States Meeting Transcript - 27/06/2006

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 27th JUNE 2006

QUESTIONS....................................................................................3 1. Urgent Oral Question ....................................................................3

1. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen (of the Chief Minister):...................................3 Senator F.H. Walker (the Chief Minister):.....................................................3
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement:................................................3
3. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.................................................................3
4. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.................................................................4
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................4
6. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ....................................................4
7. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :...................................................5
8. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.................................................................5
9. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...............................................................5

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY......................6

2.1 Senator P.F. Routier (Minister for Social Security) regarding the Employment Tribunal:..................................................................................6

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued) ..............................................................6

1. Strategic Plan 2006 to 2011 (P.40/2006) (continued) ....................................6

1. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):.................................................6
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier:...................................................6
3. The Very Reverend R.F. Key (The Dean of Jersey):.....................................7
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:................................................8
5. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................8
6. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................11
7. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ..............................................................12
8. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier:..........................................................14
9. Senator L. Norman:....................................................................15
10. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John:......................................................16
11. Senator T.J. Le Main (Minister for Housing):........................................17
12. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (Minister for Transport and Technical

Services): ..............................................................................19

13. Deputy S. Power of St.Brelade:.....................................................21
14. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:..............................................................23
15. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:....................................................25
16. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................25
17. Senator J.L. Perchard:...............................................................26
18. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :...............................................................27
19. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt. Brelade: ....................................................28

20. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:......................................................28
21. Senator B.E. Shenton:...............................................................29
22. Senator F.E. Cohen (Minister for Planning and Environment):......................29
23. Senator S. Syvret: ...................................................................30
24. The Connétable of Grouville :........................................................30
25. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................31
26. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:............................................32
27. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................32
28. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:..................................................32
29. The Connétable of Grouville :........................................................38
30. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):............................................38
31. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:.......................................................39

LUNCH ADJOURNMENT...................................................................40

32. Senator M.E. Vibert of St. Brelade (Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):....40
33. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:..........................................41
34. Senator F.H. Walker (Chief Minister):..............................................41

2. Solid Waste Strategy – locations for proposed facilities (P.45/2006) ..................48

1. The Deputy Bailiff : ....................................................................48
2. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................49
3. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................55
4. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................57
5. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................59
6. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................64
7. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................65
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (Minister for Economic Development): ..........................66
9. Deputy J.B. Fox (Assistant Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):................66
10. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................66
11. Senator S. Syvret (Minister for Health and Social Services):........................69
12. Deputy G.P. Southern :..............................................................71
13. Deputy J.J. Huet:....................................................................73
14. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................73
15. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................74
16. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................74
17. Deputy G.W.J de Faye:..............................................................75
18. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:...........................................................75
19. Senator F.H. Walker (the Chief Minister):...........................................77
20. Connétable K.A. Le Brun of St. Mary:..............................................77
21. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................78
22. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:..............................................................78

ADJOURNMENT.............................................................................81

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer QUESTIONS

1. Urgent Oral Question

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Under "L" questions in accordance with Standing Order 15 relating to urgent oral questions, the Bailiff on Friday approved the following question to the Chief Minister by the Deputy of St. Ouen, the Bailiff being satisfied that it was in the interests of the Assembly that this question be asked before the continuation of the debate on the Strategic Plan, and he therefore allowed it under urgent oral questions, and I invite the Deputy of St. Ouen to put the question.

1. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen (of the Chief Minister):

There are three questions. The first is, when was the Chief Minister first made aware of the revised financial forecast that was circulated to Members late on Tuesday, 20th June 2006? The second question is, when was the Council of Ministers first made aware of the revised forecast? Thirdly, why was the revised forecast not released to all Members prior to the start of the debate on the Strategic Plan?

Senator F.H. Walker (the Chief Minister):

I will answer (a) and (b) together, if I may. The Council of Ministers and I were first made aware of the provisional update to the financial forecast at our meeting on 15th June. It was agreed that discussion on the revised forecast should be deferred to a future meeting when the Council would be considering the annual business plan. The answer to "C" is it should be emphasised that the provisional update was a first draft of the revised forecast of States revenue, and in particular the 2006 trends for impôts duties were still being reviewed. The figures also included a number of rounded estimates which needed to be confirmed, and given that they had not been properly considered by the Council, it was not felt appropriate that they should be released at that stage. On 20th June, the first day of the States' debate on the Strategic Plan, I was advised that the media had become aware that the provisional forecast indicated an improvement of some £30 million and were preparing to publish this information. In order to ensure that Members were advised officially before they learnt it through the media it was decided to present the forecast immediately to States Members. Although the financial forecast did not form part of the proposition to be debated in relation to the Strategic Plan, the Council of Ministers did not wish to be accused of withholding information from Members. The revised forecast was accordingly checked to establish that it was sufficiently robust, and was circulated by email to Members later that same day.

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

Could the Chief Minister tell us the source of that leak to the media, please?

Senator F.H. Walker :

I am not prepared to divulge the source because I have no proof, although I believe I am aware that it was an innocent slip in what was considered to be a casual conversation with a member of the media. I am sure it was an innocent slip.

3. The Deputy of St. Ouen :

Does the Chief Minister agree that the release of the revised financial forecast had a major bearing on the debate regarding the Strategic Plan and also the position taken by the Council of Ministers over the use of the Dwelling Houses Loan Fund?

Senator F.H. Walker

I do not know. It is for Members to decide whether it had a major impact on the debate or not. The Council of Ministers' position was altered in terms of the amendment; I think only the amendment of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, for 2 reasons. One was, we learnt a week before the debate that the proposition was to be taken in 5 separate votes rather than being taken as one, and that fundamentally enabled us to review our position because we were totally and implacably opposed to the proposition in its entirety, but we were pleased to be able, when it was broken down, to look at it anew and yes, the fact that the day before we were able to consider our approach to the dwelling house loan fund in the light of improved figures did make a difference to our position.

4. The Deputy of St. Ouen :

In answer to one of the questions the Chief Minister suggested that these new, revised forecast figures, were certainly provisional and there was no guarantee that an extra £30 million would be reflected over a 5 year period. Could you confirm that this is true?

Senator F.H. Walker :

When the Council Ministers first looked at the figures, as I said in my answer, they were, without question provisional and there was no question of us introducing them into the debate at that point for that reason. Because we learned that the media were going to publish basic information on them, the Treasury worked overtime, in more ways than one, to assess the robust nature or otherwise of the figures and it was on the back of that work that we were able to release the figures to Members when we did. We could not have released them earlier. They were released as soon as it was appropriate and as soon as it was acceptable, indeed, for us to do so.

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

I wonder if the Chief Minister can elaborate? Can he tell us, in laymen's language, how his Council and his experts made the assumption that a yearly increase could be translated into a steady 5-year increase? What was the thinking to make these robust figures?

Senator F.H. Walker :

I would have thought that was fairly clear. The position has improved, and as a result of that it has a knock-on effect. Similarly, had the position deteriorated it would also have had a knock- on effect. That is the nature of these figures. That is the nature of forecasting. That is the nature of financial management.

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

Surely one swallow does not make a summer. Should we be basing a whole load of forecasts and our future on just one 6-month period? This is really quite silly. [Laughter]

Senator F.H. Walker :

The Deputy may think it is silly, but the fact is that is what we always do, and that is what governments always do. Governments prepare forecasts. Of whatever frequency they prepare forecasts is a matter for them. The States of Jersey and the Treasury have, for as long as I can remember, prepared forecasts on a 6-monthly basis. How else does one assess the future, and the forecast in the Strategic Plan was a forecast. The forecast that we now have is a forecast and, of course, we always react, as all governments must react, to forecasts. This House should be welcoming the fact that the position has clearly and significantly improved.

7. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

In view of the fact that the Minister does not feel able to tell us who the leaker was, could they please identify themselves to the House in the interests of open government? Thank you.

Senator F.H. Walker :

I think I have the question. Is the Connétable asking me to identify the source of "the leak"?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): I think he asked you whether the -

Senator F.H. Walker : I said I could not.

The Connétable of Grouville :

I can understand why you did not want to tell on your friends, but could that person please make themselves known to the House?

Senator F.H. Walker :

Well, Sir, that is a matter for that person.

8. The Deputy of St. Ouen :

Would the Chief Minister not agree that any improvement in the financial forecast described in the Strategic Plan should be down to the States to determine how and when that money is apportioned and it should not be the role of the Council of Ministers to arrange or make deals with that money? We heard on the Strategic Plan 2 Members of the Council of Ministers stand up and say: "It is all right. We have got new money." Secondly, the Housing Minister, who is definitely seeking capital funds, one minute was saying he needed the housing dwelling loans fund, and the next minute he said: "It is all right, the Chief Minister has told me I will have the money in another route." Would he confirm what is the story?

Senator F.H. Walker :

This is beginning to sound remarkably like a bit of sour grapes, I have to say. The fact is, the Council of Ministers have made no deals, as the Deputy is well aware. The Council of Ministers do not decide how the money is spent, as I and the Treasury Resources Minister and other Members of the Council of Ministers have repeatedly said, it is for the States to decide how the money is spent. The Council of Ministers make recommendations, and for 2007 the States will decide and only the States will decide. I really do not know how many more times I have to emphasise that point. Only the States will decide how that 2007 money is to be spent and allocated in the business plan debate in September.

9. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Given for the last several years the Council, or its predecessor, has been hammering home the message that things are very tight in the public sector, we have to cut back, and we have all, albeit grudgingly, gone along with it and tried to follow it through. Now that the situation has changed, is it now his intention to loosen the purse strings?

Senator F.H. Walker :

I find that an astonishing question given the 3-day debate we had last week when the Council Ministers made it abundantly clear what its views were on how much money should be spent and how it should be allocated. We made it abundantly clear that we wished to reinvest the £20 million savings that we are making, principally in central departments, into the core key social services of Jersey. We made that abundantly clear. We made it abundantly clear that on the back of that vision for the future we do recommend that the States spend more than was originally allowed for in the fiscal strategy and in last year's business plan, but the House accepted that. Given the choice between spending more and investing in key social services and continuing to control expenditure down to previous levels the House overwhelmingly supported the Council Ministers.

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY

2.1 Senator P.F. Routier (Minister for Social Security)  regarding the Employment Tribunal:

The Jersey Employment Tribunal currently consists of 14 Members, a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman, 6 Employee Side Members and 6 Employer Side Members, which is the maximum number of panel members that may be appointed. Initially the Tribunal appointments were approved by the States and offered on a staggered basis, varying between one and 5 years to ensure that the terms of all those appointed did not expire on the same day to provide continuity in the composition of the Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal (Jersey) Regulations 2005, provide that Tribunal members are appointed by the States initially, but if a member chooses to take a second and final term of their choice up to a maximum of 5 years he is entitled, as a right, to do so. This is in order to secure the tenure of persons appointed to offices in which their independence should be protected. Mr. William McPhee is a works convenor for Jersey Harbours and Chair of the Jersey District Committee of the TGWU (Transport and General Workers Union). His first term on the Tribunal is due to end on 30th June 2006, and he has requested an additional term of 5 years. I am grateful to Mr. McPhee for requesting a second term on the Tribunal and I would like to thank all the Employment Tribunal Members, the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and the Secretary for their hard work and commitment during this crucial first year of the Employment Tribunal.

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued)

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

1. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Thank you, Minister. Very well, the Assembly now comes to public business and the debate on the Strategic Plan was interrupted at the end of the last meeting. Members will recall that the Chief Minister proposed the plan on Tuesday, 20th June, the amendments have now all been considered and the debate therefore opens on the plan as amended. Deputy Le Claire?

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

I hope to make a very short but poignant speech in relation to the Strategic Plan. During the stages that the Strategic Plan has surfaced among us, many Members have criticized the contents of the plan, the plan itself, and the Members bringing amendments and the Members bringing the plan itself. I think what the Strategic Plan means to me is a vision for the future and importantly and presently a principled vision for the future which sets out a state of the union type address for the people of Jersey to have confidence in us as a legislature for their wealth, health and wellbeing in the future. It sets out a course we would like to take in respect of their welfare and in respect of making society a better place for them to be in Jersey. In that regard I think it is an important thing to do today to support the Strategic Plan. We may wish to challenge individual parts of it as it returns to the Assembly in more drawn up form, and we may wish to disagree with Members and Ministers on those points when they arise, but I think it is irresponsible of any of us to suggest that we should not hold up a map and a plan for the direction we take over the next few years to the people of Jersey. Otherwise, what business do we have in saying to them that we will manage their affairs? So, I wholeheartedly support the Strategic Plan and I applaud and laud the ambitions that are set out within it, with the reserve that I will debate each part of it as it returns to the Assembly.

3. The Very Reverend R.F. Key (The Dean of Jersey):

I wanted to comment on the plan, not because I have great economic qualifications - particularly in view of a speech last week that did not exactly boost up A-level economics, which is the only one I possess - but rather to say it seems to me that this gives us the chance to look at what is the business of government, what is the responsibility of this House, and I offer this as an ethical comment as somebody who does not vote in this Chamber. It seems to me that the starting point for me is the Hebrew concept of Shalom, which often in English is translated "Peace", but if I understand my wife's Hebrew correctly is better translated "Wholeness", something more complete than merely the absence of hostilities or a transitory sense in which things are going reasonably well. For me, of course, as for people of faith, whether that means a peace under God, as our wonderful crest up there reminds us. But I think the Strategic Plan takes the second half of that crest, the mon droit bit. But what is the balance between the rights and responsibilities accorded to the citizen and accorded to the State? Plainly it is the States' business to enable good and sound economics, both so that people can make provision for their own futures and so that those who are disadvantaged can have provision made on their behalf. It is right that we do all we can in the areas of housing, and particularly those areas which the plan has highlighted, as I mentioned last week, the areas where we have often fallen short with Western Europe in the past. Namely, the environment and our care of young people. It is right that the plan gives those particular attention. I applaud every attempt at any level to get our thinking joined up and this plan seems to me to be a step in the right direction. However, I would want to say that as governments around the world try to work out whether they are to be nanny states, taking more and more power unto themselves and interfering more and more in the family lives and individual lives of their citizens, or rather to be an enabling state and a caring state. I would want to urge us to go for the second of those and not the first. It is the States' role to provide the right conditions, but not so to disempower the individual or the family so that decisions are taken from them. It also seems to be right, but not necessarily popular, that we remind citizens that the States is not simply about creating conditions and affirming rights but also reminding people of responsibilities. Mr. Blair is well known for his slogan: "Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime". But years later, as an article in yesterday's Telegraph was making plain, this has come home to haunt him because it gives the idea that all crime has sociological causes. I want to say that simply is not true. I grew up in a Victorian terraced council house with an outside loo and no bathroom. My father had died when I was 5, and at one stage my mother was doing 3 jobs to make sure that I had a decent education and could go to university. It did not seem to be that she was forced to go and start stealing things or, indeed, simply to start saying: "This is somebody else's fault. Please give me everything I need." There was a balance of rights and responsibilities. As we build a caring and compassionate society in Jersey, which I know we all want to do, it seems to me that we need

to balance those God-given rights which we must ensure our citizens have with also - I would contend - those God-given responsibilities which it is our role to ensure that people understand that they have so that there is a general 2-way street, a genuine 2-way street between the State and the citizens. That the citizens sees their responsibility also through the voluntary service in which this Island rightly prides itself both to receive from the citizens as well as to give it. My hope, and indeed my prayer, is that as this plan is worked out in the years to come, then Jersey will become, not simply ever more wealthy, but also ever more a place of that God-given wholeness.

4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour :

There is no doubt that the amendments and debate throughout last week have strengthened the Strategic Plan. As a result we have hopefully achieved a proper balance between economic, social and environmental considerations. However, the difficult part now lies ahead, delivering for the people these many worthy initiatives in the coming years. These initiatives include past commitments, present must-dos', and our belief in a better future for all our community. Subject to resources' is a phrase States Members know all too well but it is nonetheless essential that our priorities are right each year, year on year. Senior citizens are very pleased about the winter fuel payment. This must now be delivered or our reputation will certainly be tarnished. There is a mishmash between the long term vision in this Strategic Plan and the piecemeal consideration of annual resources in each business plan. One thing that I believe successive past States Assemblies have not been good at when allocating, or even arguing, over resources is the vision to look ahead over a period of, say, 5 to 10 years and ask: "Will this saving of X amount be an actual long term saving, or will it lead to an even greater loss of revenue?" I believe that the loss of Mr. Battle at our flagship tourism event probably reduced our tourism profits during successive Augusts. This is just one small example of where government needs to be very careful to fund areas that will increase future revenues and thereby grow the economy. I have been very concerned that efficiency savings were, in fact, starting to impact on our core social services. This Strategic Plan allows us to maintain and improve our provision of social services and also to address areas that have been neglected over many years, even decades. Only when we have addressed poor social housing, the lack of adequate provision at the prison, and the inequities in our society, and also address our neglected infrastructures, can Jersey be justly proud of its place on the international stage. At the same time we must protect, nurture and enhance the unique identity of beautiful Jersey.

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

I will rise early because I do not want to cast an aura of too great a gloom over the House. Nonetheless, we have just heard recently this morning about forecasting and how useful it is and how dependable it is and how we can rely on it. Well, it falls to me to be the soothsayer who acts as Cassandra, and I remind Members that Cassandra was always right. So I would love to be able to join in this festival of congratulation and hope. However I cannot. The problem is, for me, that in rejecting amendment 18 at the very beginning of the process this time last week the House rejected the useful part that might have been made out of this - as I describe it – wish list' of this Strategic Plan. In doing so, albeit by only one vote, but would that that one person had had some courage, especially on this side of the House, to vote the other way -

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Deputy , I am sorry to interrupt you but there seems to be an unfortunate trend creeping into speeches to refer to "This side of the House." I am not sure if it is in the way Members sit but that is certainly not an accurate description.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I think it is -

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I appreciate the Council of Ministers do sit -

Deputy G.P. Southern :

The Council of Ministers lies over there.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I am not sure you are free to speak for all those over on my right.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Could the Deputy remind us of what amendment 18 was? Deputy G.P. Southern :

Amendment 18 was the one which asked that we have 5-year figures and some basis to assess the 5-year plan. It was the first amendment. It was the one that was brought by the Chairman's Committee. Very well, Sir, I will refrain from using that particular phrase, although I use it physically rather than spiritually. It is just that what we have today is a 5- year Strategic Plan setting a precedent of what we do in the future, about which we know nothing really about the priorities. We know nothing about the emphasis. We know nothing about the spending. We are asked to take that a year at a time over the next 5 years and hope that it all works out at the end. Now, to my mind, that is not proper planning, strategic or otherwise. If the Isle of Man can do a 3-year plan, with a 3-year spending commitment, resource commitment, so they know where they are going, roughly when, and they know what the priorities are, then why can we not do the same for 5, and we have turned down that option, and I believe that is a mistake. So, I cannot, and will not, be voting for the Strategic Plan because that has meant I have been unable, and Scrutiny has been unable to do any realistic work about assessing the priorities contained in this plan. It remains what it is - just simply a wish list. A wish list that is supposed to gather consensus but the involvement of the whole House has been very limited in gathering that assessment, and it must inevitably be so if Scrutiny is not allowed to see what the resource implications are and what is going where, so it can decide on priorities. Now, the Dean referred to our citizens and said that they should be able to give as well as receive. Now here is a fundamental objection I have to the Strategic Plan because, oh boy, are our citizens going to have to give in the next 5 years because of the core of the Strategic Plan. On the back of the fiscal strategy it says: "And we are going to shift our tax base away from business and on to individual citizens - individual residents - on the Island, to the extent that they will be paying an additional £60 million a year at least." That is the size of the burden. That is significant. Not only that, but we are likely to be doing it in an extremely regressive way, and we will see when the fiscal plan comes back to the House in its final detail - because it is still only being worked on - just how regressive that is. The poorest will pay proportionately most, the wealthiest, well they will pay proportionately least in percentage terms. Please, Senators, stop shaking your heads. That is a fact. If we introduce - when we introduce - GST (Goods and Services Tax), we will be introducing a regressive taxation mechanism. So that is one objection I have to it. Secondly, in terms of the priorities, yes, we have amended it, and it may well be that the plan as it now reads is perhaps a much more balanced document than it was, but where did those amendments come from? Those amendments were not there initially and were not prioritised initially. Where is the will, the drive behind it? No. Many people who brought amendments have had to signal: "Hang on, you have not even considered this. The environmental mechanism, the social emphasis put into it." It is almost as if we are twisting the Ministers' arms. This is not willingly given, but not spotted. Not passed in our priorities, not given significant emphasis, so we might have changed the words in black and white on the paper but have we changed the will, the spirit behind it? I do not believe we have changed one jot. What was the spirit behind it? My reading of it initially, and it is still there today, economic growth. Growth, growth, growth, and along with that growth, inflation targets. A bland statement: "Low inflation is sustained." I have to ask, how? We do not have the tools, with or without the untried and untested stabilisation fund to shift money into the cupboard, Old Mother Hubbard, and shift it out at various times. A-level economics, I am afraid, again - whatever chapter it is, whatever page it is - untried, untested. Does it work in a small economy? We have no idea. The only weapon we have. So, growth with low inflation. Growth with low inflation, and low migration, or sustainable migration, because it certainly, I believe, will not be low. We have seen the start of that already. Now, we have just changed migration policy for "(j) Cat's" (J' Category). Ministerial decision. It will not come to this House. One of the most significant decisions we

might have made, so that employers can grant unlimited "(j) Cats" to their employees. I remind Members of what the function of "(j) Cat" was. "(j) Cat" was a temporary permission to employ somebody who was not locally qualified in order that the company could train up a locally qualified replacement to take over the job. I would be grateful, Sir, if the Minister for Housing will let me get through one speech without his additions to it, and useful though they may be, I would like to continue on my own. I am not giving way, Sir. Will the Minister wait his turn? Good. Unlimited "(j) Cats", and we are told, of course, this will not increase the number of "(j) Cats". No, it will not, but it will increase the number of people eventually who ended up qualified to live here, and we will see population growth. It is very simple. If the government says you can give this position a 5-year "(j) Cat" and then you have got to get rid of it. You might get a year's extension on it, but that is it. All those "(j) Cats" cannot qualify to be residentially qualified in Jersey. They do not stay. They come and they go. It is not a fair system but it is the one we work with. In terms of controlling population, possibly it works. But, of course, if an employer has got the right person for the job, they are going to want to give them a permanent post. If not, a 5-year rolls on to another 5-year to 10 years. You have your qualification. That person may stay with the company, may have been promoted twice en route in there, is now doing a different job in some way whatsoever. Who is doing the job of the "(j) Cat"? Why, another "(j) Cat". Come the end of his career, does that person leave the Island? No, he is qualified. He probably stays, becomes yet another member of our aging society we have got to support, and a "(j) Cat" still gets pulled in. So, no, not necessarily an increase in "(j) Cats", but an increase in the population brought about by inward migration, because that is the way it works. Because the reality is we have not got the skills base here to maintain our primary economic driver, financial services industry. We will continue to need to import that expertise no matter what efforts we make because of our physical size and our population size. We just simply cannot supply enough people trained up to the right level. So, a migration policy which envisages job growth of up to 500 a year, which we are already seeing, amounts to a majority, 270 or so, inward migrants against local jobs created for local people. We have already seen that growth starting, and we have just seen the first buds of growth, so as we go for growth that will undoubtedly increase. But low inflation targets? Now, as we allow people in, as we suck in with the growth inward migration, what happens? Well, of course what happens - we have already seen it. We have already seen the evidence - house price inflation. Here it comes, up to 7 per cent. Early signs of growth, early signs of numbers rising. Oh, interest in the housing market, 3 and 4 bedroom houses, shortage area. That is leading the way in terms of inflation. So house price inflation kicks off. Let us imagine, if we can, that that Cassandra scenario is avoided. Imagine that the Economic Development Minister can drive economic growth largely through productivity growth and creating unique jobs for locals. Imagine the reverse, and perhaps the Minister may think he can achieve this. What do we get then? We get a stop on inward migration of the skills our major industry desperately needs so instead of house price inflation there, what have we got there? We have got a skills shortage still. What is the first thing that any employer does when he is faced with a skills shortage, cannot get the man for the job? He ups the wages. I will pull somebody in from Joe Bloggs down the road. I will get them in, I will get the expertise, I will be doing it. We get wage inflation. So low inflation sounds very nice, lovely. Lovely-jubbly wish list, with economic growth, is not going to happen. We are not going to be able to deliver it. Either house price inflation or wage level inflation, that is the future. In the meantime deflating the economy enormously by massive tax rises in terms of residents' pockets. Where are we going? I just do not see it. But that is the vision that I have, unfortunately, and I cannot refrain from pointing that out. But I return to my starting point. I might have been able to go for this if I had felt that with 5-years' worth of data I could usefully, constructively added something in terms of prioritisation - in terms of where are your priorities, and what mechanisms can you put in there to make sure they happen. That involvement, sadly, has not occurred on this occasion. I think we are setting a precedent for the next occasion when that involvement similarly will be missing. We have missed an opportunity. This plan will not be getting my vote and I do not believe it deserves anybody

else's vote either.

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

I do not have the pessimism of the previous speaker. No, the world is not perfect, but in politics I think that one of the problems that we face is that everybody has a different viewpoint, both from within the Island and the external pressures that we also receive from outside the Island. What we have to do is obviously be able to move forward and improve, and make decisions that are just and are qualifiable. I think that the first sign of ministerial government is showing that we are on our way. That is important. Now, what progresses are we making? Now, we have a 10 per cent membership of this particular House that are not on the Executive above the executive figure. That means that when a decision is made it is right that there is a majority on the Executive and therefore that is the view of the way whatever is voted, which I think is important. So, if you do not achieve your objective, well, that was the decision made at the time and it is up to you, whether it is me looking at individual propositions that are brought that have not been successful, it does not mean to say that I leave it there. I work behind the scenes and see if there are ways that I have looked at that was a mistake, or I could have done better. Indeed yesterday I was talking with the Minister for Economic Department on such issues. On the Education Department, that I am involved in at the moment, we are looking not just at education. We are looking at the wellbeing of the Island in many different forms. Early years. The question has been brought up very loudly and vociferously recently. That will hopefully come to the Council of Ministers and then to the States later on this year, maybe the beginning of next year. I do not know. I do not control the timing. Fourteen to 19 years. We are not just looking at the academic students, the people that we wanted our future leaders, our captains of industry, we are also looking at our skills; our future people, our young people that will sustain this Island and sustain us, hopefully, in our old age as well, that will continue to make this Island prosperous. We are continuing with further education, in looking at ways to improve the education that we are doing locally through Highlands College, through further education, in looking at having our own academy, at looking at distance learning. All the other forms of support that we can give to our local community to make the quality of life better, to give them the skills to be able to do the jobs that we require, and this is important. Again, with higher education, as you know, we are going through a very difficult period at the moment. The previous speaker was talking about a 5-year plan. What do we know what the prices the universities are going to charge in the next 5-years? We do not have a clue, but we are going to have to, through the support, find a way through to ensure that there are proper opportunities for our young people to be able to advance their learning skills, careers, et cetera, that will support the Island. Yes, not all of them will come back immediately. Some will go away, they will need further advancement. We will want them to further advance themselves, otherwise they will not be able to come back here and we will continue to employ (j)' category people to fulfil those roles, and so it is important. I am pleased that "Imagine Jersey" have said: "Hey, there has been nothing said in any great sincerity about what the things we think and what we believe in, and we want a say" so they had their own "Imagine Jersey" that was set up at that time by Policy and Resources. Since that time the Youth Council has been set up. There are school councils. There are all sorts of different communications with young people and with the rest of society and citizenship, certainly, is something that we are actively doing so, and we have even seconded one of our senior teachers to promote the workings of this and bring it into fruition. I was pleased that yesterday we had a day on the regeneration of St. Helier, obviously for dovetailing it in for the new waterfront. I was pleased to see that there were 3 young members of the Youth Council there. It was a very productive day yesterday. No, it does not provide instant solutions, but what it allowed us to do was go through a very productive process in bringing forward ways of improving the quality of life for not only the residents of St. Helier, but for the people that work and visit our Island, being the capital of the Island. That did not mean to say that other aspects of the Island did not come up as a part of the conversation because we are a small island and it is a strategic part. Sir, I have faith that I see now that with

our new ministerial government, yes, it is going to take some time to dovetail things together, yes, we have the Scrutiny and the accounts committees to examine, to challenge, and not forgetting of course the backbenchers. I see that what we have been through over the last 6 months as a very productive process in moving forward. Painful at times. There will be those, and people like myself, that will want more and we will have to make sure that when it comes to replacements of existing things like income support for less well-off people, for our senior citizens,  et cetera, that they are  properly reimbursed  and recompensed where something suddenly goes askew like the cost of electricity or fuel, oil, et cetera, at the moment. But we also must bear in mind that the previous past that we had of just handing out money which is not targeted, those days have gone. We must make sure that we spend wisely, that we listen to the people, and act properly, but swiftly accordingly to carry on the work that is being done in this process of change. Thank you, Sir.

7. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

It is always interesting to follow a Minister, or one of his assistants, it enables me to bring the House back from its parallel universe back to reality, hopefully. What an interesting few days we had last week. I am reminded - I believe it is an Arab curse - "May you live in interesting times". I wonder where they got it from. I did, as Members will have noticed, avoid joining in

adding amendments to this plan. I also restrained myself, although some Members may not agree, with joining in the debates, certainly as much as I would normally have done, but that was for a reason. I was disappointed with the strategy because, in my view, it is neither fish nor foul. What should effectively, in my view, have been a manifesto for the Council of Ministers setting out their aspirations for the future became a part business plan/part aspiration and as such I believe it is a dangerous document because what Members may think is in principle will no doubt be taken as approved and what is detailed probably will not happen. I think we know this Council better than they would like us to. This contradiction that I have mentioned about the strategy, Sir, has been the reason, I believe, for so many amendments, an unparalleled number in my recollection. It seems to me, Sir, that the head chef sent his fellow cooks off to create a new menu for the future. Unfortunately, there was a lack of direction and some produced heavy savoury dishes while others brought along a nice light soufflé which do not all sit together well in the same pot. Far from being a collective effort, Sir, it is abundantly clear that individual Ministers have asked their respective departments to come up with a list. Admittedly this was in the early days and the Ministers had a lot of other pressing things to do at the time. But some of the lists indulged in wishful thinking; others went into detail. There seemed to be no proper collective cohesion. Silo mentality, Sir, is also still evident by those initiatives which have ramifications for having no corresponding input from the departments affected. Consequently I view this plan as something of a mongrel. While some of the improvements, it has to be said, to this document have improved it, they still do not go far enough. This strategy, in my estimation, is about a high cost, high spend economy; one that is unsustainable in the long terms, one that has paid insufficient attention to environmental and quality of life considerations. Thanks to those successful amendments, environmental issues do now have a higher profile, but what

concerns me is that the Council left those out in the first place. It does, Sir, demonstrate their thinking and it does concern me. In my view the worst example is of this tax and spend philosophy. I think it is outrageous that they should have ignored agreed policy and, therefore, rejected the amendment of the Corporate Affairs Panel. The whole reason, surely, for raising taxes was to fill the black hole that we were advised was looming on the horizon left by a reduction in tax from the finance industry due to external forces. If we now have a windfall of 30 million, as has been suggested and discussed again this morning, surely it should be used to remove the need for things like Goods and Service Tax. Instead, Sir, the Council have gone on a spending spree in this strategy. Like little boys with a few shillings burning a hole in their pocket, not for them prudence, respect for the taxpayer. Instead we have another shopping list with an uncosted exercise expecting the taxpayer to cough up just the same. So, I believe that this strategy would, if carried out to the wishes of the Council, make Jersey even less competitive than it already is as we further price ourselves out of business and probably destroy one of our greatest assets - or further destroy one of our greatest assets - in the process, our countryside, by building ever more housing estates to cater for the immigration needed to fuel this "spend your way out of trouble" philosophy as alluded to by Deputy Southern earlier. It will, in my view, also further widen the social divide that we already have. In fact, it came to me, Sir, that if this strategy had been my proposition I could almost write Senator Walker 's speech rubbishing it. Talking of speeches, Sir, in general terms it is disheartening to see the increased polarisation of this House but unfortunately it is probably not unsurprising given our new system of government, because in the previous model Members did work across the House much more than they do now and today's non-executive Members, as we have seen in the debate last week, really are treated as second class. When the Council opposed amendments to this strategy, Sir, I did note that they delegated speeches among their Members, just as a political party might be expected to do. I find it ironic, therefore, that this Council should on occasion accuse Scrutiny of acting like an opposition

while at the same time they clearly act like a party. I can only say, Sir, that if Scrutiny ever does become an opposition it will be a direct consequence of their attitude. Even the quality of debate has diminished, Sir. Arguments once factual and put with conviction are now seen to be nothing more than sound bites. This strategic plan, Sir, clearly puts spending first, efficiency and prudence second and people and environment last. The Chief Minister will, no doubt, in his summing up tell us otherwise but, as Deputy de Faye correctly pointed out last week, what matters is the wording of the proposition. Verbal assurances, clarifications and promises count for absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, Sir, I cannot support this strategy and also unfortunately I will probably not be able to stay long enough for the vote and, indeed, if the House sits tomorrow I offer my apologies in advance, Sir.

8. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier :

I do not make big speeches so it is more or less some observations on what we have heard this morning in this Chamber. We have spoken about (j)' categories and that it was terrible that we were going to get rid of them. They never really worked, Sir. When you served on Housing you found they did not work. If somebody really wanted to keep a member of staff in Jersey they would find a way round it. There was no way that you could stop it because they could always come up with the financial side and that is what we rely on our cash from, so you always had to give it over whether you thought it was a spin off or not. So, there is no difference there and it did not work then, so it is nothing today. The only thing with Deputy Southern I have some sympathy, and I admit this, this is on the immigration. The reason I have this problem is I have spoken to Senator Routier so I have tried to speak about where I think we  have problems.  It  is  fine to  bring  more  people  in  but  I  happen to  sit on the Community Board for St. Helier and a couple of weeks ago I had 18 cases in the morning, all from youngsters that had never had a job or at the most they have had a job for a couple of weeks. They had no qualifications and I know that we have got a good education system, but these kiddies are slipping through it. They are leaving school with not a qualification to their name. They do not always come from fantastic backgrounds so maybe they do not get the encouragement that we might give to our children to go out and learn something or do something and I feel these kiddies are getting battered from pillar to post. There is no job out there for them. They normally end up - it might only be with a minor criminal record - but they end with one. The minute they end up with one of those criminal records it is almost impossible to get an employer to take them on and I do feel that we are failing here. We have to try and do something to help on this one. The other one that I spoke to Senator Routier about is I have some problems, again, with the low income. Again, by serving, as we say in the old way, on the welfare board we have people no matter how good they are, and I am sure they look after their families very well, they cannot manage money. Maybe it is not the right way but how we have tackled some of it is when they come in we say: "Right, now here is your rent. You go down and pay your rent to the Housing and come back with a receipt and then we will give you the balance." Because we know that if you do not do that something more urgent for the child will come up or their children or their families. The rent will never get paid and then you end up with an eviction on your hands. I would like us not to go down the road that we will just give money out to people because they come into a low income. Some of these people will need help for ever more, even if it is just to try and manage them and I hope that we will take this on board. But I always say in the banking world we used to have a saying which was "monkey on my back." So, it is fine to criticise something. Unless you can come up with solutions leave it alone. Do not be negative. This is the plan. We know that there are things that we are not going to like about it or things that maybe we could do better and I am sure we will. But it is like most things. What is the saying that says something about acorns and oak trees? So, let us not be negative. Go for it. We can say where our concerns are; we can try and address them, go to the people that can help them and hopefully by working together we might become better and stronger and look after the people that need looking after, whether they be young, old or middling. Thank you very much, Sir.

9. Senator L. Norman:

A week ago today the Chief Minister introduced this debate and during his opening comments he stated - he stated very strongly, in fact - that this plan was not a wish list and I have to agree with him absolutely. This document is not that good. It is not a Strategic Plan any more than it is a wish list and the Chief Minister, I think, came very close to admitting that when he described it as a work plan and that, quite honestly, is the most accurate description of this document that I have heard. We are asked to support the vision on page 5. That is the motherhood and apple pie bit. Statements that have been made time after time in jurisdictions all over the world and in reality are no more than statements of the obvious which will cause no offence to anyone. They will not cause any offence, but neither by themselves will they add much to the sum of human happiness either. Then we move to the Council's top priorities on pages 13 and 14 of the consolidated document. Again, Sir, there is virtually nothing, if anything, new here. But it is all good rousing stuff. For example, develop an integrated inclusive strategy for early years childcare. That sounds great. Then I ask myself: "Develop a strategy?" This is a strategy debate. This is supposed to be the strategy debate. We should be being told now what the policy is, what the strategy is and indeed what the costs are. But we are not. We are just told the Council is to work in this area - an example of the work plan that the Chief Minister spoke about. Now, the same is true for many examples on that page like access to high quality, affordable housing. Well, nothing new here; that has been the policy of the States for at least 20 years. Where is the strategy? What is the policy? What are the financial implications? No, all we are told is the Council of Ministers will develop strategies and review demand and supply; something we have been doing, as I say, for at least 20 years. It goes on: develop a health and social care strategy. Develop an energy strategy. Develop strategies for everything, but we are not told what the policy is. We are not told what the strategy is despite the fact that this is supposed to be the strategic debate. It is not a strategic

debate; it is a work plan debate. There are, of course, minor exceptions. So, we have all these strategies to be developed. We have all these strategies to be costed. Yet despite the fact that the work has not yet been done in most cases, the revenue implications have been announced and I think formed the major part of the debate in the 3 days last week. But I cannot fathom out how these costings can possibly have been announced because the report of the Council of Ministers on the funding implications is, in my view, confused and contradictory. As part of their fiscal strategy, and other Members have mentioned it, very commendable cost reductions of 20 million promised by the change programme will be utilised to partly fill the black hole caused by the structural changes to our taxation system. But, as Members have noted, that is not going to happen any more. The Council of Ministers are, in fact, going to spend it. But what are they going to spend it on? Well, that depends on which page of the Strategic Report you read. If you take page 9, the 20 million that was to help fill the black hole is to be spent on roads and housing as well as health and education, despite the fact that we are told in the Strategic Report that health, housing and education strategies have not yet been developed. But on page 15 the 20 million is to be spent on health and welfare. Well, what can we understand from this? Is it that the Council of Ministers are confused about just what they plan to spend this money on or do they intend to spend it at least twice? I find it very difficult to support a document with such a lack of clarity. What  is missing from this so-called Strategic Plan besides many strategies? Well, one thing that sticks out like a sore thumb to me is a strategy for the prison. I had expected some comment on that issue and all I can find, until we accepted Senator Perchard's amendment, was one sentence about the prison talking about the completion of a cell block already under way. The 2001 Inspector's Report condemned the administrative regime at the prison and, after a brief flurry of activity, that report gathered dust until, that is, earlier this year when the Inspector's 2005 Report was published, which was even more of a condemnation than the earlier one. This must be the greatest source of embarrassment, the greatest source of shame and the largest indicator of incompetence that we could have had. So, what are the Council of Ministers going to do about it? Well, according to the Strategic Plan, nothing. It is not even mentioned. It does not even say in there that there is a strategy to develop a strategy. That, in my view, is a disgrace. Sir, as a strategic document this document fails. As a wish list this document fails. Even as a work plan it only just about makes the grade. The direction of the Council of Ministers is no clearer to me now than it was when we started this debate except that whatever that direction might be it is going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money.

10. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John :

The words "just get on with it" come to mind, Sir, because we have been in bed with this for some time now and we have heard a lot of arguments for and against elements of the plan. I was very encouraged with a lot of the amendments that came forward. I think there were some very sensible ones and they were taken on board by the Council of Ministers. There were also some barking ones but we shall not cover that today. I was interested to note that Deputy Scott Warr en suggested that we needed a new Mr. Battle so I thought perhaps Senator Walker might want to put himself up for that. But I would like Members to remember that we are not passing a law here. We are passing a Strategic Plan. This can be amended and should be amended as and when circumstances change as we move forward. It should not just sit on the shelf. It should be dusted down very regularly and reviewed appropriately; and we must ensure that the things that it contains are actually done and I am sure this House will make that happen by bringing the Council of Ministers to account when it does not. Certainly to become something minor as well, and I am sorry Deputy Southern is not here to hear it, but I would like to remind him and others there are 8 Assistant Ministers on this side of the House. It happens to be the right side of the House, believe it or not, which is quite ironic; and there is also a Minister as well. So, I see no divisions there. Sir, I believe that the plan is balanced, well thought out and is equitable. It achieves this by balancing the books, by finally getting rid of the reliance we had for so long on direct tax and now having indirect tax as well and balancing our books by doing so. There has been some talk about housing and the revision of "(j) Cat" status. I welcome it and so do many people in the Island. I spoke to somebody only yesterday who was full of euphoria over the fact that he could now stay in the Island for a long period and be of huge economic benefit to the Island. Our only natural resource is people; we educate them well. We bring in the right people when we need them and those right people should have the right to stay if they so wish and continue to contribute to our economy. People are the vital component of our economy and that is what keeps us rich in both diversity and in economic well-being. Sir, education: people have mentioned that. The Assistant Minister discussed the issue of our own people coming back to the Island or not going away at all. I would urge all young people to leave the Island, gain an education outside the Island, work there for as long as they possibly can and then bring their skills back to the Island as and when appropriate. Deputy Baudains suggested that the Council of Ministers are working in a silo. I am sorry but I am a new Member to this House and I have bitterly criticised the government for working in silos in the past and suggested that certain elements of Clothier would resolve this. It has done that. We now have a Council of Ministers that meet regularly. They do not work in a silo any more. All those ministries discuss all the time the issues that they have. They are not working in a silo any more. We have achieved, finally,

some joined up thinking in government and I praise that and I think that is a very important

element that is the reason why we have the Strategic Plan on our desks today. Sir, spending money: I do believe in spending money, but I believe in spending it to budget. I do not believe in spending money we have not got. We are not doing that in this plan; we are spending and investing in our community wisely.  We are not spending money we do not have. So, I commend this plan and I would urge all Members to do the same and vote in favour of it. Thank you, Sir.

11. Senator T.J. Le Main (Minister for Housing):

I support wholeheartedly the Deputy of St. John in all that he says. Now, last week, Sir, Deputy Southern - it was mentioned before we adjourned whether we were going to continue to debate this Projet today and Deputy Southern stood up and opposed it on the basis that he had quite a lot to say and wanted a full debate on it. Well, I have to say, Sir, I was very, very disappointed in what Deputy Southern came out with this morning. Quite honestly, there was nothing of any substance whatsoever in my opinion. In fact, he was very highly critical of the (j)' category policy and I would like to explain a little bit to this Assembly about the thinking of the (j)' category policy and the growth plan approved by this Assembly and the issues relating to it. I have to say, Sir, that in all the 3 years or 3½ years that Deputy Southern has been a Member of this Assembly he has always publicly criticised policies from the Housing Committee and now myself and on not one occasion has he ever requested a meeting with myself or officers or Migration Sub-Committee or others so that we can explain any fears or issues that may be about. Never once has he been to see me at Housing but will continue to publicly criticise without knowing the true facts. Let me just say, Sir, that while I have the current responsibility of administering the Housing Regulations and Laws I will keep a very tight rein on the kind of businesses and employers and the ability to employ (j)' or otherwise. Sir, employers will not be able to just get permanent (j)s'. The permanent (j)' will be someone who is permanently needed with a very high skill base unavailable and untrainable in Jersey. So, these employers who need (j)'s would still have to prove that the skills required are unavailable in Jersey. They will have to make a very robust case. There will still be an emphasis on training to replace short term (j)'s. There will be short term (j)'s; most of them will be short term (j)s. Sir, it is anticipated that most of the permanent (j)'s will be the nurses, the doctors, the educationalists - the people that look after people and place people in family nursing. There is a need in this Island, Sir, for people to be long term dealing with the clients, whether it be the clients in banks where people are investing from all over the world into Jersey, there has to be a "know your client"; there has to be a "know the person you are dealing with." In the community, Sir, it has been of concern to me for a while that the

changeover of staff has affected the care given out to people in long term illnesses. They want to know their nurses; they want to know their doctors; they want to know their bankers and, as I say, Sir, we anticipate there will be a very small increase in (j)'s because what will happen is only the highly skilled or employees that are importantly part of a company or business will become permanent. They are here now. They come in as 5-year (j)'s, very, very important. They build up a relationship with a client across the world, as we are now an international place to do business with. These clients across the world want to know who they are dealing with. They want to be able to deal with someone who knows the regulations in Jersey, knows the anti money laundering, who knows everything about the quality of what we are offering to the world in general. These people are in Jersey. They are already occupying (j)' category places. There is a shortage of skills to replace these people. Look at the shortage of skills; there are not demands for these types of skills - those highly trained professional individuals that are very much part of the companies doing and operating in Jersey, not only branch companies but companies that are Jersey owned. We need to be able to retain these people so they can offer the security and the confidence to the world in general. Sir, with our growth policy (j)'s will be given sparingly. I can assure you that businesses that are going to apply for growth are going to have to be businesses that are going to be good earners, are going to pay a lot of taxes, going to pay very high salaries. I will not be part of anything where we are going to be giving out (j)' licences to businesses or approvals where we are going to be bringing in unskilled migrant labour. There is a policy in place now with the Housing Law and Regulations. I have again reiterated this morning to my officers the policy and it must be adhered to strictly. I do not want it and I know the fears of Members of this Assembly who are worried about bringing in unskilled. We could have policies in place where we could bring in by the droves unskilled labour who are going to be a burden on education, health, housing and supplementation and everything else. There really, really has to have a very, very sharp eye kept on the situation virtually on a daily basis and I, administering the Housing Regulations, keep an eye on all the (j)' category licences that are given out. I want to know on a monthly basis every month who are the (j)'s, where they are going to, what kind of businesses and I keep a very sharp eye on the issue. I have to say, Sir, that I have sat in this House, as I say, for nearly 30 years now and I have heard the opposition to PAC (Public Accounts Committee) and Policy and Resources and now to the Strategic Plan. The same Members, the same Members that opposed everything the Housing Committee used to bring along, the same Members that used to oppose the issues that other Committee Presidents brought along. I know that one has to have opposition at this Assembly but I believe, Sir, that in my role as the Housing Minister I will be coming up with a Property Plan; I will be coming up with another full assessment of the social housing needs in the Island and this will be before the Assembly before the end of the year. So, I am really, really hopeful that we are going to move on in this area. But, Sir, I also believe very much that part of my policy will be to encourage and to have housing policies in place which will encourage young professionally highly skilled Jersey people to come back to this Island - people that have been to university with higher degrees, people that are working in the UK and wanting to come back to Jersey. But the number one issue at the present time that is given to me by the Education Department is that young people are not coming back as much as they could. Although we get 60 per cent returnees  back to the Island, there is an opportunity  here to  provide, as the Council of Ministers have agreed, a policy of affordable homes, shared equity, home ownership. We are looking at all those issues at the moment and something must be done to encourage these young people who say at the top of their lists for not returning to Jersey is the cost of housing. I want to be able to have in place for this Assembly before the end of the year a policy which will include policies to encourage young people who want to return to be able to afford and purchase a home, whether it be shared equity, home ownership scheme or otherwise. Those policies have to be in place. But I am, like the Deputy of St. John, very, very satisfied as a

Member of the Council of Ministers having a very great social conscience. I have got as much social conscience as any Member of this Assembly. I sit on Age Concern and on Senior Citizens. I was Chairman of the Management Committee of Gorey youth club for 12 years. I have got a great social conscience. I deal with people on a daily basis in relation to all sorts of issues and problems so I know where I am coming from and I can assure this Assembly today, Sir, that the Council of Ministers have given me and are giving me - particularly the Chief Minister - all the support they can to get these plans through for this Assembly to work on. I am getting huge support from all the Ministers and in particular the Chief Minister. There has been a huge emphasis in this plan on producing, as I say, policies that are going to come out of this particular plan that will be good for the ordinary people of this Island. So, I urge Members to give it a chance and to support it wholeheartedly and I promise you that in my part, Sir, through the Chair, I will do all I can to bring forward some new policies to this Assembly. I will urge Members that, once they have seen the drafts or otherwise of these policies, then they must come back to me because I am also very, very keen that if there are any issues that Members find are concerning them that I am very happy and will be very happy to put them into the part of the plan that I will be producing to the Assembly. Members have a great part to play in all the policies and all the issues that we have in the Strategic Plan. Within my part I want Members to work with me; I want to work with Members and if they have any issues I am very happy to take them on board. Thank you, Sir.

12. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (Minister for Transport and Technical Services):

Sir, I was very encouraged to hear some positive and enthusiastic comments from the Deputy of St. John who, obviously, is a new Member to the House and just prior to that some practical remarks from my Assistant Minister because, frankly, up to that time I had had to sit and endure well over an hour of huffing and puffing and gloom and doom-mongery and despondency and I was really beginning to tire of it all. Because I think this is an excellent way forward; I am positive; I am optimistic about the future, not pessimistic. I think that we have had a week of excellent debate and let us not forget this is not being imposed on anybody by the Council of Ministers. Every Member of the House has had an opportunity to put in their views via amendments and, my goodness, what a lot of amendments there were. But I have to say when I hear these odd comments, and particularly one from Deputy Gerard Baudains about how the Council of Ministers appears to be operating as some political party because various Members were detailed to get up and speak, I really can assure the Deputy that we are not some bunch of Apparachniks operating under a rigid regime structure by any stretch of the imagination. Ministers got up and spoke on subjects within the Strategic Plan that were relevant to them and I have to say to the Deputy that what he was watching was not party politics or rigid instructions; the Deputy was watching teamwork and that is, I think, one of the encouraging new features of the Council of Ministers within my experience of having worked on it over a short time. Teamwork exists and there is nothing wrong with teamwork; and the silo mentality is being broken down because of the regularity of meetings and the extent of the discussions. So, I have to say that this Strategic Plan for my money is a huge turnaround and an enormous advance on the first Strategic Plan which I really was wholly critical of and extremely disappointed with. The first Strategic Plan, as more veteran Members will recall, I severely criticised as being pink blancmange or, in fact, I think even white. I thought it was so lacking in colour. Blancmange, the result of a public relations exercise called Imagine Jersey all condensed down - a sort of a melange of people's ideas that if you twiddle it around enough you got out something that roughly appealed to everybody and then it was all pushed into a thing called a Strategic Plan that was quite distinct in the fact that it had absolutely no strategies in it whatsoever. It said: "Here is everything we would like" and then did not tell you how to get there. Now, this new Strategic Plan - the first Strategic Plan under ministerial government - I think is an enormous stride forward because here we are and there may be complaints from some quarters about strategies have not been finalised or strategies have been developed, but at least there are strategies indicated in there.

At least we are getting now to see an idea of how we will take things forward and that policies are being orchestrated in a coherent way. Because let us not forget this is a living document. I think some Members are getting a bit too concerned about: "Oh, yes, once we put our tick on this one, that is it for a very long time." No, not a bit of it. The Strategic Plan is a living document that will be constantly refined, constantly altered and I think is a very exciting concept in government, because how many governments can operate with what is effectively a condensed version of a whole number of various individuals' manifestos? Actually this has been billed as the manifesto for the Council of Ministers but it has had input now from all areas of the House and it should be a document that we can all feel we can sign up to, not because it ties us down. It seems that Members really have not made their minds up on this yet as to whether you do want to be tied down or not and we will, on the Council of Ministers, I am sure struggle with what exactly does it mean with having everything decided in principle. Because I know what a decision in principle on a planning application means but I am assuming that Members may have a slightly different view on what an approval in principle of the Strategic Plan may mean. But that is, obviously, going to be subject to discussion and debate. But here we now have something that I think we should be quite excited and positive about. This is a vindication, I believe, of the value of Jersey's unique consensual approach to government and why we do not want political parties, Deputy Southern , who again was leading the doom-mongering on the financial aspects with his unique Robin Hood approach to economy: "Let us rob the rich and give to the poor." Well, it is an intriguing concept but I am afraid if we start robbing the rich in Jersey we will very soon run out of 1(1)(k)s who make a very extensive donation to our funds and if we keep knocking the financial services business we will lose them and, if my recollection is right, Senator Syvret estimates that the financial services business may well contribute roughly 90 per cent to our economy if you include additional spending as well as taxation. So, let us be clear on which side our bread is buttered before we start taking hard lines on the economic side of things. I still stand by my definition of the JDA (Jersey Democratic Alliance) in the last Senatorial hustings. I had thought we had seen them off and then like a phoenix arising from the ashes here they come back again. But fortunately none of those lunatic principles are contained in the new Strategic Plan so there is some hope of going forward into the future and let us look at what the future holds. Not just committing the Council of Ministers and our government to the existing priorities, let us think about what an awful lot of work has already been done - and there are strategies in hand, not least of which is the Transport and Travel Strategy that I am currently working on as soon as I can get the bulk of the Solid Waste Strategy sorted out - but also exciting new priorities and that is what they are. We have determined, as a group, as a House now, priorities: regeneration of St. Helier and its waterfront, delivering a new town park, tackling the problem of early years childcare and in particular, in my own area, maintaining and improving structure including the road network. Well, only in a matter of weeks does my department begin a massive new project running all the way from Queen's Road up to the Union Inn, a major refurbishment of one of our key arterial routes into town that has not been attended to for something like 20 years. Now, this is good news and this is part of what the Strategic Plan is bringing to us. So, let us be positive. Let us not worry that this is just the first go; there are going to be plenty of opportunities, if Members really do not like bits of this, to have another go later on. The only thing I really would plead and that is that - and I have to say I have never really had a great opinion of

decisions produced by the Privileges and Procedures Committee over the last few years - one of the knots that I think everyone would agree is the time limit to produce the strategic document in the first place was pretty tight and it put everybody under a considerable amount of pressure and I do not just mean the Council of Ministers. I mean the civil servants who had to service the document, who have worked  fantastically hard to get it out in order that Members and the Scrutiny Panels can then have a look at it and, of course, they subsequently found themselves under similar time constraints in order to get this all done. So, I think if there is one lesson to be learnt from phase one of the new world of Strategic Plans, it is that perhaps a little more time should be allowed before we have these particular set deadlines. But, Sir, I want to simply end by saying we must be positive about this. This is an optimistic document. This is a new and interesting approach to government that Jersey, perhaps typical of its own independent, and perhaps I should say, in its own peculiar approach to life and all its rich trappings, has taken on board. I think this is a very encouraging start and I would ask Members to support it and thereby show their encouragement for the Strategic Plan as well.

13. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

I do not know what I am missing in this Strategic Plan but it certainly does not enthuse me. Last week I sat through the debate on the amendments to the Strategic Plan and it was in a growing state of numbness and helplessness. Some of the numbness was because of the soporific, sleep-inducing qualities of some of the speeches. I struggled with those. Members will have noted that my name was not associated on any of the amendments to the plan, although I did speak briefly on Deputy Scott Warr en's amendment 12 and I still have strong views on third party appeals. My view is that amending the Strategic Plan was, in a way, endorsing the Strategic Plan and I did not want to get involved in that. I also found myself being irritated by the many times I tried to read the Strategic Plan and I am not one that gets irritated easily. But I did reread it and read it and reread it and I got irritated many times and one of the things that irritates me is I believe it is a wish list. It is a vision statement; it is a mission statement; it is a Strategic Plan. But an awful lot of it contains political language and, if I can quote from George Orwell, Politics and the English language - Shooting an Elephant. He wrote this in 1950: "Political language, and with all the variations it is true of all political parties from Conservatives to Anarchists, is designed to make lies sound truthful and to give an appearance of solidarity to pure wind." That is what I believe this Strategic Plan is trying to do. It is often said that the devil is in the detail; I believe, Sir, that with this Strategic Plan the devil is in the lack of detail. This is in principle a blank canvas that will oft be repeated to us in the months and in the years to come with the words of "was included in the Strategic Plan" or "it was part of the Strategic Plan." I would like to take a few minutes now to explain why I am going to oppose this plan. The main objective of the plan is its fiscal strategy, 6.11 and 6.12, to zero tax corporate Jersey and to create a deficit and to tax indirectly the living daylights out of middle Jersey. Who are middle Jersey? Middle Jersey are those law-abiding, tax-paying, Conservative voters. It is a soft target. For the first time last week, Sir, we heard mention of a possible higher rate of GST. Senator Syvret said that we could be looking at a rate of 4½ per cent if there were exemptions. I would like to know why we are exempting corporate Jersey. I asked this question last year before I became a States Member. Why is it that every business in Jersey, every shop in King Street and Queen Street, is suddenly to be exempted at the end of 2008? Why are we writing off these funds to States Treasury? What is the estimate of the loss of revenue from Jersey retail. At St. Paul's last year Senator Le Sueur and Senator Walker answered me. When I asked this question they said that they estimate the loss to be about 25 million. Sir, I believe that the loss is closer to 40 million and this comes from people I  have spoken to, one of them being a non-States Member of PAC and 2 accountants in the retail sector. Who asked for this? Was there a lobby? Did the Chamber of Commerce lobby? Did the Institute of Directors (IOD) lobby? Well, we did have 9 angry men some years ago and one of them did gain power. In the Economic Growth Plan last year 2.8 million has been made available for economic strategies. Of that 1.2 million is to be made available to the finance industry. So, we are ploughing 40 per cent of our economic strategy funds back into the finance industry and I have a fundamental problem with that and I think that should have been amended in the Strategic Plan. In the Strategic Plan where is the provision for light industry? Where is the provision for small business and where is the provision for increasing warehousing? Jersey needs more commercial industry to diversify its economy. We need another Rue des Prés. Where is that provision to diversify and to grow our economy? In education, Sir, I believe that the Strategic Plan does not go far enough. As an example, I think we should be retaining JCG. We are an Island nation with some of the greatest tides on this planet; as such, those tides can be a source of energy. I would like to have seen somewhere in the Strategic Plan references to working with third level institutes, such as Woods Hole in Massachusetts or some of great centres of marine studies in the US, in France, in Spain, perhaps even Poland and Portugal. Channel Islanders will be aware that