States Meeting Transcript - 21/06/2006

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 21st JUNE 2006

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. ..................................3

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued) ..............................................................3

1. Strategic Plan 2006 to 2011 (P.40/2006) ..................................................3

STATEMENT ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY – Senator T.A. Le

Sueur, (The Minister for Treasury and Resources) ........................................4

The Bailiff :....................................................................................4

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ......................4
2. The Bailiff :..............................................................................4

1.2.1 Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:...........................................................4

3. The Bailiff :..............................................................................4

The Greffier of the States: ......................................................................4

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.................................................................5

2. The Bailiff :................................................................................7 The Greffier of the States: ......................................................................8

3. Senator F.H. Walker .....................................................................8
4. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.................................................................9
5. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................10
6. Senator S. Syvret (The Minister for Health and Social Services):.......................10
7. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................11
8. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................11
9. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................12
10. Senator F.H. Walker :................................................................13 The Bailiff :...................................................................................14
11. Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................16
12. The Bailiff : ..........................................................................16

4. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................16

1. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):.....................17
2. The Dean:..............................................................................17
3. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................18 The Bailiff :...................................................................................18

5. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................18

1. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................21
2. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................21
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.......................................................22
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................22
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................22

6. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................22
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................23
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):......................24
9. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................25 The Bailiff :...................................................................................27

6. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................30

1.6.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................30 The Bailiff :...................................................................................30

7. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................31

1. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................31
2. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:.......................................................32
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................32
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................33
5. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................33

The Bailiff :...................................................................................33

8. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................33

1.8.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................34

9. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................34

1.9.1 Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................34 The Bailiff :...................................................................................34

10. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................34

1. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................35
2. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................36
3. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: .............................................................36
4. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:..............................................................37
5. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................37
6. Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture): ..............37
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ..............................................................38
8. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................38
9. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................38
10. The Connétable of St. Helier:......................................................40 The Bailiff :...................................................................................41
    11. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................41

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................44
2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:...............................................................46
3. Deputy J.A. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:.............................................46
4. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier:........................................................48
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ................................................................49 The Bailiff :...................................................................................49
6. The Connétable of Grouville :........................................................49
7. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:............................................................50
8. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier:....................................................50
9. Deputy G.P. Southern : ...............................................................51
10. Senator T.J. Le Main:...............................................................52 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................52
11. Senator J.L. Perchard: ..............................................................53
12. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier : ......................................................53
13. Senator F.H. Walker :................................................................54

14. Senator B.E. Shenton:..............................................................55
15. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: ..............................................................55
16. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................56 The Bailiff :...................................................................................58

12. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan:....................................................................59
13. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................63

1. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................65
2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................67
3. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville .....................................................67

3. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: .............................................................68
4. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................68
5. Senator M.E. Vibert :................................................................69
6. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................70
7. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................70
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................70
9. Deputy P.N. Troy :...................................................................71
10. Deputy G.P. Southern :.............................................................71
11. Deputy J.A. Martin:................................................................72
12. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..............................................................73
13. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:.................................................74
14. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:..........................................................75
15. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:............................................................75
16. Senator B.E. Shenton:..............................................................76

STATEMENT ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY – ( Connétable K.P.

Vibert of St. Ouen (Chairman of the Comité des Connétable s)..........................78

2. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:....................................................78

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................78

1. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................78

1. Deputy G.W.J. De Faye of St. Helier:..................................................79
   2. The Bailiff :.............................................................................79

1. Connétable D.F. Gray ofSt.Clement:..................................................80
2. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................80
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................80

3.2.5 The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................80

5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................80
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................81
7. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan:....................................................................81
8. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................82

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................82

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued)

1. Strategic Plan 2006 to 2011 (P.40/2006)

STATEMENT ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY – Senator T.A. Le Sueur , (The Minister for Treasury and Resources)

The Bailiff :

I have given leave to the Treasury and Resources Minister to make a short statement in the context of this debate.

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

At the end of the sitting last night I undertook to make available to Members an updated financial forecast and that was circulated with due haste very shortly after the meeting finished. Unfortunately, in that haste there are a couple of minor errors in the statement as a result of which it is currently being re-printed and I ask Members' forbearance. It does not alter the thrust of the situation which is that revenue forecasts have increased from the previous estimate, mainly as a result of increases in Impôts duty and stamp duty and lower income over the 5-year period starting from a different base as a result of better figures last year. The other situation is that, unfortunately, capital programme figures now show the net figure taking into account the capital savings that would be delivered as part of the efficiency savings being better, simpler and cheaper. I apologise to Members that this is not in identical format to that shown in the Strategic Plan. It is in the format that was presented to the Council of Ministers last week and I thought that rather than try and produce yet a third set of figures, it would be simpler to have consistency between the figures issued to Council of Ministers and the figures issued to State Members. This is a format that will be used in the Business Plan, I believe, and on that basis, Sir, I apologise for any confusion which there may be in Members' minds. I may speak to the figures in more detail in the course of the debate when they are on Members' desks and in a better position to deal with them.

2. The Bailiff :

Now, we come to the sixth amendment which is a Green amendment and I wonder if the Deputy of St. Ouen could indicate whether he wishes to oppose this amendment or whether we can treat this as part of the ..?

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

No, Sir, I am not planning to oppose this amendment.

3. The Bailiff :

Very well. Well, if Members are content we will pass by the sixth and seventh amendment taking them as having been proposed by the Chief Minister. We come then to amendment 8, the thirteenth amendment but the eighth one to be taken this morning, in the name of the Deputy of St. Ouen and I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

After the word "appendix" insert the words "except that 1(a)." On page 14, first paragraph after the words "body of the plan", insert the words "the Council of Ministers will ensure that prior to the development of any new initiatives, policies or strategies consideration will be given to all cost revenue and manpower implications which may arise from the proposals. Priority will be given to those which can be achieved within existing revenue and manpower resources."

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen :

I think it is worth just considering what a strategic plan is and also the relationship between the Strategic Plan and the Business Plan. The Strategic Plan, we are told, is designed to translate what people want into what we must deliver whereas a business plan translates what we must deliver into how we will deliver it and with what resources. Furthermore, I read from the States Business Plan 2006 to 2010 from the executive summary .. it states quite clearly under States Business Plan - Looking Forward: "Under the new Public Finances Law, from 2006 the States Business Plan will be the vehicle in which all States expenditure proposals are approved. The Business Plan will also provide the opportunity for an annual review of key objectives and priorities which will then cascade into department business and action plans across the States." It was suggested yesterday that I might be confused. I would suggest that the Council of Ministers is equally confused. We even have statements this morning, from the Treasury Minister, about resource requirements contained in the Strategic Plan and suggesting that these figures are based on the assumption that the Draft Strategic Plan is approved and that the remaining fiscal measures are agreed and implemented in accordance with the proposed timetable. Sorry, that is a business plan. I looked at the Strategic Plan for 2005 to 2010 which is actually nearly a year old and I thought, actually, how do we come to have a Strategic Plan? It started with Imagine Jersey, not Imagine Council of

Ministers. Imagine Jersey spelt out quite clearly through major consultation with the public what those aspirations were. Those aspirations were translated into the Strategic Plan. Equally, I note in the Strategic Plan, quite rightly, no financial and manpower implications are included because of the fact that all of those manpower and financial implications, quite rightly, need to be considered in the Business Plan. Sir, I am pleased that for the most part the Council of Ministers has actually accepted this amendment. However, I would like to explain why I made it. The whole point of my amendment - and I am not just talking about this one but am encompassing the whole of amendment 13 - is to underline the way that the Council of Ministers will manage the States finances. This is especially important at a time when we are developing a new fiscal strategy that will affect every single person of our community. We cannot be complacent as we move towards the introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST), 20 means 20' and other tax measures that are required to meet the challenges faced by the introduction of Zero/10 and the £80 million to £100 million shortfall in States income. When does that happen? 2010. Let us be in no doubt that this government and, indeed, the Island as a whole is facing one of its biggest challenges in decades. To control public spending is one of the main areas and issues that we have promoted as a government and as individuals to address. That is not just efficiency savings; that is controlling all public expenditure. All. It is for this reason and on the back of this reason that we have already agreed, to introduce a goods and services tax to help fill that gap. However, the detail has yet to be agreed and although we are expecting to introduce a tax in 2008 - nearly 2 years away I hasten to add - the date is yet to be finalised and there are currently no proper and cast-iron guarantees that that date is set in stone yet because we have not agreed it. Coupled with this, we have an economic growth plan and although initial signs are encouraging, I hasten to add, we have yet to see it fully implemented and the effect of that cascading down through our economy. We have also clearly stated that we need to create this £20 million worth of savings by 2009 to reduce the effects that Zero/10' will bring. One must remember that it was only year that we made some of the decisions - and, I repeat, only last year. But we have still a long way to go before we actually deliver on those promises. From the Chief Minister downwards we have signed up to this promise and these facts have been well documented and they are there for all to see. I would like to read an extract from the States of Jersey Resource Plan 2005 to 2009 and it is the foreword written by the then President of the Policy and Resources Committee, Senator Frank Walker . This was his comment based on 20th July 2004: "The focus in the 5-year plan must be to bring spending growth back into line with forecasts of States revenues, particularly to ensure that States finances are in the right shape to tackle the challenges in the medium term. It is essential that the States politicians and officers embrace the change culture embodied in the approved 5-year vision for the public sector in order that savings and value improvements can be achieved without increasing short term deficits or cutting services. The States have agreed a 5-year change programme that will transform both the way the States of Jersey works and the way services are provided to the Island. This can only succeed if Committees and Members of the States continue to bear down on States expenditure and work together to deliver better services at a cheaper cost." In the States Business Plan 2006 to 2010, again the President of the Policy and Resources Committee at the time, Senator Frank Walker , and dated 19th July 2005 (which is only 11 months ago) says: "The States Strategic Plan approved in June 2004 made specific promises to ensure better prioritisation of Jersey's financial resources. To achieve this the public service must take a more coordinated approach to financial planning in the medium and longer term. The Business Plan will help us to do this." It goes on to say: "The States have agreed strong policies to address our economic challenges including a reduction in public expenditure. The Business Plan sets out a framework which will help to achieve that reduction, putting in place the medium-term expenditure targets within which the States aims and objectives are to be delivered. These are challenging targets but they are crucial as part of the package of measures to sustain a balanced financial position. The States have agreed to deliver £20 million of efficiency savings linked to the 5-year change programme to transform the way services are provided on the Island." I now read from the Financial Report and Accounts 2005 and this has only

just been produced. This time it is from the Treasury and Resources Department and, it is headed "The Minister's Report." This is our Treasury Minister, Senator Le Sueur : "The single most telling figures in these figures accounts is that the States have delivered on the promise to contain expenditure with the accounts showing that the net revenue expenditure actually fell in real terms for the year, rising by less than 1.5 per cent during a year when the rate of inflation in the Island was 2.2 per cent. The spending restraint has undoubtedly been a factor in the fall of the underlying rate of inflation over the last 3 years which I am pleased to report is now the lowest target rate of 2.5 per cent." Again, what we signed up to. When we approved the Business Plan for 2006 to 2010 the proposition clearly states: States total expenditure limits 2006 to 2010, an average of 2.5 per cent growth per annum over 5 years. Revenue expenditure that we all signed up to: 2006 total and individual Committee cash limits shown in that Business Plan; 2007 and 2008 total cash limits/Committee targets are again shown in that Plan; 2009 and 2010 revenue expenditure targets. How much clearer does it need to be? The only thing, as I said, that is not clear is the fact that we can deliver on those promises and sadly it seems to me I would be delighted to hear the comments of the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers on what has changed. Now, the Council of Ministers is seemingly trying to make us believe that these promises are already delivered. They are suggesting not only that we can take them as a given, as shown in various financial forecasts that the Treasury Minister seems happy to keep churning out, but that we can also start spending rather than to fulfil our promises made less than a year ago. As I said before, the 2006 Business Plan was designed to deliver savings and also control spending. We are now returning to what I call - and it is not one of mine I hasten to add - the States old habits and avoiding completing the task that we set ourselves. In April 2005, a paper was provided by the States Treasury entitled "Controlling Expenditure Between 2005 and 2008." Again, I repeat, 2005 to 2008. Not 2005 to 2006. On the first page it provides a background to the paper that supported further decisions linked to business plans that we agreed last year. "This paper provides information on the measures which have already been taken and are still being taken to restrict growth in States revenue expenditure for the period 2005 to 2008. These measures are a crucial contribution to the fiscal strategy in addressing the anticipated deficit in 2009 due to taxation changes. Without such measures the

position would be significantly worse and the burden of additional taxation greater." That is dated April 2005 and comes direct from the States Treasury, which was then put into, and accommodated within, the Business Plan. This paper, as I said before, was used to develop that Business Plan and the projections included in the Business Plan for 2007 and 2008. Surely this is a path that we should be expecting the Council of Ministers to follow. After all, as I said before, this is unfinished business which collectively they have already subscribed to. The public have not changed their view, to my knowledge. The States currently have not changed their view, at least not yet. So you may ask how do we ensure that the Council of Ministers fulfil its obligations and promises made to not only the States who have supported this view but to the public as a whole. We need to make clear statements. We need to aim to encourage and re-encourage trust within our community. How on earth are we going to expect our community to trust us when we keep changing the tune, when we promise something and then do not deliver? So you may ask how do we ensure the Council of Ministers fulfil its obligations. It is included and embodied in my amendment and, indeed, in other parts of my overall amendment on which I will be speaking later. This part involves a general statement of what the Council of Ministers will do and it is worth reading. This is the statement which included the words used in the original draft Strategic Plan that the Council of Ministers presented. There are many initiatives and services to be delivered over the coming years. These are set out in some detail in the body of the plan. The Council of Ministers will ensure that prior to the development of any new initiatives, policies or strategies consideration will be given to all cost, revenue and manpower implications which may arise from the proposal. Priority will be given to those which can be achieved within existing revenue and manpower resources as agreed, I should have added perhaps, in the Business Plan 2006 to 2010 which we agreed last year. There are no "get out" clauses as proposed in the Council of Ministers subtle word changes. It is clear and simple. I am also interested to note the words that they have used to surround this clear statement which I hasten to add were added after they had had sight of my amendment and at the last minute. I certainly have not instructed the Council of Ministers to deviate from the plan that I agreed to and I do not expect Members to either. I will be speaking again on the amendment so I am not going to comment further on the Council of Ministers amendment at the moment. I will simply summarise what is embodied in my proposal. The aim, as I said before, is that the Council of Ministers will collectively not only consider the implications of any new policies and initiatives but also recognise that they work within agreed budgetary constraints. Equally, there is an ongoing expectation that they will prioritise those actions which can be met within existing revenue and manpower resources. Furthermore, it reinforces the promises made by this Assembly to the public that all States finances will be managed in an efficient and prudent way. In the foreword of the 2005 to 2010 Plan, Senator Walker - our new Chief Minister - states that: "With the introduction of the new Ministerial form of government the end result will be a streamlined and efficient system of government better suited to the Island's needs and better prepared to face the challenges of today and tomorrow." He also adds that it will also enable us to meet the commitments "we have made to eliminate waste and reduce public spending in real terms as the public demanded in a co-ordinated and timely way." The important words are "as the public demanded." There is a strong demand from both local residents and businesses alike to reduce or at least control public spending before raising taxes. As I said before, the fiscal strategy is still to be fully developed. However, we are already aware that many of our residents will be contributing more in the way of taxes. It is

therefore essential that finances are managed in a prudent way. I propose my amendment.

2. The Bailiff :

The amendment is seconded? [Seconded]

Now there is an amendment to the amendment in the name of the Council of Ministers. I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

In paragraph (a) of the amendment in the words to be inserted on page 14 for the words "prior to" substitute the word "in", and for the word "existing" substitute the word "approved."

3. Senator F.H. Walker

Basically, the Council of Ministers and the Deputy are desperately agreeing on this particular part of his amendment. I think his speech wandered off into arguing the case for other parts of his amendment but on this part of the amendment there is very little air between us whatsoever, and certainly we are absolutely as one in trying to achieve the same objective. The objective is that the States and only the States have the ability - and were here most of yesterday - to decide upon manpower and financial resources. So the Council of Ministers entirely agrees with the Deputy , with what he is trying to achieve and we welcome the first part of his amendment which is all we are discussing at this particular part of the debate, and that is amendment 13(1)(a). This, therefore, has nothing to do with the actual level of expenditure; that will come later in other parts of his amendment. This is merely to do with how the States exercise control and at what point the States exercise control over our resource implications and all the Council of Ministers is doing in this context is we basically agree, as I said, with the thrust of the Deputy 's amendment and we are proposing the change of 2 words which in our view clarifies the issue and improves what the Deputy is trying to achieve still further. Our first amendment is to substitute the word "in" for the words "prior to." All this means, and all it means, is that all cost and manpower implications would be fully considered in the development of new initiatives, polices et cetera, not before. I say "all it means." There is actually quite an important difference. The Deputy 's proposition - his amendment - suggests that the full costs and manpower implications would have to be identified before any work was done on option appraisal and analysis on different choices and so on, which is necessary if we are to determine a range of potential and feasible solutions. So his amendment actually means what he is proposing has to be done before that; what we are saying is it should be done as part of the same process. But, in any event, it still comes back to the States, for the States to decide what resources - as I said yesterday - what we spend, on whom and on what. The same objective, absolutely, but there is this important administrative difference and that is all it is. As it achieves exactly, so far as the States is concerned in terms of our ability to take decisions, the Deputy 's objective, I am hopeful that he might yet consider accepting our amendments to his amendment. Well, that was obviously wishful thinking because he has just shaken his head and he is not which is fair enough. But as we said yesterday, what is important here is the exact wording of the amendment, not the spirit of it, not what it is trying to achieve because there is no difference between us here whatsoever. What is important here is precisely what the amendment says and because it says that all the resource implications would have to be costed et cetera before we move forward, then it would entail significant unnecessary work and delay and additional cost which the

Deputy quite rightly is very strongly seeking to avoid. Again, I applaud him for that and this is why I think the wording of his amendment is just slightly, but significantly, wrong. We are approving the objective, just suggesting 2 important wording changes so that we all know where we stand It is terribly clear and we do not have to run the very serious risk of spending considerable amounts of additional time and money in meeting the Deputy 's amendment to the absolute letter. The spirit, as I have already said, is no problem. The actual wording to the letter presents some real problems because having evaluated the resources before we have come up with a range of options we then have to do it again when producing the options for the States to debate and approve. We think, strongly, that our amendment is a better and more efficient way of achieving the same objectives.

The second Council of Ministers amendment to this amendment substitutes the word "approved" for "existing." Here again there is an important difference; we are still trying to achieve essentially the same objective but there is an important difference. The objective though is to ensure full States control over our spending and resources. But by limiting the States - and this is not limiting the Council of Ministers - to existing resources it takes away the flexibility of this House to react to any particular situation which may arise, any necessary change of direction: not the ability of the Council of Ministers but the ability of this House. It takes away that flexibility and what the Council of Ministers is suggesting is that initiatives can only implemented within approved resources. Now, that is approved by this House and nobody else. Approved by this House. But it gives this House more flexibility - important flexibility - to react to important matters of the day than the Deputy 's amendment suggests. That is all we are saying. Again, the objectives are exactly the same but we believe the House should retain the flexibility to amend its resource limitations should it wish but that is a matter for the House. This would take away the House's ability to do that and we do not think that is positive for the States or for Members generally. We simply could not respond as we could under the amendment of the Council of Ministers to changing positions if and when we wanted to. But the important point is, and I cannot over emphasise it, that either way the control rests with the States. With the Council of Ministers amendment the States have more flexibility; with the Deputy of St. Ouen's amendment, the States lose that flexibility. But under

both amendments the States retain total control and that is, in our view, the important thing and where we share identical objectives to the Deputy . So, Sir, as I said at the outset in most respects we desperately agree here on what we need to achieve and what controls the States needs to have. So I very much hope the States will see the common sense behind the minor amendments - minor but important amendments - we are making to the Deputy 's amendment and approve the amendment of the Council of Ministers and I move that amendment.

The Bailiff :

The amendment is moved. Yes, Deputy of St. Ouen ?

4. The Deputy of St. Ouen :

Unlike Senator Walker , I do believe that the words "prior to" and "existing" are extremely important and the proposals that they are changing alter the meaning of this statement. Do not be confused, as well, by the Chief Minister when he says the States do not have full authority and the States are having their hands tied. Wrong. It clearly says in this proposition that the statement of the common strategic policy of the Council of Ministers is set out in Visions on page 5. The Council's top priorities are on page 14 and 15 and then it goes on to say the rest of the plan. So it quite clearly states that this is the Council of Ministers strategic plan that it has created, quite rightly, and presented for the approval of the States. What does my amendment start with? "The Council of Ministers." It does not start with: "The States will." This is setting the parameters that we as a States Assembly require the Council of Ministers to work in. That is clear. This supports their statements that they make. When I speak about the fact that the Council of Ministers will ensure that prior to the development of any new initiatives, policies or strategies, consideration will be given to all cost, revenue and manpower implications which may arise from the proposal. Again, it says just that: consideration. It is the same consideration that my wife does when she goes into St. Helier with £100 in her pocket and decides: "Do we eat today or do I buy a dress?" [Laughter] Fortunately she is a good housewife so we eat. [Laughter] It is that initial consideration that says well, actually, can we afford to do this or not? What is our budget? What have we got to use? At what point are we at and that is where the next word comes in: "existing." What is "existing"? It means what is currently approved? What is available? What is there? Not what might be there in the future. It says "existing." Now, quite rightly as the Council of Ministers says again - and I have highlighted to all States Members - the annual Business Plan is a time when the States collectively

decide how to apportion monies. They will decide where the extra  monies need to be spent, whether sums of monies over and above existing resources that we have told the Council of Ministers to recognise can be increased. That is the way it works; that is the way we have been told it works; that is the way it has been spelt out in Public Finances Laws. So it is clear and simple. As I said before, what are they aiming to achieve? Is it approval of the Strategic Plan and the little financial forecast in front that we have not actually been able to amend physically; we have had to try and use words to address the concerns raised by it? Well, I am sorry but the Strategic Plan is not the point at which we approve finances at all; it is the Business Plan. We can only approve the resources in the Business Plan. This will just help guide and focus the Council of Ministers and declare our intent as the States as a whole that we are supporting the decisions that we have made to manage the States finances correctly; until we know that we have new tax initiatives in place; until we are happy that we have proper low income support sorted out; until we are happy that 20 means 20' will not penalise the middle-income group of individuals on our Island; that we are happy that the tax package we agree to and approve is suitable for this Island. That is what my amendment is saying. I do hope that States Members will recognise that, accept what I am saying is truth based on fact and vote against the Council of Ministers amendment.

5. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade :

Roughly how much will it cost? I think every person who is planning a large project or an initiative will be familiar with this phrase. In opposing the Council of Ministers amendments, the Deputy of St. Ouen is putting the emphasis where it should be. Yes, detailed costings will become available as the development of an initiative progresses but any prudent person must know the approximate global spending implications before we start. Is the Chief Minister suggesting that, for example, if a project is suggested that Jersey should send a man to the moon we would not look at the global cost implications until we were well into the project? I think not. As for "existing" versus "approved", "existing" means, as the Deputy of St. Ouen has said, within the limits of the approved Business Plan. So it is perhaps a play on words but "existing", we have agreed a Business Plan so let us work within it. The overall amendment by Deputy Reed and his opposition to the Council of Ministers amendment is merely to ensure the financial probity and prudence of the Council of Ministers. "Existing" must mean within our resources, without spending monies that we think we have just found, without spending any windfalls, without being spendthrifts. Please reject the amendments of the Council of Ministers.

6. Senator S. Syvret (The Minister for Health and Social Services):

Listening to the Deputy of St. Ouen and, indeed, the previous speaker you would think that Members ranked on the Senatorial benches here who occupy the Ministerial positions were some kind of 1970s old labour dinosaurs. Is this Senator Le Sueur an extremely prudent, competent Minister for Finance? Senator Walker , Chief Minister? Is he noted for his profligacy and irresponsibility with spending? Senator Ozouf ? I think I am going to have to start calling him Senator Philip Denis Healey Ozouf [Laughter] for the policies he is supposedly supporting here which are being portrayed as irresponsible tax and spend policies. They are nothing of the kind. As I suggested yesterday with the previous amendment, this particular amendment and the way it is worded simply is not able to be done. If the Assembly does not vote for the amendment of the Council of Ministers and instead votes for the amendment unaltered of the Deputy of St. Ouen, the Assembly will be voting for something that just cannot be done. Let us consider the wording of these amendments. Insert the words "the Council of Ministers will ensure that  prior to the development of any new initiative, policies or strategies consideration will be given to all costs, revenue and manpower implications." Now, you cannot actually develop new policies and strategies unless you have that kind of information available. The fact is that if you have to get the manpower and financial implications first before you begin even considering the terms of new

policies or new initiatives you are just not going to be able to do it because until you have begun work on the strategy or initiative you are not going to have a handle on what its likely manpower or cost or revenue implications are likely to be. Likewise, the second part of the amendment of the Council of Ministers changes the word "existing" to "approved" and that is important because 2 very different interpretations could be placed upon the word. Existing resources might be just those resources that the States agreed last year and that might be what the Deputy intends. I do not know for sure but if that is the case as opposed to that which the Council of Ministers is seeking, which is "approved" resources, then we will not, in fact, be able to spend money on areas like respite care, nursery education, early years education, improvement of the housing stock, environmental initiatives, waste disposal initiatives, transport and technical services. The fact is, due to Senator Le Sueur 's works we do now have more money available to spend on these key crucial social and environmental and economic initiatives. If we cannot bring to the Assembly - for approval a new Business Plan that will have these sums in it - and they will be approved sums because they will come to this Assembly, then you can forget a whole raft of vital examples of States expenditure. Make no mistake about it, this amendment is an attempt to wreck the consensus that we have within the Council of Ministers and, indeed, the desires of many other Members of this Assembly to make very important social and environmental and economic investment in the future of the community. This amendment of the Council of Ministers has to be accepted because if it is not we will be voting instead for something that is just impossible to deliver and even if we tried to deliver it, the impact of it on social cohesion in the Island is likely to be severe in the extreme.

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

I am reminded in this debate of 2 children having an argument and neither wants to have the last word. I am afraid that some of the amendments brought by the Council of Ministers do appear to be - I have been tabled on some of my own amendments to the Plan as well as to Deputy Reed's - an attempt to have the last word, to make a small change which allows them to leave their imprint on the amendment. I hope that those motives are not there but it does look like that and I think there is a clear case - unless we want to be here for the rest of the month - that somebody is going to have to give way. Someone is going to have to say: "That word that I wanted inserted is not actually as important as I thought it was." Now, you can take the reading that this is a wreckers amendment designed to tie the hands of the Council of Ministers and prevent, as the last speaker was saying, a whole raft of social and environmental policies being brought forward. I do not believe that is what the Deputy of St. Ouen is trying to do. I believe the message coming out of his amendment is about good housekeeping. In that he used, perhaps, a slightly backward example of the housewife, this mythical creature, in St. Helier with a measly £100. [Laughter] But I think the point the Deputy was making was well made. His amendment sends out the message that the Island must live within its means and we have had a number of different readings placed on it by the Council of Ministers. We are now being told that it is almost a break clause and if we accept Deputy Reed's amendment unamended by them, then everything is going to fall down. I do not believe that is the case. I think that we should accept that there is no hidden agenda in his amendment. He is simply asking that the message to go out from this Chamber is that we are going to live within our means in the future. I do not believe the record is that good in the past and that is an entirely appropriate message to send out and I give advance notice to the Council of Ministers. They have brought minor, I would almost say trivial, amendments to some of mine. For example, I want us to show the world that environmental and economic success can go together. They want to change that to the word "demonstrate." Well, I am sorry, I think "show the world" is important and I will be fighting for

that and I give them advance notice of it.

8. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I think the majority of Members around here are wondering why we are spending such a long time debating something which is rather like counting the number of angels on the head of a pin and the Constable of St. Helier suggests that the Council of Ministers simply wants to have the last word. I can only speak for myself and say that I am not interested in having the last word; I am interested in making sure we have the right word or the right words. As the Deputy of St. Ouen says, putting in the wrong words can alter the meaning or the emphasis of the statement. I admit that it is a shame that we are having this debate when his views and my views are indeed very similar. He wants to exercise caution. I think over the past few years I have shown that I also like to exercise caution. He wants to make sure that the Council of Ministers will manage the States finances. I am equally keen on that. He wants to make sure that control of public spending is paramount and so do I. So where is the difference? The difference, really, is in this perhaps pernickety way of ensuring that we have the right wording. The discussions we have had this morning suggest that maybe there is not a great deal of difference in the understanding between us but I think words here are important; words have a specific meaning and we have to understand the real and exact meaning of those words. So it is perhaps a shame that we have to have this debate but we do in order to get things right. It is certainly the view of the Council of Ministers that good as the Deputy 's amendment would be in its concept, it would be improved by having these words to clarify and improve the situation. I very much reiterate the views of Senator Syvret that the first one requiring full cost analysis to be done before you even open the paper would be (a) impossible and (b) a very bad use of States resources. At a time when my objective is to contain States resources, I do not want to have to use up those resources unnecessarily. Equally, I do not see how one can use those resources to try to review something that you do not yet know what it is. As far as the second one is concerned, the word "approved" rather than "existing", I think it gives States Ministers greater control. Now, it may be that States' Members do not want to have greater control. But the message I seem to pick up is that States' Members like to have the final say. If that is the case, then I believe that the second amendment, putting  in the word:  "approved" gives Members  that flexibility,  ensures that the Council of Ministers cannot ride rough shod and that Members have their say. So, they may be amendments of detail, but they are important details. They are details, which we should get right. This Strategic Plan is going to last us for a considerable time. It is about starting off in the right way and not being content with second best in the way of wording. We want the wording to be clear, precise and understandable. On that basis, Sir, I urge Members to accept the amendment of the

Council of Ministers.

9. Senator J.L. Perchard:

The Deputy of St. Ouen's speech was an excellent speech, I thought, and I agreed with most of it. However, I think he probably shot his bolt a little early in the sense that it had very little to do with this amendment. This amendment is about a detail of changing just 2 words and I have to say, I am very interested in Senator Syvret's complimentary quotes about Senator Ozouf , Senator Walker and Senator Le Sueur , and I wondered if it comes out as a result of the bonding session at the Hotel L'Horizon, but something has changed and I am fascinated by that. But, Sir, I wonder really if Deputy Reed is being pedantic here and I have struggled with his version, and I am speaking in support of the Council of Ministers' amendment, because as policy initiatives and strategies develop, so will the financial consequences of them. And those financial consequences will become clearer only when you develop an initiative or a strategy. It cannot be possible for any clear and accurate information about financial and manpower implications to be made available before you develop a policy. I believe the initiative - any policy initiative - financial and manpower initiatives, will develop together and have to develop together. It is not possible to develop financial frameworks and manpower frameworks before you develop the policy. That is why, regretfully, I am unable to support the Deputy , even though I like his speech, which really had little to do with the amendment. I will be supporting the Council of Ministers and I urge Members to carry on and do the same.

Deputy of St. Ouen :

Sir, as a point of information, I must respond to Senator Perchard and say to Senator Perchard, my speech was on my amendment and not on the amendment of the Council of Ministers.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I am sorry, Members are only allowed to speak once unless they are raising some point of clarification. It did not sound like it to me. Any other Member wish to speak? Then I call upon the Chief Minister to reply.

10. Senator F.H. Walker :

Sir, I think it is a shame that we have had to have this debate at all and I think many Members share that view, and that is reflected in the limited number of speeches. Sir, the Deputy has made great reference to quotes from the Strategic Plan and from the Business Plan and previous Business Plans and so on. It is absolutely clear in so doing that we do share the same objectives and much of what he said supports Council of Ministers' objectives. But it is nothing. This particular part of the amendment - what we are debating now - has, as I said earlier, nothing to do with the level of expenditure. It is only about the States' ability and when the States exercise that ability and how it exercises that ability to take decisions. And basically, it is about approved versus existing. That is where we come down to. And it is about extra flexibility for the States. It is important flexibility, because the Senator Syvret and others speakers have said: "Take away that flexibility. Take away that ability for the States to react and you could be seriously damaging some very important social needs of the day." You could well be. It is too limiting, not to the Council of Ministers, but to the States in that respect, and could, indeed, be dangerous in that respect. So, it is approved versus existing. Either way, it is a decision of the States. Either way, the States remains in complete control. The Council of Ministers' way, the States have more control of their own destiny as things move on than it would under the Deputy 's amendment. And Deputy Ferguson, Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said: "Any prudent person must know the spending limits before embarking on projects." Absolutely. No disagreement at all. It is exactly what the Council of Ministers is saying and what we said throughout the debates yesterday, so I am not quite sure what points she was making. Senator Syvret quite rightly said that the amendment of the Deputy could - I have already referred to this and almost certainly would tie the hands of this Assembly and I do not think that is where Members want to go. It would prove virtually impossible to deliver and would, as I said earlier, tie up considerable amounts of unnecessary additional resource. It would cost real money, potentially serious money, exactly what the Deputy is seeking to avoid. And the Connétable of St. Helier sadly again had one of these little snipes at the Council of Ministers, which I expect we will hear many more of throughout the rest of this debate. This is not an attempt to have the last word. We do not, as Senator Le Sueur said, want or need to have the last word, but we do need to have - the States needs to have - the right word. And I think the approach of the Council of Ministers is made abundantly clear by the fact that we have accepted the vast majority of the amendments put forward by Members. If we wanted the last word on everything, we would have opposed in one way or amended all those amendments. So, I think his words - not for the first time - are shown to be entirely, entirely hollow. He said he would accept or we should accept, the House should accept - that the Deputy of St. Ouen has no hidden agenda. I certainly accept that he has no hidden agenda. But equally the House should accept the Council of Ministers has no hidden agenda here and what we have put forward is a genuine amendment which, although minor in its wording, is significant in its impact. And Senator Le Sueur emphasised all those points. I am grateful to Senator Perchard for his support in this part of the amendment. I do not expect we will get it on the rest of amendment 13, but I am grateful to him for his support on this part of the amendment. I think what he said made absolute sense. The Deputy 's speech did err very much into other parts of his amendment and did not focus entirely what we are debating today. So, Sir, the

Council of Ministers' amendment means there is no loss of control to States' Members whatsoever, absolutely  none.  In  fact,  it  gives  States'  Members  more  control  of  their  own  destiny,  more flexibility to react to situations as and when they develop in a positive and proactive way. So, Sir, I maintain the amendment and ask for the Appel.

The Bailiff :

Now, we come to the vote on the amendment of the Council of Ministers and I ask the Greffier to open the voting. All Members who wish to vote have done so. I shall ask the Greffier to close the voting.

POUR: 38

Senator S. Syvret Senator L. Norman Senator F.H. Walker Senator W. Kinnard

Senator  T.A.   Le Sueur

Senator P.F. Routier

Senator M.E. Vibert Senator  P.F.C.

Ozouf

Senator T.J. Le Main Senator F.E. Cohen Senator  J.L.

Perchard

CONTRE: 9

Senator  B.E. Shenton

Connétable  of  St. Helier

Deputy  R.C. Duhamel (S)

Deputy J.A. Martin (H)

Deputy  S.C. Ferguson (B)

Deputy of St. Ouen

Deputy  P.V.F.  Le Claire (H)

Deputy  S.S.P.A. Power (B)

Deputy  S.  Pitman (H)

ABSTAIN: 0

Connétable  of  St. Martin

Connétable  of  St. Ouen

Connétable  of  St. Mary

Connétable  of  St.

Clement

Connétable  of Trinity

Connétable  of  St. Lawrence

Connétable  of Grouville

Connétable  of  St. John

Connétable  of  St. Brelade

Deputy  A.  Breckon (S)

Deputy J.J. Huet (H) Deputy of St. Martin

Deputy  P.N.   Troy (B)

Deputy  C.J.   Scott Warr en (S)

Deputy  R.G.  Le Hérissier (S)

Deputy J.B. Fox (H) Deputy  G.P.

Southern (H)

Deputy of Grouville

Deputy  J.A.  Hilton (H)

Deputy  G.W.J.  de Faye (H)

Deputy  J.A.N.  Le Fondré (L)

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian (L) Deputy of Trinity

Deputy  A.J.H.

Maclean (H)

Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)

Deputy I.J. Gorst (C) Deputy of St. Mary

The Bailiff :

Now, the debate returns to the amendment of the Deputy of St. Ouen, amended by the Council of Ministers' amendment. Does any other Member wish to speak on that amendment? Well, then I call upon the Deputy to reply.

11. Deputy of St. Ouen :

Some have suggested that I have strayed off the subject. The subject is very much about resources and where those resources are planned. It is quite right that I raise the issues that I did in my speech. Actually, my amendment speech did address the amendment at hand, Senator Perchard. I am concerned still that the initial considerations that need to be given when you are planning to introduce new policies and new initiatives are not going to be considered before the work is being informed or employees are being informed to carry out that work. And that is a danger that I think we have seen and allowed to happen within each amendment. However, I am grateful for the comments that the Council of Ministers has made and I, therefore, just will sit down and propose the amendment.

12. The Bailiff :

Standing vote. Those Members in favour of adopting the amendment as amended kindly show? Against? The amendment is adopted.

The Bailiff :

Now, there is a further green amendment, number 10 on the list. We come to the 11th item on the list in the name of the Connétable of St. Helier . I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

After the word "appendix" insert the words "except that to." In the Council's top priorities on pages 14 to 15, in the existing priorities, insert the following items: The State of Jersey, a Report on the Condition of Jersey's Environment, January 2005, implement the 5 environmental priorities in the executive summary; Biodiversity Strategy for Jersey 2000/2001.

4. The Connétable of St. Helier :

I will begin with a quotation, a short one: "A natural environment is more precious and fleeting than any of us truly realise. In Jersey, we are particularly well blessed to live on an island of such breathtaking natural beauty, but that splendour brings with it an onerous responsibility. It is our collective duty to make sure we preserve and enhance our natural environment for future generations." Those words were written by the then President of Environment and Planning Committee, Senator Ozouf in his introduction to the landmark document, "State of Jersey". I must say I find it surprising that the Council of Ministers forgot to include this document in their list of existing priorities. I suppose it was just a slip, but I am anxious that that goes back in where it belongs as a high priority for the Island. And before I am asked, I will just explain what the 5 environmental priorities are that are identified in that document. The first one - it will not surprise Members to know this - is climate change. The second one is the high levels of waste production. The third: the pressure on the quality and quantity of our water resources. The fourth is transport and the fifth, changes in the countryside and our natural history. And that last fifth one brings us on to the other document which I want to be placed in the list of existing priorities, and that is Jersey's biodiversity. A short quotation from, again, another landmark document that received very poor circulation, I think, when it was produced, explaining what that is: "Biodiversity is a variety of life forms that we see around us. It includes the whole range of mammals, bird, reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects and other invertebrates, plants, fungi and micro organisms. Biodiversity also encompasses eco system variation and genetic variation." That document has a foreword by the then President of the Planning and Environment Committee, former Senator Nigel Quérée. I will not read it out, but it endorses the need for Jersey to take special care of its rich variety of living things. I think what is particularly important about the document is that it reminds us that Jersey is already committed under the Convention on Biological Diversity and a number of other international agreements to respect its biodiversity. It is, therefore, not only important for Jersey and for Islanders and for visitors that we value our biodiversity and we seek to improve it and enhance it, but it is a commitment we have made to the world, and if we do not reflect that as important in our Strategic Plan, then people will say that our commitments to the environment are hollow and unconvincing. So, I believe both documents need to be up there. I hope that both of them will receive a much wider circulation than they have had. I have found them quite hard to find on the website and there are not many copies around at the moment in the Island. I think both those documents are important and both of them need to be put back on the table. I cannot resist the opportunity just to say that by some stroke of coincidence, we have visiting the Island this week, a fairly eminent Professor in Biodiversity, who is speaking at the Town Hall on Thursday evening.

And with that, Sir, I will make the amendment.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? Seconded?

1. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):

Sir, I am pleased to accept the addition of both of these items as the Connétable of St. Helier's amendment suggests. It must be recognised that the Strategic Plan is an overview and cannot begin to replicate the detail of all the various strategies and plans that sit under it. Nevertheless, as these are milestone documents that already guide the work of the Planning and Environment Department and will continue to do so, I am pleased to have them highlighted within the report. Progress is already being made on these 5 priorities, being climate change, waste management, transport, water and conservation of our natural resources. Examples include the strategies for waste in the rural economy, and the forthcoming sustainable transport plan, energy policy, contaminated land strategy and a water resources law. And we are shortly to be releasing a new biodiversity programme which will be in the next few weeks.

2. The Dean:

I hope to be able to speak on the Strategic Plan as a whole at a later stage, but on this amendment, I would like to say that I have noticed the increasing interest in the debate so far yesterday and today of Members in this House in matters theological. Yesterday, we had an encouragement to be charismatic in our delivery. We had a leap of faith. And this morning, we have had angels on pinheads. However, it does seem to me that you can have a Strategic Plan which you water down so much, because you feel that everything motherhood and apple pie must be contained within it. And yet there are moments where you have to catch the prevailing tide. We have done this by highlighting the need to concentrate on youth, as we see many of my generation - both in church and in politics - that we have failed the youth of the last 20 years, and we seek to put that right. It seems to me entirely appropriate that the environment is something that we put in, because the same generation has made the same failure. And I am delighted not only that the Connétable of St. Helier has seen fit to bring this amendment, but that Senator Cohen has seen fit to accept it. There are, of course, extremely good theological reasons for protecting the environment. But whether you are people of faith or not, it seems to me this is the planet we have entrusted to us. It is the planet we have to pass on to the same youth whose future we elsewhere highlight and I am delighted to be able to commend the Connétable 's amendment.

3. The Connétable of St. Helier :

I am very grateful to those Members who have spoken and maintain the amendment. The Bailiff :

Those Members in favour of adopting the amendment, kindly show? Those against? The amendment is adopted. We come next to an amendment in the name of Deputy Duhamel. I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

After the word: "appendix" insert the words "except that." In the Council's top priorities on pages 14 to 15 and the existing priorities, insert the following items, Jersey Into the Millennium, A Sustainable Future, update and agree and implement.

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

In developing strategic plans, which by their very definition give rise to road maps or directions that this House would like their Island to go in, it must be right that we hang some of those ideas on well-established principles, and indeed do a little bit of navel gazing to actually ask ourselves the question: "Why are we here? Why are we in government? What is government for? What are we trying to do?" It is with those ideas in mind, Sir, that I read and re-read, with a sinking heart, the original Strategic Plan which, notwithstanding the enormous amount of work that had been done, not just by myself but by other Members - and not only Members of this House, but past Members of the House and, indeed, members of the public - on the issues of sustainability and quality of life, only to find that no references were made within the document to the appeal of those overarching principles into which nearly all of the justification for what we do can be organised. Our Members will not have on their desks, but I will read from a particular document. This was a President's meeting, dated 9th June 2003, citing the development of the Strategic Plan for the States. It was written by the Chief Executive, or at least signed by him.

The Bailiff :

Sorry to interrupt you, but I see a number of Members looking through their Plan. It is pages 9 and 10 of the amended Plan which we are working to.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I will start that again, Sir. Members will not have this document on their desks. It is not actually referred to in the coloured Strategic Plan document and I am going to quote from it. Copies will be made available to those Members who would like the full copy at a later stage. As I said, Sir, this was a note from the Chief Executive of the States on 9th June 2003 in relation to the development of the Strategic Plan for the States. And in discussing what that outline structure might be for, he started off by stating: "The structure starts from an overall vision for the States, aspirations for Jersey and then sets out aims for the States to achieve. These require further polishing and clarification as we develop the Plan in conjunction with other politicians and officers. But at this stage, they could form the basis for starting that process." He goes on, Sir, to define the aspirations for Jersey and they are worth reading out. The first aspiration is: "A sustainable Island where society, environment and the economy work in balance in order to promote a good quality of life." In effect, Sir, that one statement sums up the ideas contained in sustainability. It is not just

environmental sustainability. It actually seeks to look at social sustainability and, indeed, an economic sustainability and reference will be made to the documents that States' Members do have on their desk in a moment to give more weight to that particular definition of sustainability. It goes on, Sir, to indicate that a worthwhile aspiration for Jersey might be: "A community where people benefit from equality in access and opportunity, are free from discrimination and are supported to become self sufficient wherever possible." And the last one is: "An effective government accountable for its decisions and delivery of services." The last 4 statements are somewhat embedded within the vision statements that the Council of Ministers have brought forward. But what was not there, until now, through this amendment and, indeed, through the previous amendment of the Connétable of St. Helier, was the suggestion: "A sustainable Island where society, environment and economy work in balance in order to promote a good quality of life." In the report, Sir, appending my amendment, I suggest at the beginning: "Sustainability and quality of life are the 2 guiding principles on which any Strategic Plan should be based. They embody the concepts of care for the planet and concern for all life upon it. Without them, any Strategic Plan is soulless." In the 5 years since the turn of the century, the world has seen growing evidence of the damaging effects brought about by uncontrolled growth in western lifestyles and industrialisation. Climate change, if unchecked, looks set to bring extreme hardship and life-threatening difficulties to millions. Governments are now beginning to take such environmental threats more seriously and starting to act in a globally responsible manner. It is, therefore, extremely disappointing that the Council of Ministers has failed to include sustainability and quality of life strategies amongst its top priorities. Now, we heard yesterday from the Minister of Health that putting some words into the Strategic Plan will make us feel good, but be under no illusion to the reality of what we are doing. And indeed, Sir, that Minister told the House that, as a committed environmentalist for some 25 years of his life, had come to the conclusion that environmental sustainability was not compatible with the western lifestyle or with economic growth. If we read, Sir, what is in the Strategic Plan in

terms of its overall direction - if Members turn to page 5, fourth paragraph, the Council of Ministers state: "Our Strategic Plan is, therefore, based upon continuing to develop our knowledge, business and economy. We believe that only in this way will we be able to protect our heritage and environment, and invest in services and policies which promote our good quality of life, and increase opportunities and equity for everyone." Sir, I think the cart is firmly before the horse. Sustainability and quality of life issues should actually be the lead directors, the lead indicators for what we do in economic terms. If we read the report, Jersey Into the Millennium, starting on page 7, where there is a definition of what sustainability in its generality means, and this is not just environmental sustainability, it is social sustainability and it is economic sustainability. It is all 3. We see in the box which is distilled from the Runtland Commission from 1987, when these issues were first thought about, not only by the Commission but by other governments of the world of which we are part: "Sustainable developments sees" and this is the second one: "economic, social and environmental issues as interlinked and it tackles then, in an integrated way, to achieve lasting solutions based on harmony. What it doesn't do, what constitutes unsustainable development, is treating the economy, society and the environment as 3 separate issues and assumes that a healthy economy will automatically lead to a healthy and secure environment." There is a subtlety here, Sir, that I think needs to be brought out. The vision statement on which the whole of the Strategic Plan relies is that by increasing our economic wealth, by going for a 2 per cent growth rate in the economy, then everything else will be fine. Now, the reality of the situation is that that is not the only way to do things and most of the world are beginning to face up, as I said before, in the face of global problems, of which we are a part, to the opposite point of view which says that you start at the beginning and then you work out what you have to do to achieve those particular aims. The beginning, Sir, is to adopt sustainability and quality of life issues as the be all and end all, within which the economic policies of the Island should be integrated to such an extent that the treatment of our economic, social and environmental issues can be interlinked. Indeed, Sir, what we have done in moving towards Ministerial government, part and parcel of the reasons for moving in this direction was to, and I will use the phrase that was pointed to: "Break down the silo mentality that existed within individual departments." If we are going to pursue, headlong, economic growth as being the only way to achieve betterment in the other areas, we are only seeing part of the picture. And I will contend, Sir, quite strongly - as you can probably tell, that the raising of these 2 overarching principles must really be seen to be the guiding principles within which all the other policies will follow. On page 3, in another definition of sustainability, at the top it says: "A sustainable development or sustainability will take into account the environment and its capacity to support human activity in all decisions, but unsustainable development will treat the environment as a luxury to be protected if we can afford it." By omitting the Jersey Into the Millennium, A Sustainable Future document, in the original Strategic Plan, I think the second way of looking at things was really in the minds of the Council of Ministers. We do have a suggestion though, Sir, that this amendment is supported and I am thankful for that, but it might well be at the end of my speech that the Council might change its mind. Looking after one's environment is not the same as raising our environmental credentials. Indeed, Sir, one of the aspects of what we are trying to do through Ministerial government is to promote our international personality and to grow our international stature and profile. What better way, Sir, will be to put on the map the 2 guiding principles into which all our policies will be established. If the Island were to be seen to be punching above its weight, and we have heard that statement before in the context of how we make our money on the financial markets, what better way, Sir, would there be than punching above our weight in environmental and sustainability terms. And the key thing in doing this is that there is not an isolation between the economy or things that you do for the economy and supporting the environment or the pursuit of quality of life. All these things can be integrated. Various Members have suggested to the Treasury Department, Sir, that the Island, in making money, should be looking at ethical investment. Ethical investment is based on exactly that, looking at the ethics behind making money and not just making money for money's sake; to be going after particular markets that aspire and achieve higher levels of environmental and social organisation. Indeed, from the comments made by the Minister of Health yesterday, one would think that one could not make money and support the environment. We have only got to look at things within the building realms. Eco housing successfully brings together ways of making money while at the same time cutting down on omissions, heating houses with passive solar systems which do not require the use of fossil fuels, reducing carbon emissions and long-term looking after our planet in a way that sustainability refers to. If we do not do these things, Sir, we mess up our own environment, or run the risk of doing so, and the whole thing is very, very much short-term. Sustainability and looking after quality of life are long-term issues and this is why I have asked the original document which looked into these things be added into the set of priorities. I would have gone further, Sir, to have suggested had we had a priority setting of those strategic initiatives that this one might well have been at the top or at least very close to the top in order to punch, as I said, well above our weight in

environmental terms. Global warming is no joke. Global warming might well affect us in ways that are going to be extremely expensive. Indeed, Sir, when the previous incumbent, Mike Romeril, wrote this report he did publish at the time - and it was put in the local paper - a map indicating what would happen if the then figures of the estimated figures for global warming were allowed to go unchecked. Large areas of St. Clement would end up under water. Large areas of St. Lawrence would end up under water. Large areas of St. Helier would end up under water unless the Island subscribes to a policy of building, perhaps, a new wall of a sufficient height, as the Dutch have done, to keep these waters out. Since that time, Sir, the environmental warnings that have been given by the international climate conventions and groupings have got steadily worse. And there is now a suggestion that in a lifetime period, some 50 to 70 years, and perhaps even sooner, we do not know - and that is part of the problem - that perhaps the sea level rises might be as much as 7 metres. 7 metres would be devastation.

1. Senator F.H. Walker :

Could I ask the Deputy 's forbearance for a minute? Sir, we have a huge amount of business to undertake in the debate for the Strategic Plan. I honestly, with greatest of respect to the Deputy , wonder whether the speech is, in any way, necessary? It does not change the outcome of the debate at all. The Council of Ministers is accepting the amendment. I appreciate the Deputy has every right to make his point, but we do have a huge amount of business to get through. We are accepting the amendment. Would it not be appropriate for the Deputy to accept that, to reserve the speech for when we deal with the issue of this report, which we will have to by accepting his amendment at a later date, when we can have a full debate on the issues he is making? But his speech today will make no difference to the outcome and, bearing in mind what we have to get through, I would ask him if he would, perhaps in consideration of the House, would not consider abbreviating it?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

With the forbearance of the House, I was coming to an end. I will continue to do that. I thank the Council and the Chief Minister for his interruption. Global warming, as I was saying, is a very serious problem and we are being told now that there might well be projections within our lifetime whereby not having to keep out maybe half a metre of water from various land masses, that it may be as much as 7 metres, which would seriously flood and inundate large tracks of the Island. Sir, this is a long-term problem. The reason I am making such a speech is to draw attention to States' Members to the point of the Strategic Plan. Yesterday, we heard that the Strategic Plan will be organised on a yearly basis in terms of the financing of it and in order to keep us flexible. In doing so, it rather devalues the idea of a long-term plan. Some issues can be developed inside 5 years. Other issues - some of the ones which I am referring to - have a much greater time for introduction. Those issues should not be ignored by moving to a one-year cycle or a 3-year cycle. Those issues should be taken  head on and built into our  long-term Strategic Plan. Indeed, Sir, that is my understanding of the word: "strategic." It is predominantly dealing with things that are long-term. Global warming is long-term, but the effects that could happen to the Island and, indeed, to other communities might be catastrophic. We have to put all of what we do into the wider global picture. We should not be just concerned with what we are doing here in the Island and indeed, Sir, in raising our  international personality and  belonging to the British Irish  Council, and  having a particular plan to talk to other governments, it looks as if we would wish to actually play a bigger part on the world stage. As I said, Sir, what better way than to raise sustainability and quality of life issues to the very heart of a long-term Strategic Plan. I think it can be done, Sir. I think we can match economic growth with environmental sustainability, with social sustainability and economic sustainability. I thank the Council for supporting this particular amendment. I hope, and I sincerely hope, that in terms of the priority-setting that will take place, that this set of priorities will be, as I said before, at the very top of the tree or very close to it. I make the amendment, Sir.

The Bailiff :

It is seconded? Deputy Fox? [Seconded]

2. Deputy J.B. Fox:

Yes, Sir. Between retiring from the police service and joining the States, I was very much involved in this Plan; in section 12, the social issues, health, law and order, and education. And people like retired Senators were involved and a number of other people, and a lot of good people worked on this Plan with Dr. Mike Romeril. It was very important in those days - and we are talking about 7 or 8 years ago - and the issues that were brought out in this document were examined very thoroughly; they were all brought together very skilfully, and it was very sad at that time that it did not make it to the States and be brought forward. I am extremely pleased that it has been brought forward now. It still is an important document. Clearly, it has to be updated and amended where appropriate, as time has moved on. But certainly when I did join the States and became a Member of the Environment and Planning Committee of the day, I was Chairman of Les Mielles Sub Committee, and certainly the environmental aspects of the things that the proposer, Deputy Duhamel, has been talking about, the global warming, etc, is a real issue that has to be dealt with and it is appropriate that it is in this Strategy. I support it. I know it is being supported by the Council of Ministers, but it is one that we really have to get on board for the sake of all the work that was done by a huge amount of Islanders. I think it is a thank you to them that this document has now surfaced and will be taking its due place within the new Strategy, Sir.

3. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :

I will be brief. The Council of Ministers welcomes the Deputy 's amendment to the Strategic Plan, Jersey Into the Millennium, A Sustainable Future, update, agree and implement, which they believe will become a valuable addition to the Council's priorities. The Deputy , however, importantly states that the report needs updating in places, but the vision is as valid today as it was then. Suffice to say, Sir, the Council looks forward to the contribution to the updating process that the Deputy will no doubt want to make.

4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:

I took part in the important all-day forum under Dr. Michael Romeril's direction, although due to an oversight my name is not on the list, and I complained to him at the time. I certainly support the findings within this document and I totally support this amendment now. We must endeavour to keep sustainability issues at the forefront of our future decision-making.

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

I have been a grievous disappointment to Deputy Duhamel. I unfortunately do not sit in an unheated house in the winter wearing a big woolly cardigan following the precepts. I am a bit like Senator Syvret's person. I have been corrupted, Sir, by western civilisation and a lot of its joys. I think we are all in that position and he did raise a very good point yesterday. But just a few points, Sir. I think the point that Deputy Duhamel was making - I think it was - was that just as Senator Walker has had one conversion on the road to Damascus, if I may build on the I think it is a little hard for him to have 2 in one year. So, what I am suggesting, Sir, having had one conversion - and allowing him to absorb the full implications of that - I think he has to realise that what Deputy Duhamel was saying is it has to be integrated into all aspects of the Plan. This means dealing, Sir, with things like population policy, that never-ending, interminable issue that we struggle with - and ultimately realising that each policy impacts on the other. I must make the same points to Senator Cohen, who has made an excellent start, but I want to see real energy of the mental kind applied to issues like building regulations and so forth, where we need total revamps. We need a real indication that when it comes to influencing the way we build and the way we use energy, his Department is really pushing forward. That is the message from Deputy Duhamel, Sir, and I hope we can move forward. As I said, next year one conversion is good for one year