite interesting. The Constable of St. Mary has been talking about the need for this Government to honour its commitments. There is something, to mix my metaphors, slightly ironic about setting up an arm’s length agency and then tying the hands of the agency behind its back, because that effectively [Approbation] is what we keep doing with W.E.B. now known as Jersey Development Company. We set up a development agency, as many other jurisdictions have done, to get on with the development and then we keep interfering in the process. I am as guilty as Deputy Tadier. I did it myself back in 2011, but I like to think I have learned my lesson and I have not interfered since.
[15:45]
As I said, I have worked with them in the hope that at least one of their hands can be released and they can start to do some work. Now, when they finally get the thing moving, as industry comes out of recession, we are saying: “No, no, we want to put the brakes on. Jersey is not interested in attracting these new businesses. We want to have another Scrutiny review.” Well, Scrutiny has a responsibility. If you are going to scrutinise something and you know that the brakes have come off, you know that the recession is ending and that this particular subject of Scrutiny is moving forward in negotiation, then why not do a quicker review than 6 months? We are now 6 months into the year. The review, as has been said, was announced before Christmas. Why has it taken them so long? Is it just because, as we have heard some speakers say, the Council of Ministers has refused to disclose information? I think there is a little bit of refusal to disclose on both sides of the argument if what I have heard is true. I think Scrutiny could have done their work in a more timely fashion and they could have brought their report forward. Certainly my panel has already produced one report and it is probably now gathering dust in a few States departments. So I do think that we need to get on with it. We have complained that S.o.J.D.C. has not moved forward on its schemes fast enough. They now have signed an agreement and I would be embarrassed, knowing that that is in place, were we to renege on it. Someone said we only have - again, I think Deputy Mézec - a few more weeks. I do not think we are talking about a few more weeks. I think we are talking about a longer process than that judging by the time it is taking and certainly I think symbolically it would send out a very bad message about Jersey if we were to support the proposition. I would say, finally, that Jersey has always prospered by being energetic, confident and creative. You only have to think about our success: we were once the fourth biggest ship-building industry, heart in Europe; cider making; knitting; cod exports; the Jersey cow. The list goes on and on. Jersey is good at doing things. As some people say, it punches well above its weight in the western world and I must say I am surprised because most of our constituents earn their money from the financial services industry. The experts are telling us that these offices are needed and yet we are relying on one Scrutiny Panel in the States of Jersey, who know better, and we are saying: “No, we think the experts are wrong.” Well, my confidence it with the directors of S.o.J.D.C. because I think they know their business. I think they know how to market this site. [Approbation] If I have to choose between them and the Scrutiny Panel holding it up, my money, I am afraid, will be on the directors of S.o.J.D.C. I trust their combined talents. I do not believe they are doing this for a vanity project or an ego trip. I believe they are doing it for the good of Jersey and I suggest that we untie their hands and let them get on with it.
Where to start? There is a great deal of public concern regarding the viability of the project and it is a financial worry and the risk involved in developing this International Finance Centre and I can understand that. I am personally a very cautious individual; a businessman; always prudent with money. I was brought up the Jersey way. I have got short arms and deep pockets, so I appreciate the value of money. After much deliberation and consultation with myself, I am satisfied that the risk to the public purse has been greatly reduced by the very sensible and cautious approach adopted by the board of the S.o.J.D.C. Demand-built with legally-binding pre-let agreements, one building at a time; for me that is relatively risk free. The International Finance Centre development is all about this Government investing in the future. It is about supporting the very important financial services industry that we, as an Island, so heavily depend and rely upon for income and jobs. I wrote in my 2014 election manifesto: “A healthy and successful economy is vital to the future of Jersey. A successful economy will provide the revenue to support vital public services. Should our economy falter, tax revenues will diminish and living standards will fall. We need to grow our economy, provide jobs and embrace the future with confidence.” The inception of the S.o.J.D.C. was voted on and approved by the previous Assembly, its mandate: to develop commercial and domestic property within the Island; essentially investing in the future. I feel there was nothing wrong with that decision. In fact, it made perfectly good sense and, had I been in the States at the time, I too would have voted for it. In my opinion it is time to stop procrastinating. Let the S.o.J.D.C. get on with the job tasked of them and certainly, if the Scrutiny report highlights any issues, then they should be addressed and dealt with appropriately.
The Connétable of St. Helier made frequent reference to the fact that this discussion was not about the role or reputation of Scrutiny. Unfortunately, that is how the public see it. That is not simply because of the delay in our request. It was, as I understand it - dare I say it - the attitude displayed by the Development Company at an early stage referring to the panel as an irritant and, by all accounts, delaying the production of documentation. I think that is the part of the problem we have here, that the public do see this as a challenge between Scrutiny on the one hand and the reputation of the International Finance Centre on the other. That puts me in an impossible position. I happen to be a member of 2 Scrutiny Panels. I would defend their role to the last degree and I think, on balance, I do take on board the comments both of the Constables of St. Mary and of St. Helier that this is not about Scrutiny and that at least the Members here hold the panels in high regard. For that reason and with a heavy heart, it is probably the case that I shall vote against the proposition on the basis that the international reputation of the Island would suffer a lot more than that of the Assembly if the proposition were carried.
I was not sure if I was going to stand to address the Assembly, but I do think it is important to echo some of the words that have been said previously. First of all, I have to say that I believe I am the only Member in the Chamber today who was on the previous Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel and that panel has been referred to on a number of occasions. I have to declare that, as a panel, we were sufficiently satisfied with the process that was being adopted by S.o.J.D.C., sufficiently satisfied enough to decide to not undertake our own review of the development. However, we did recommend in our legacy report that the new panel undertake a watching brief. We also recognised that they may well decide to undertake a review, which of course they did in quite short order. It is important that Scrutiny is completely impartial and we know that the Chairman of the current panel has had some comments to make on the development in the past. I am reassured today by his commitment to the Assembly that the review which is being undertaken and the report that is due to be presented shortly will indeed be impartial and obviously evidence-based. I heard a Member say earlier that this is being held up by Scrutiny but I think, if we decide today to not support Deputy Tadier’s proposition as amended, it will not be the Scrutiny function that will be delaying this. It will be the proposition of Deputy Tadier. It seems to me that the only people who know the direction that their report is travelling is the panel themselves and it seems to me that if they had the concerns that Deputy Tadier has presented to us, then they would have raised those concerns themselves by bringing a proposition similar to that of Deputy Tadier. I am not sure that this is all about Scrutiny. The panel themselves know that the fundamental mechanism open to them is by bringing a proposition to the Assembly. They have not chosen to do that. I can only assume from that that any findings that they may make in their report are not insurmountable. I think that is all I want to say on the Scrutiny side of this. However, having been able to listen to the confidential briefing that the previous Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel did receive, albeit some time ago, I have not heard anything in any of the discussions that have taken place recently within presentations that I have been to on this, or indeed in the Assembly today, to make me change my view on the development itself. It is interesting, is it not, that we have, I think, 5 Scrutiny chairmen in the Assembly and none of them are agreed on what is right with this proposition. None of them have ... they are not in agreement as to how we should proceed with this proposition. My personal view is that the benefits that the Island as a whole will reap from the development as it goes forward cannot be outweighed and should not be delayed. Therefore, I will not be supporting the proposition of Deputy Tadier.
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:
Sir, may I ... I do not know whether it is a point of order or a point of clarification.
The Bailiff:
As long as it is not a second speech.
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:
It is certainly not meant to be a second speech, but the previous speaker made a comment that she therefore assumed that any conclusions from any report would be not insurmountable. I think she is prejudging where we may or may not be. We have tried to be very careful not to prejudice any outcomes of the report and indeed, I said earlier that we are awaiting the advice from our advisers and do not know what the outcome of that report will be. So I just wanted to clarify that. We do not know what the outcome of the report will be. I also thank her for clarifying what was in the handover report from Corporate about the review into the Waterfront.
I think that the speeches in this debate on both sides of the argument have been very strong this morning and this afternoon. Inevitably these, I think we would categorise them as big debates, can be difficult and I for one take heart from public interest in what we do in this Assembly and what the Government’s plan for Jersey is. I think that is a positive thing and it is an opportunity for members of Government and this Assembly to engage with the public to understand their concerns, to listen to them, to try to address them despite sometimes it being perhaps personally uncomfortable. But I think that it is a very important part of the democratic process. So I want to pick up on some of the things that Deputy Norton said in his speech and a number of other Members have spoken about. It was the Connétable of St. Clement that said: “In the past it can have appeared that we in Jersey have had it so good that we have been in the situation of saying to businesses and potentially inward investors who wanted to move here: ‘Do you know what, we do not want you because we have got 10 others waiting who want to move here, who want to invest, who want to create jobs, who want to come and enjoy our lifestyle and all that Jersey has got to offer’.” Sometimes though I fear that we have had that situation too long; that we have grown used to people queuing to knock on our door to do deals and to invest in our community. As Senator Cameron said: “The world has indeed changed” and it changed very dramatically during the financial crisis which started in 2008.
[16:00]
It is no longer the case that we stand alone and have this pipeline of people eager to come and invest and create jobs and deliver our future so that we can provide for the social policies that we all think are important. No, in fact it is the reverse. We have to protect the things that make Jersey unique; the elements of Jersey which are attractive to inward investors, and we have to go out there and market ourselves and tell the world what we have got to offer them. That is why we have had a programme of setting up offices in Brussels, in London, in France and, in partnership with Jersey Finance and Locate Jersey, in the Middle East and in the Far East, to go out and to win business, to bring jobs, to bring inward investment into our community. We cannot take it for granted. That is why we undertook the jurisdictional review. I am not sure which speaker it was but they made an excellent point about the complaints that many have made that we did not invest in tourism when it was starting to decline and plateau, that we did not appropriately invest in protecting and promoting our agricultural industry; and look where we are today and where we have been in the last number of years. Only now are we starting to see a change in the tourism sector. Only now are we starting to see Jersey Dairy and the agricultural industry engage with the international community and think about exports and think about marketing itself. We cannot and this Government will not let the same thing happen to our financial services sector. It is why we did the jurisdictional review looking at the threats and the challenges that faced us and looking at how we could protect our core markets and yet at the same time build into new markets and new products. It is why, together with Jersey Finance Limited, we undertook the capital economics review into the value of Jersey to the United Kingdom and the value of Jersey into Africa. We have invested in not taking for granted our economy and the foundations and bedrocks of what drives economic growth. Only last night a baroness who is a spokesperson for the U.K. Ministry of Justice publicly said at a reception that I hosted that the United Kingdom Government recognises the value that Jersey is to their economy. So we are making progress. We are not taking things for granted. But be absolutely clear, challenges remain. Centres around the world want the business that we have here and they are fighting also for the business that we are fighting for. But what is it, this business that we are fighting for? What are the attributes that it is looking for when it is thinking about consolidating and we all know about the consolidation that is happening in banking? What are the attributes that it is looking for? Deputy Martin said she thought it was simply high speed broadband and fibre connectivity. Well, it is not simply that but that is an important attribute and it is an important fundamental. They are looking also for connected business services, our high quality legal services and accountancy services, international banking services. They are looking for compliance with international standards. Some Members at the other side of the Assembly have criticised this Government for the stands that it has taken on meeting international standards and signing up to international agreements. But we believe they were absolutely the right approach and we will continue to deliver and meet those standards; not something, again, that we should take for granted. You will be pleased to know that they also look at the quality of our judiciary and they see there what they like: strong decisions when it comes to dealing with financial services and the trust area, and all those things that give people confidence to come and invest in Jersey. As much as we have had this good debate, too, they tell me they like the fact that we have got a stable government as well but perhaps we will not dwell on that one. They also look for suitable infrastructure investment. They want to know that we are investing in our infrastructure and that there is the infrastructure in place for them to be able to bring their businesses, and that means Grade A office space whether we like it or not. We heard somebody refer to the office building by the Grand as ... all those office buildings by the Grand, it is one office building and we know that the tenant that they have signed-up there is taking up the majority of that space with an option to take up virtually all the rest as well. So we have got to get beyond hearsay and deal with what the reality is for inward investment businesses and consolidating businesses on the ground. Yes, there is lots of secondary office space, we know that, but that is not what those businesses who are consolidating and those businesses that want to come and invest in our community, it is not what they are looking for. That leaves us with a challenge and that challenge, I believe, is for us to think of creative ways, which will mostly be about residential, of transforming that secondary office space. We cannot have the attitude that: “Oh, well, if they want to come to Jersey they will go in our secondary office space.” We are in a fight. We are in a fight for our survival we are in a fight for jobs and the prosperity of our children into the future. Of course in infrastructure they are also looking for air links and all sorts of other infrastructure issues like that. But this fight is not just about shiny new offices that financial or business services can go into. For us, in this Assembly, and this is where Members are absolutely right, yes, we want a strong financial services sector, yes, we want jobs for our children into the future. But we in this Assembly know that we want that because it delivers return to the Government, it allows us to deliver on our social policy agenda and allows us to invest in health into the future. It allows us to be able to prepare for the global megatrends of the ageing population, of the competitive market that skills and people and training are going to be more and more in the West into the future. That is why it is important, not just for some nebulous office but because it will allow us in this Assembly to deliver on those social policy aims. I congratulate the Minister for Treasury and Resources for the way that he has handled this particular difficult issue. Ministers understand the concerns of the public about the risk to the public purse, about whether there are enough pre-lets to fund or to provide a bank loan to fund the building, about the potential for contamination when digging out for the buildings, about the desire to see more open space in St. Helier, and the concerns also about the demand. But let us remember that this development has been in the making for 15 years - I was reminded of that by a former president of Policy and Resources - so contrary to what the mover of this proposition suggests, that this has been a rush, it has been 15 years, and we, this Assembly, have instructed what is now known as S.o.J.D.C. to go out and to develop this site, get sufficient pre-lets to be able to minimise the risk to the public purse and that is why they have taken the approach that they have now taken. I understand that the Scrutiny review will be looking at the viability of the whole masterplan and that is right. But the process of delivery has changed so that we can minimise that risk and we can build on a building by building basis, and those Members who were at the ... unfortunately I could not be at the briefing yesterday because I was trying to deliver inward investment into Jersey elsewhere. Those Members who were at the briefing will know, and Senator Maclean reiterated it in his speech this morning, that the commitment has been given that they will not sign any other binding pre-lets for future buildings; so they will continue to do so on Building 4 because we already have the binding pre-let and there are obligations which need to be met so that building needs to happen, which will allow, in effect, the Scrutiny review within the course of 3 months to complete their work and this Assembly can then consider the results of that Scrutiny review. I think that that is a respectful position of Scrutiny. I think that is a pragmatic and appropriate position for this Assembly and for the Government to take. We have made commitments, we have instructed this body to carry out this development and yet at the same time, because we have taken this approach to mitigate risk, the Minister is able to give that commitment. I hope that it is that commitment that will allow people to see that it is not riding roughshod over Scrutiny; it is being respectful of Scrutiny and yet at the same time it is being respectful of the contracts that bodies that this Assembly or the public are shareholders of are allowed to deliver upon the commitments that we have asked them to deliver upon. Yesterday, in a room of - I am not quite sure how Deputy Norton described them - I think he described them as “powerful individuals”. There were individuals from all walks of business and commerce who have been working with Locate Jersey and are potential inward investors and I, as is often the case, had to sing for my supper, or lunch as it was, yesterday and I sat on a panel and answered questions from the floor about what our policies were and how we were dealing with certain issues internationally and locally. It may surprise you that the very first question I was asked was: “What is this about the Waterfront development? Are you not interested in investing in infrastructure and providing suitable accommodation for inward investment?” So even there among that audience, what we do in this Assembly and how we manage our obligations and how we provide these differentiating factors affects our future. So, I hope that Members will see that the approach that Ministers are taking is - not because of the undertaking the Minister was able to give - disrespectful to Scrutiny, far from it. But we have entered into obligations; those obligations must be met.
[16:15]
But the fundamental point for me is we need Grade A office space to continue to deliver a strong future for our children and our children’s children and to deliver on the social policies that Members of this Assembly rightly raise week in, week out, and therefore I hope that Members will reject this proposition. Thank you. [Approbation]
The Bailiff:
Does any other Member wish to speak? Then I call on the proposer to reply.
First of all, I think it has been a good debate. We have had lots of contributors; I have counted about 21 including the Chief Minister and there may have been more. First of all, let us put this back to what it should be about. We have heard lots of questions asked, including by my St. Brelade colleague. He asked the protestors outside what they wanted, what they really wanted and we have heard some contrasting speeches and I would like to perhaps compare his speech with that of Senator Cameron which I thought were in stark contrast. But I will start by asking a few questions of my own, if I can do it in such a way as to do it through the Chair, Sir. What are you in favour of? Perhaps is a question that people can ask themselves. What are you in favour of? Are you in favour of democracy? Are you in favour of integrity? Are you in favour of, if you are a non-executive Member, making sure that Ministers do what they have promised to the Assembly? If you are a Minister, do you take your comments seriously? Do you take promises that you make to this Assembly seriously? Do you take political undertakings that are given to this Assembly seriously or can we just brush those things aside? Can we say that this is a policy on which we, as States Members and an Assembly, have been working? Can we say that there is a massive masterplan that we have been putting forward that has been in preparation for a long time and that at the last minute, and without telling anybody, we can change the rules by which we have been working? We can change the rigorous de-risking factors that we have set down and debated thoroughly in this Assembly and just change them on a whim; that S.o.J.D.C. can do that and that the Assembly will not be informed because that is what has happened. That is the reality of it is that the States have set down rigorous rules to do with pre-lets on the one hand, and this is not going to be just about pre-lets incidentally, but I think this point is not simply a technicality it is fundamental to the business that this Assembly does and the relationship we have with our public, that we must act in a way that shows integrity. The fact that S.o.J.D.C. not us has had to change and depart from the rightly rigorous conditions set down by this Assembly should be something that quite rightly rings alarm bells for all of us. Remember, people criticised Scrutiny saying: “This has happened too late. This proposition is either not the right one or it is too late.” But it is only in the last few months as a result of this Scrutiny Panel’s work, which is ongoing, that the facts have come out and I will address perhaps some of those in a moment. But perhaps let us ask ourselves another question: are we the type of person that likes to make decisions with all the facts or are we the type of person who is perhaps a bit more happy-go-lucky in our decision making and we will just suck it and see and hope that everything works okay in the end? Are we the type of person perhaps that does not like to visit the doctor because we are worried that if we do go to the doctor we might find that there is something wrong with us? Therefore, it is best not to go to the doctor and hope that everything is all right because I have heard that argument, thankfully not made in this Assembly, but made unofficially perhaps by other Members. They say: “Well, what if the Scrutiny report comes out and it is not favourable to the Waterfront, the Esplanade development? What if that happens? Then, you know, we could all look very silly.” So there is an element, I think, of emperor’s new clothes going on. “We must be quiet. We all know that there is something a bit weird that does not look right here but, you know, we have got to save face and let the emperor finish walking through town, make sure he is safe before anyone reveals the fact that he is not wearing any clothes.” If that is the kind of mentality that some are operating under, which I hope is not the case, then that is not good decision making. For example, does anyone know in this Assembly exactly what conditions or incentives were offered to UBS to get them to move in? I suspect that some do, those privileged. Do we know if UBS were offered a market rate, something conducive to the market rate, let us say one year’s free rental to get them into that property or were they, as some are suggesting, offered 2 years of free rent to move them into there? If that is the case, do we know what impact such a sweetener might have on the market? Do we know what the unintended consequences of that kind of deal of the States essentially acting as a developer and potentially abusing its market position? Because these are all valid questions which need to be looked into. Do we know what that kind of business application could have in the market either intended or unintended ultimately also for the finance sector? We have had many people trying to make this debate about finance and supporting the finance industry and ultimately that is not what it is about. In fact we need to make sure that we get things right because we want this project to be sustainable and that has got to be good for the finance industry or whichever other industries end up benefiting from this development. What kind of implications would a glut in office space have in the small Island that we live in? Well these are not questions that we can answer here because we do not have that information. We are not privy to the conditions that were made, there were non-disclosure agreements that were put in and these are all the complexities of a government doing business as a private developer would because private developers are not subject to the Scrutiny process. They do not have to answer to an Assembly like we do, they can just get on and if they want to take risks with their own money, with their investors’ money, that is fine if the sums stack up. But when it comes to this Assembly we are really a halfway house, we are neither fish nor fowl so we have to be seen to be accountable but at the same time we are saying: “Do not interfere with S.o.J.D.C. because they know what they are doing.” That is perhaps the wider context. If we, as an Assembly, had had the benefit of hindsight when we knew that things like the disco that the States of Jersey, the W.E.B., built a disco. Amazingly, Jersey must be one of the only places where the government builds discos down on their Waterfronts and then leaves them derelict. Brilliant, is it not? We build a swimming pool there, we had quite a successful swimming pool on the hill which the former incarnation said: “Oh, no, let us build another less impressive swimming pool which is not quite the right length so we cannot use it for things like the Island Games and let us put a very restrictive clause on there to say that there cannot be any other swimming pools in the area.” So we closed down our very successful one to go down to this Waterfront supposedly as an anchor and none of that works and then the public look at it and say: “What is going on here?” If we had had a Scrutiny review going on at the time offering to tell us: “Could we just hold off a few weeks because we are not really sure if this is going to work out and you might want to look at X, Y and Z and we have got an independent adviser coming in to look at all the figures, make sure they stack up and you do not need to worry because we all want it to stack up, do we not? Surely that is what we are here for.” It is very bizarre and this is the kind of reality that I am living in by posing strange arguments this afternoon, and that all seems very reasonable to me. Perhaps before I go - and I will to a certain extent address those who have been speaking - if I can touch on the Deputy, now Constable of St. Lawrence’s comments. She said that if the panel had had concerns about this they should have brought the proposition themselves, i.e. they should have brought a proposition to say: “The States should hold off until we have finished our process before you start development.” I do not think I am disclosing any confidences in saying this but certainly early on in the year I said to them, you know, I said: “How is your review going, is it all going okay?” They said: “Yes, that is fine.” I said to them: “What happens if the Ministers and S.o.J.D.C. just go ahead anyway? What if they start to do that, is that not going to undermine your Scrutiny Panel’s process?” They said: “Well, yes, that is quite difficult, you know.” But I got the impression that they thought the Ministers and S.o.J.D.C. would “play clean”, so to speak. It turns out that cricket was not going to be played and I thought: “Hang on a minute” because, you know, I do come from the other side of the House perhaps and I have been in here 6 years, long enough to know some individuals and the games that are played and the parliamentary techniques that are used, validly but perhaps sometimes obviously for your own ends, and I thought: “Well, all they need to do is just start the development before you report back and then you are les poulets tuitent” as they would say in Jersiaise. I know Jersiaise is not a parliamentary language but I am sure we can all understand what that means. So, sure enough, that is exactly what happened in the end. So I said: “Well, one of the panel members was considering lodging that exact proposition and I think he was told to think better of it by the panel.” They said: “Well, you know, let us just get on with it, let us hope the Ministers play ball. You know, they should be respecting the fact that there is a Scrutiny process going on. They do not really need to rush ahead with this development, they should respect that.” There was also the risk, of course, that said that what happens if we lodge a proposition and it is lost? What then happens? So, you know, this proposition frankly would have been lodged earlier, it was ready to go earlier but I was respectful of the wishes of the panel at that point which said: “It is too risky.” But I thought, you know, if they are going to go ahead and develop this anyway we are in the same situation whether the States reject it or adopt it. Sure enough, my worst fears have come true. We have seen that timeline on the back page which saw every time something happened there was a counter-action which sought or at least had the consequence of making it much more difficult for this proposition and ultimately for any of the recommendations of the Scrutiny Panel that would come out in terms of building and caution to be adopted and that is certainly what we have heard today. We have heard from individuals who otherwise perhaps would have been supporting this proposition but they say: “Oh, well it is all a done deal now, is it not, we had better go ahead.” But I do not think that is the right conclusion to come to because if we simply say that when there is a process going on, when the States Assembly’s confidences have not been fulfilled and when the Ministers have not fulfilled them and when S.o.J.D.C. has been acting in such a way as to not be accountable to this Assembly, if we just say: “That is okay we better go ahead anyway because the stakes are now too high” that sets a very bad precedent for democracy. I think it was the Constable of St. Mary who gave an analogy which I thought was interesting but ultimately the incorrect analogy. It says that when you give an order and then you give a counter-order you get disorder. Okay. But that is not what happened, you see. We gave S.o.J.D.C. an order, which was to say that no building should commence until all of the buildings had been fully pre-let and to cover the cost of construction. That was what was said. I do not want people shaking their heads, that is in black and white. I will give way. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:
If I could just correct the Deputy; in fact this Assembly approved, in 2010 in P.73, and that was not what was agreed in P.73 and the memorandum of understanding that hopefully the Deputy is now getting to hand, and he will see in there exactly what the position is. But it was not to pre-let all the buildings, it was not the 200,000 square feet that related, as I have said previously, to the Harcourt deal which ceased.
Deputy M. Tadier:
I am happy to address that. I have already addressed this. On page 14 of the document, P.73/2010, I will read this part and then I will qualify it by subsequent reassurances which were given in this Assembly and which also carry weight in parliamentary terms. Under “Sales” it says: “If it is proposed that a specific development is undertaken directly by States of Jersey Development Company before committing construction costs S.o.J.D.C. will have to secure a sufficient level of legally binding pre-sales or pre-lets to fund the costs of constructing the first phase of the scheme.” So they must have sufficient amount of pre-lets to fund the cost of constructing the first phase of the scheme. But we are being told by Scrutiny that the level of pre-lets which have been secured for the small part of the building rather than the whole of the building to have been pre-lets for that does not cover the full cost of construction of the scheme. That is the position that Scrutiny ... because they have secured enough to get a bank loan ... and this is not the place, I am afraid, for the Minister to try and rebut this. This has been put to him several times and it had been done at yesterday’s meeting and he was unable to give a satisfactory answer there because the reality seems on it - and this is why it is imperative that we do wait for the Scrutiny report to come out - is that they have not done that. They have not secured sufficient pre-lets in terms of their funding to cover the actual full construction costs of the building. They have secured enough to get a loan which includes un-let space in that building which they have also taken into account, and they have also taken into account the sale value. That is the evidence that has been coming forward and that is why it is so critical. But even if we do not accept that argument, we know that in 2014, last year, in February, Senator Ozouf was quite clearly asked in this Assembly, when he was the Minister for Treasury and Resources, when he was accountable to this Assembly and when S.o.J.D.C. were accountable to him, he said: “I am quite clear that their buildings are to be progressed on a fully let basis.” What could be more clear than that? He said: “I have been very clear with States of Jersey Development Company that they are to progress on a fully let basis.”
[16:30]
So he has told us that as an Assembly. S.o.J.D.C. were told that as well so they have not been obeying their order. So to go back to the Constable of St. Mary, the point is you do not give an order and then give a counter-order and then find you have got disorder. The correct analogy to use is that you have a daughter or a son and you say: “Once you have finished your homework you can go out and play football” and then your son or daughter does not do their homework but just goes out and plays football anyway and then you say: “Hang on a minute; what are you doing? I told you to go and do your homework first before you could play out in the garden or play football with your friends” and they say: “Hang on a minute but that is what you asked me to do. You told me to go outside in the garden and play football.” “Yes, and I put a condition on that, that you do your homework first.” That is exactly what S.o.J.D.C. have done here. They have started building work, or they will be. I mean, we have found out they are clearing the car park now. They have gone ahead, they have bulldozed through the democratic process. The Minister for Treasury and Resources, who is supposed to be accountable and tell us these things when things change, did not tell us and quite frankly if it had not been this proposition today it could have easily been a vote of no confidence in him or in the S.o.J.D.C. panel, and they have gone ahead and started work anyway even though they have gone against political assurances that were given to this Assembly. So this ultimately is about can we trust Ministers. To turn around and say that Senator Ozouf made a mistake is complete nonsense because Senator Ozouf is only abiding by what was said in P.73/2010 and he put the meat on the bones for that. He put on what the policy was of the Council of Ministers of the day. That was never corrected. An election happened in the middle of that and quite frankly it was not a mistake it was policy which now is being a slight inconvenience. So I think with that ... and I hope without any disrespect to the number of Members who have spoken, because I have taken significant notes on that and it is probably not necessarily right to go through all of those because I think the points have been made. This is not about whether you support the finance industry; this is about the scheme, whether the scheme ultimately works or not. There are far too many questions hanging in the air. We do not have the information. A select clique in Jersey of S.o.J.D.C. and Ministers have that information. That information partly is with Scrutiny, some of it is on its way to Scrutiny and it would be foolhardy and remiss of us to not support this proposition today and say: “Yes, go ahead and build anyway” given that there are such massive questions that are available. So I do make the proposition and maintain parts (a) and (b) and ask for the vote on both parts. Thank you.
The Bailiff:
The appel is called for. I will ask Members to return to their seats. Take first the vote on part (a). I will ask the Greffier to open the voting.
POUR: 17 | | CONTRE: 26 | | ABSTAIN: 2 |
Senator Z.A. Cameron | | Senator A.J.H. Maclean | | Deputy of St. John |
Connétable of St. Lawrence | | Senator I.J. Gorst | | Deputy A.D. Lewis (H) |
Connétable of St. Saviour | | Senator L.J. Farnham | | |
Connétable of St. John | | Senator P.M. Bailhache | | |
Deputy J.A. Martin (H) | | Senator A.K.F. Green | | |
Deputy G.P. Southern (H) | | Connétable of St. Helier | | |
Deputy of Grouville | | Connétable of St. Clement | | |
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H) | | Connétable of St. Peter | | |
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L) | | Connétable of St. Mary | | |
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S) | | Connétable of St. Ouen | | |
Deputy M. Tadier (B) | | Connétable of St. Brelade | | |
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S) | | Connétable of St. Martin | | |
Deputy S.Y. Mézec (H) | | Connétable of Grouville | | |
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (S) | | Connétable of Trinity | | |
Deputy R. Labey (H) | | Deputy of Trinity | | |
Deputy S.M. Bree (C) | | Deputy E.J. Noel (L) | | |
Deputy T.A. McDonald (S) | | Deputy S.J. Pinel (C) | | |
| | Deputy of St. Martin | | |
| | Deputy R.G. Bryans (H) | | |
| | Deputy of St. Peter | | |
| | Deputy of St. Ouen | | |
| | Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H) | | |
| | Deputy M.J. Norton (B) | | |
| | Deputy of St. Mary | | |
| | Deputy G.J. Truscott (B) | | |
| | Deputy P.D. McLinton (S) | | |
The Bailiff:
We now come to part (b). I will ask the Greffier to open the voting.
POUR: 13 | | CONTRE: 29 | | ABSTAIN: 2 |
Senator Z.A. Cameron | | Senator A.J.H. Maclean | | Connétable of St. John |
Deputy J.A. Martin (H) | | Senator I.J. Gorst | | Deputy A.D. Lewis (H) |
Deputy G.P. Southern (H) | | Senator L.J. Farnham | | |
Deputy of Grouville | | Senator P.M. Bailhache | | |
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H) | | Senator A.K.F. Green | | |
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L) | | Connétable of St. Helier | | |
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S) | | Connétable of St. Clement | | |
Deputy M. Tadier (B) | | Connétable of St. Peter | | |
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S) | | Connétable of St. Lawrence | | |
Deputy S.Y. Mézec (H) | | Connétable of St. Mary | | |
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (S) | | Connétable of St. Ouen | | |
Deputy S.M. Bree (C) | | Connétable of St. Brelade | | |
Deputy T.A. McDonald (S) | | Connétable of St. Martin | | |
| | Connétable of Grouville | | |
| | Connétable of Trinity | | |
| | Deputy of Trinity | | |
| | Deputy E.J. Noel (L) | | |
| | Deputy of St. John | | |
| | Deputy S.J. Pinel (C) | | |
| | Deputy of St. Martin | | |
| | Deputy R.G. Bryans (H) | | |
| | Deputy of St. Peter | | |
| | Deputy of St. Ouen | | |
| | Deputy R. Labey (H) | | |
| | Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H) | | |
| | Deputy M.J. Norton (B) | | |
| | Deputy of St. Mary | | |
| | Deputy G.J. Truscott (B) | | |
| | Deputy P.D. McLinton (S) | | |
The Bailiff:
We now come to P.47/2015 the Jersey Financial Services Commission: reappointment of Commissioner. This is a matter which has to be conducted in camera so I shall ask the Greffier, first of all, to read the proposition.
The Deputy Greffier of the States:
The States are asked to decide whether they are of the opinion, in pursuance of Article 3 of the Financial Services Commission (Jersey) Law 1998, to appoint Crown Advocate Cyril Edward Whelan as a commissioner of the Jersey Financial Services Commission with effect from the date of the States debate for a period of 5 years.
The Bailiff:
I must now ask all strangers to withdraw from the precinct of the States so that the doors of the Chamber can be closed. I am afraid you need to leave the States Chamber. Greffier.
The Bailiff:
Very well. All Members in favour of the proposition, kindly show? The appel is called for. I invite Members to return to their seats. The vote is on the Reappointment of Crown Advocate Cyril Whelan as a commissioner of the Jersey Financial Services Commission and I ask the Greffier to open the voting.
POUR: 39 | | CONTRE: 3 | | ABSTAIN: 0 |
Senator A.J.H. Maclean | | Deputy M. Tadier (B) | | |
Senator I.J. Gorst | | Deputy of St. Peter | | |
Senator L.J. Farnham | | Deputy S.Y. Mézec (H) | | |
Senator P.M. Bailhache | | | | |
Senator A.K.F. Green | | | | |
Senator Z.A. Cameron | | | | |
Connétable of St. Helier | | | | |
Connétable of St. Peter | | | | |
Connétable of St. Lawrence | | | | |
Connétable of St. Mary | | | | |
Connétable of St. Ouen | | | | |
Connétable of St. Brelade | | | | |
Connétable of St. Martin | | | | |
Connétable of St. Saviour | | | | |
Connétable of Grouville | | | | |
Connétable of St. John | | | | |
Connétable of Trinity | | | | |
Deputy J.A. Martin (H) | | | | |
Deputy of Grouville | | | | |
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H) | | | | |
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L) | | | | |
Deputy of Trinity | | | | |
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S) | | | | |
Deputy E.J. Noel (L) | | | | |
Deputy of St. John | | | | |
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S) | | | | |
Deputy S.J. Pinel (C) | | | | |
Deputy of St. Martin | | | | |
Deputy A.D. Lewis (H) | | | | |
Deputy of St. Ouen | | | | |
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (S) | | | | |
Deputy R. Labey (H) | | | | |
Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H) | | | | |
Deputy S.M. Bree (C) | | | | |
Deputy M.J. Norton (B) | | | | |
Deputy T.A. McDonald (S) | | | | |
Deputy of St. Mary | | | | |
Deputy G.J. Truscott (B) | | | | |
Deputy P.D. McLinton (S) | | | | |
The Bailiff:
Very well. We come to P.54: Health and Safety Appeal Tribunal: appointment of members, lodged by the Minister for Social Security 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 appoint Mr. David Martin Rothband and to reappoint Mr. Nigel Collier Webb as members of the Health and Safety Appeal Tribunal in pursuance of Article 17 of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989 and the Health and Safety at Work (Appeal Tribunal) (Jersey) Regulations 1989 with immediate effect for a period of 3 years.
I would like to propose the appointment of Mr. Nigel Collier Webb and the reappointment of Mr. David Rothband to serve as members of the Tribunal. I thank them both for agreeing to fulfil these important honorary positions, particularly Mr. Collier Webb who will be serving his second term. I ask that the States approve these appointments. Thank you.
The Bailiff:
Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? All those in favour of adopting the proposition, kindly show? The appel is called for. I will ask Members to return to their seats. I will ask the Greffier to open the voting.
POUR: 39 | | CONTRE: 0 | | ABSTAIN: 0 |
Senator A.J.H. Maclean | | | | |
Senator I.J. Gorst | | | | |
Senator L.J. Farnham | | | | |
Senator P.M. Bailhache | | | | |
Senator A.K.F. Green | | | | |
Connétable of St. Helier | | | | |
Connétable of St. Clement | | | | |
Connétable of St. Peter | | | | |
Connétable of St. Lawrence | | | | |
Connétable of St. Mary | | | | |
Connétable of St. Ouen | | | | |
Connétable of St. Brelade | | | | |
Connétable of St. Martin | | | | |
Connétable of St. Saviour | | | | |
Connétable of Grouville | | | | |
Connétable of St. John | | | | |
Connétable of Trinity | | | | |
Deputy J.A. Martin (H) | | | | |
Deputy of Grouville | | | | |
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H) | | | | |
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L) | | | | |
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S) | | | | |
Deputy E.J. Noel (L) | | | | |
Deputy of St. John | | | | |
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S) | | | | |
Deputy S.J. Pinel (C) | | | | |
Deputy of St. Peter | | | | |
Deputy S.Y. Mézec (H) | | | | |
Deputy A.D. Lewis (H) | | | | |
Deputy of St. Ouen | | | | |
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (S) | | | | |
Deputy R. Labey (H) | | | | |
Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H) | | | | |
Deputy S.M. Bree (C) | | | | |
Deputy M.J. Norton (B) | | | | |
Deputy T.A. McDonald (S) | | | | |
Deputy of St. Mary | | | | |
Deputy G.J. Truscott (B) | | | | |
Deputy P.D. McLinton (S) | | | | |
The Bailiff:
Chairman, do you wish to propose the arrangements for public business for the next meeting?
If Members will refer to the Consolidated Order Paper I would ask that Projet 39 in the name of the Privileges and Procedures Committee, Filming of Proceedings and the Installation of Clocks, be deferred until 14th July because following the presentation at lunchtime today we wish to make a minor amendment to that proposition. With that exception the proposal for the arrangement of public business is as per the Order Paper and with that item being removed until 14th July I would suspect that the sitting on 23rd June would last no more than one day.
The Bailiff:
Thank you very much and that being ...
Deputy E.J. Noel:
Excuse me, I would just like to clarify something that came up with my question without notice this morning. It was intimated that I had not contacted the Parish of St. Saviour regarding a certain matter and I now have a copy of my letter in front of me dated 20th April when I did contact the Parish.
The Connétable of St. Saviour:
Could I just add to that? At the bottom it does say: “Will confirm details and estimate costs for your consideration shortly” and we are still waiting for them.
The Bailiff:
This is not proper use of parliamentary time even at the end of it. Now, I was asked by the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee to adopt a new practice so I am pleased to announce that the Ministers up for questions without notice at the next sitting are the Minister for Home Affairs and the Chief Minister. This is to get Members excited at the prospect of asking some very searching questions of the Ministers on the next occasion. So the Minister for Home Affairs, I know, and the Chief Minister are very much looking forward to that, and with that the States now stand adjourned until 23rd June at 9.30 a.m.
[16:44]
