States Meeting Transcript - 19/04/2007

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT THURSDAY, 19th APRIL 2007

PUBLIC BUSINESS (resumption).............................................................4

1. Annual Business Plan 2007: Property Plan (P.34/2007) – amendment

(P.34/2007 Amd.)..........................................................................4

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier..........................................................4
2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade.....................................................4
3. Senator P.F. Routier: ....................................................................5
4. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ..............................................6
5. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ..........................................................6
6. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier......................................................6
7. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour.................................................7
8. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :............................................................7
9. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier............................................................7
10. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier ............................................................8
11. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin ............................................................9
12. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier....................................................10
13. Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter:....................................................12
14. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................13
15. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................13 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ........................................................15 Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.............................................................15
16. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................16
17. Connétable J.L. Gallichan of Trinity :...................................................17
18. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................17
19. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................19
20. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................19
21. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................20
22. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................21
23. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:...................................................23
24. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................23
25. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................23
26. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................26
27. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................27 The Bailiff :...................................................................................29

2. Draft Financial Services Commission (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.35/2007)...............................................................................30

The Bailiff :...................................................................................30 Senator F.H. Walker :.........................................................................30 Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier:.........................................................30 The Bailiff :...................................................................................31

1. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean (Assistant Minister for Economic Development):..............31

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................32
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................33
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................33
4. Deputy P.N. Troy : ......................................................................33
5. The Connétable of St. Peter:............................................................34
6. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................34
7. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: ................................................................34 The Deputy of St. Mary:......................................................................34 Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:......................................................................35

2. The Bailiff :.............................................................................35

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................35 Deputy G.P. Southern (Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):..................35
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................35
3. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: ................................................................35

3. The Bailiff :.............................................................................35

3. Le Squez Redevelopment Phase 1(b): redefinition of boundaries (P.36/2007) ........36

The Bailiff :...................................................................................36

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton (Assistant Minister for Housing): ..................................36 The Bailiff :...................................................................................37
2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................37
3. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................37 The Bailiff :...................................................................................37

4. Rent Control Tribunal: Appointment of Members (P.44/2007)........................37

The Bailiff :...................................................................................37

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................37
2. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................37
3. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................38 The Bailiff :...................................................................................38

5. Jersey Dental Scheme: appointment of Chairman (P.47/2007)........................38 The Bailiff :...................................................................................38

5.1 Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................38 The Bailiff :...................................................................................38

6. Jersey Appointment Commission: appointment of Commissioner (P.48/2007)........38

The Bailiff :...................................................................................38 6.1 Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................39 The Bailiff :...................................................................................39

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................39 The Bailiff :...................................................................................39

PERSONAL STATEMENT.....................................................................39

7. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):.............................................39

1. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................40
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................40
3. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................41
4. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................41

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................41

The Bailiff :...................................................................................41

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS (resumption)

1. Annual Business Plan 2007: Property Plan (P.34/2007) – amendment (P.34/2007 Amd.) Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade :

Before we commence I declared an interest yesterday and I will leave the Chamber again this morning.

The Bailiff :

Yes, Deputy . Deputy Troy 's interest is noted. Now the debate continues on the Annual Business Plan: Property Plan. Deputy Hilton.

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier

Thank you, Sir. I just wanted to make a couple of points regarding the timescales of the proposed sale if the proposition is approved today in regard to 2 and 4 Dumaresq Street and 19/20 Charing Cross. Members will be well aware that this empty site is adjacent to some historic buildings which are at the corner of Pitt Street also. The old Foot Buildings. I understand from this report that no sorry, the point I wanted to make was that the Foot Buildings have been empty for a very, very long time and certainly from my time on the Environment Committee back in 2003 I believe that there was a tremendous amount of correspondence between the Co-operative in relation to trying to progress this development, but whyever these buildings are left empty their condition is literally deteriorating by the day and I am very, very concerned that such an important row of buildings - I believe they are the only example of late 18th century, early 19th century shops that we have now in St. Helier - I would just implore the Minister to try and arrange a sale of this site so that we can at least move on those historic properties next door. And the only other comment I wanted to make was on the properties proposed for sale in Trinity . I understand from the report that Les Amis have expressed an interest in these properties and Les Vaux are currently negotiating on their behalf. The only point I would make there, I believe that both properties are empty. Les Amis are not in desperate need but obviously there is a need there to have other properties available for group homes, so the point I would like to make there is that again if the proposition is approved today that these properties are disposed of as quickly as possible to enable that particular charity to help those people in the community that they do. Thank you.

2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade

Following Deputy Hilton I would also note that one of the things that I wanted was one property for a number of small charities to share together so they can cut their administrative costs and perhaps the Assistant Minister for the Treasury and the Property Department could consider this. However, I would agree with the Deputy of St. Ouen to some degree while disagreeing with his conclusions. The enthusiasm of youth: I shall handbag him later. [Laughter] I understand his impatience, but it is essential that we take the first step. There is no reason, once our ducks are all in line, that the rate of change and the development of this department should not accelerate and I look forward to confirmation of this from the Assistant Treasury Minister. The Public Accounts Committee considered that the report was an important first step but that further work needed to be done. Fine - fairly commonsensical. And the work that is needed should be in line with the Public Accounts Committee's recommendations. But you have to make a start somewhere and at least a start has been made. The Deputy of St. Ouen has already commented at length on the points raised by the P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) and I am not going to repeat them, except perhaps to emphasise that the performance targets for this department - as has been admitted - are not challenging and that to obtain best value for the States it is essential that the department acquires more commercial expertise and this appears to be underway. From our hearing the P.A.C. deduced that certain departments, such as Health and Social Services and Home Affairs, were dragging their feet over the transfer of property to J.P.H. (Jersey Property Holdings). It is essential that all

departments climb out of their silos and work corporately and co-operatively. As I am fond of saying, it is essential that they all hang together or they will assuredly hang separately. It is also essential that good governance arrangements are set in place for J.P.H. as soon as possible and that appropriate performance measures are established. How will we know how it is doing if we cannot measure performance? The programme of property sales, the ones that we have for sale before us now, have been identified for some time. Let us get that going; get those sold for the benefit of the capital account and then start looking at a comprehensive review of the property requirements of the States to see what we do need. I look forward to the strategic plan for Property Holdings which is due later this year. There may need to be some lateral thinking. Members will remember that it was reported that the occupied space per work station in the States was some 26 per cent higher than the U.K. Government office standard and nearly 73 per cent higher than modern office space efficiency standards and that this could translate into a realistic space reduction potential of 54,000 square feet, and in rental terms this is a sustainable cost saving in excess of £1 million a year. This is on top of the planned savings of £1.5 million in the revenue expenditure. It is possible, thinking laterally, that these savings could be achieved with the concentration of all Civil Service departments in one building but perhaps the Assistant Minister for the Treasury could give some thought to this. It would be unrealistic to expect an instantaneous implementation of everything in P.93 or in the Public Accounts Committee report but now that the first step has been taken there is no reason that the pace of change should not accelerate. I consider that it is essential that we support this Property Plan. A first step but an important one, but with the clear proviso that the Public Accounts Committee will be returning to this subject later this year to consider what progress has been made and, if necessary, we have the wherewithal to name and shame. Thank you, sir.

3. Senator P.F. Routier:

At the outset of the debate yesterday I declared an interest, but a non-pecuniary interest as I am the Chairman of Les Amis Incorporated which is the charity that provides accommodation and support to people with learning disabilities. Members will see that there are 2 of the properties in this Plan that have been identified for the use of the charity. They will be lived in by Jersey people with learning disabilities. In fact, No. 12 Clos de la Ville has been occupied by residents of Les Amis since the estate was built. The proposal to sell the property to Les Vaux Housing Trust and for the residents to pay rent to Les Vaux is a very good model and it has been working for quite some time and it assists people in living in the community. I should at this time place on record my thanks not only to Les Vaux Housing Trust but also to the Jersey Homes Trust for their unstinting support for people with  learning disabilities. Of course  my good friends, the Minister and the Assistant Minister  for  Housing,  together  with  their  departmental officers  have  also  made an enormous contribution to the lives of people with learning disabilities by identifying properties for people to live. I also would like to thank the officers of Property Holdings. They over the years have been very supportive of identifying properties for people with learning disabilities and they could not have been more helpful and more professional. Some of the comments yesterday about their skills I have to say I do not share. The other properties in the Plan which are intended to be sold to Les Vaux on the understanding that residents of Les Amis are housed are the 2 houses at Trinity . Both of these properties will ensure that the needs of people with learning disabilities who are currently in need will be met and I echo the comments of Deputy Hilton who said we would like to be getting on with that as soon as possible, because there is a need. I would also like Members to support the sale of these properties to Les Vaux because they will be put to extremely good and valuable community use. While these properties will help to fulfil the immediate need I have to inform Members that the community living plan for people with learning disabilities which has the backing of the Social Policy Steering Group - which is made up of Ministers of all the social departments - does identify that there will be a need for further houses in the future. While I have Members' attention I would like to also put on record that besides the need for homes in the community for people with learning disabilities there is also an urgent need for accommodation for an adult respite

service. I just need to put that down as a marker and I hope Members will be able to help us achieve that. Sir, although I have focused my comments on 2 particular properties I will also be supporting this Property Plan generally because I believe that the properties identified are surplus to requirements of the States and the proposals in this Plan are appropriate. I would suggest to Members that the better use of our assets and careful use of the proceeds of the sales of those assets is part of our overall fiscal plan. By supporting this Plan Members will be protecting the public from higher taxes. Sir, I would urge Members to give their full backing to this Plan.

4. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

Very briefly, I am sure that all Members would hope to make an informed decision on such major considerations as this Property Plan - indeed on all considerations that we make within the House - and I regret to note the lack of consistency in the information with which we have been provided. Some of the sites show how, why, when and at what cost they were acquired by the States, others give very scant information showing nothing of that detailed background information and I would ask that in future we be provided with a consistent amount of information. I would like to comment on the Hue Street/Dumaresq Street site on page 10. I am sure most Members when they read the words: "That negotiations have been taking place with B.G. Romeril for a number of years" felt that same sinking feeling as I did that we could allow such negotiations to drag on and I look forward to not having to read such statements in future now that the Property Department has been established. Thank you, Sir.

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

I am getting a little concerned that this debate is turning into a discussion about structures and operations and the abilities of Property Holdings in agreeing to dispose of properties which the States no longer have any use for and, of course, in doing so making our assets work much harder for us and reinvesting these funds into the future of our Island. However I make no secret of the fact that I too have had my frustrations in the way that Property Holdings operate. By way of example, I have been waiting some 10 weeks for a reply to a simple bit of correspondence in relation to a property matter concerning Home Affairs. But today is not the day to discuss such issues. Today we simply need to decide as to whether we are going to agree to proceed with the liquidation of these assets or not. Sir, I often hear Members complain about the complexity of reports and the lack of good executive summaries. Well, Sir, I believe for the purpose of agreeing this plan today we have before us in P.34 clear details about each of the properties in question. There is a description about each site, a location plan, details about current and previous use, reasons why the property is no longer required and details regarding any development potential, so I do not agree with Members who have said this is lacking in detail. There is sufficient detail to make a decision, the sort of decision we need to make today. We should, with the task today, approve this Plan. I say that with a very important caveat, however, which will ring true with all Members - perhaps in particular Deputy Duhamel and Senator Shenton - and that is that best value is achieved from the sale of these assets on behalf of the public of Jersey. This is something that we all should ensure happens. As for re-organising, re-structuring and importantly, perhaps, an injection of some real commercial reality in Property Holdings that, Sir, should be left for another day. Sir, I support this proposition and I would urge other Members to do the same. Thank you, Sir.

6. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier

I would like to remind people - remind Members - of where we started yesterday and I wish to thank the Deputy of St. Ouen for focusing on a fair and very central issue that is very concerning. We appear to be drifting on to individual bits of sale and saying what we think should happen to them, et cetera, and that is not the central point and not the central issue here today. The Deputy of St. Ouen yesterday sought to convince us, and I think he convinced me, that we are doing this the wrong way around. What we have is a Business Plan with no context, with no Strategic Property

Plan in which to set it. We have a short list of properties we may or may not want to sell-off without an inventory, without a complete awareness, of what we own; because it is not done. Now it seems to me that since the House has been convinced that the proper order of doing things is Strategic Plan, Business Plan, in that order, the Deputy is absolutely correct in saying we cannot possibly just tick this off - tick the boxes and let this go through - because we have no idea, because we do not have the information, of what the Strategic Plan is, where we are going with this. Apart from: "Well, we would like to raise a bit more cash." We could use it better, in general. It seems to me very short-termist and a retrograde step if we were to start doing things, building things the wrong way round and passing business plans before we see the strategy in which to embed them and that fundamental flaw, the inadequacies of what is before us today and what is not before us today in the light of what was set out in P.93 of 2005 means that I do not think we should be proceeding with this. We should say: "Go back to what you set out to do, do it and then come back." It seems to me that this indeed is a piecemeal half-hearted and quite amateurish attempt, the document before us today, and at present I am convinced by the Deputy of St. Ouen to vote against this Property Plan and I will be voting against it unless Ministers can convince me that for some reason or other I should build things the wrong way around and vote for a Business Plan before I have seen hide nor hair of a Strategic Plan.

7. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour

I wonder if you would give me I would like firstly to clarify the position. I was asked by Deputy Le Hérissier yesterday about health accommodation and this was further spoken of by the Chief Minister and me, but I have since spoken to the Director of Estates regarding accommodation and I think Members would probably be interested to know that firstly we are giving up lease properties; and we own a number of houses still at St. Saviour's Hospital and Le Seelleur and Bailhache Trust properties. And we do have a subsidy system for (j) Category contract staff and people now take properties out in their own name. Nurses are able to rent under (a)-(h) Category as other local people and basically, Sir, there is no problem for accommodation for people, for hospital healthcare workers. I would also obviously comment on the Plan before us here and I feel that this is a long overdue joined-up approach under Property Services but I also feel there should be more information for future property plans coming for us to debate. Thank you, Sir.

8. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

I too support this Plan and it is all very well to say that we need a list of all the properties, but I am sure there are an awful lot of properties and getting that list will take time and as it has been proved that this is the first tranche I look forward to the proposition being passed. The States do not have a very good history of looking after its own property and I think these ones have been identified as good ones to sell and I support that. Just a couple of observations. I am sad that the Belle Vue site is proposed for sale, as in the Scrutiny Sub-Panel Review we heard that it was earmarked as a nursing home and it is sad that at this time it could have been essential as a nursing home for the rest of the Island, but before everyone jumps up I understand the reason and I am pleased that it does state that it is going to be sold for sheltered housing and I would urge that that is followed through as we have heard from the Minister of Housing that there is a big need for sheltered housing especially in the west of the Island. Regarding Le Rondin Fields in Trinity , just one observation about the Field 823: the Jersey Cider Apple Collection. If people do not know, that is a beautiful field planted full of cider apples and it was planted to commemorate - if that is the right word to use - the great storm in 1987 and I would urge that one of the conditions be that it will be maintained to a very high quality because over the last year/18 months it is a shame to say that it has not been. Just the other area is about the houses in Trinity earmarked for Les Amis. I very much welcome that to be used as a group home and especially the close proximity to Acorn Industries as well as the church and the pub and of course the youth centre. Thank you, Sir.

9. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier

Yes, I support this proposition. There are too many buildings in this Island that I feel need some love and attention. There are many that have been left - for various reasons - unoccupied, some of them for considerable amounts of time and I watch with horror as I drive or walk past them and find that they deteriorate. Certainly the States nowadays have to look more businesslike at their property portfolio. £1.6 billion worth of property is a huge responsibility and with the start they have had they should be commended for the amount that they are achieving in trying to catch up and bring these surplus properties forward. However I do worry that the balance between achieving maximum financial results for the States' coffers - which is indeed the public coffers - and the balance of buildings for re-use that will still be very much part of an old community or new community and therefore there is a balance to be struck. We have just heard about a field with the cider apples, again an important part of the local community, but it might reduce the upfront purchase factor. But these are the sort of things that we as States Members, and indeed the public, share that make it of benefit to our Island. Likewise in the proposed disposal list numbered 1 and 2 in particular, talking about Hue Street, Dumaresq Street, Pitt Street, Charing Cross areas. As many of you know, I and the Constable of St. Helier and others spent considerable time fighting to maintain the historic quarter, as I call it, that is there. It is a lovely old historic part of St. Helier and it could be enhanced and certainly the Pitt Street, Dumaresq Street properties that are owned by the Channel Island Co-operative Society will be enhanced but they require the plot of land at the corner. I was hoping that this plot of land would remain open as it is a little gem in itself but the States have made a decision otherwise, but it seems to go on and on and on and I know that Senator Ben Shenton is very keen to move this forward, being one of the Directors of the Co-operative Society but I would also impress upon him that part of the planning gain for the area was to restore the façade to provide a better streetscape than exists at the present time on the front of Charing Cross and I hope that that will be included as part of the planning improvements. Likewise on the back when there were proposals when looking at areas in Dumaresq Street and Hue Street and proposals to swap land around, and hopefully B.G. Romeril being able to finish-off what is clearly an unfinished building, but I hope that when they look at the design side of it that it will be in their power to consider the historic quarter in that particular area and maybe sympathetically design a building which I know that Mark excuse me, I have just forgotten his surname, the Managing Director of B.G. Romeril will be very keen to do. Likewise with the Co-operative Society this could make an enhanced sympathetic historic quarter that we could be proud to signpost and show our locals and visitors alike that we do care about gems and it does not matter if something has fallen away in the past. We can still restore and compliment old buildings with new buildings but these buildings must provide modern living and working amenities otherwise they will not be maintained or built or restored and therefore it is important that we do not look at areas such as this in isolation, that we look at them in far greater detail. As an Assistant Minister of Education, Sport and Culture with responsibility for youth, I should mention, I suppose, Seaton Youth Centre in Seaton Place which is up for disposal. It no longer fulfils modern requirements for youth facilities and it has several drawbacks which I will not go into now. Previously there has been a promise that the sale of this or the assets from the sale of this centre will be put towards new youth facilities and hopefully restoring other ones, and as you know we have new youth facilities proposed on the Waterfront which is going to be a huge investment and I hope that the honour that was given in the past will still be honoured today. Having said that, Property Holdings have omitted one small States' property within that Seaton portfolio and that is a huge snooker table. It is too large for modern use and I have one or 2 others that may be available, shall we say, for restoration and to be transferred to a very suitable home. If anybody is looking for a snooker table please would they contact me, as I would we are pooling our resources, yes, because it would be sad to see such valuable assets disappear. They are large but generally speaking in good condition. Thank you,

Sir, for allowing the advert.

10. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier

Is it not quite remarkable, Sir, that in this Assembly that you can have people who are really good friends and yet they hold totally opposing views? I found this report a blast from the past. I really did. It was quite fascinating to read parts of it and the piece I was really interested in - there were a couple - was pages 27 and 28. Now I remember, Sir, that this land was re-zoned for a golf course and this is where I was thinking about the blast from the past, because I think at the same time Goose Green was re-zoned for a leisure centre. So this will tell you how far it goes back. But in 1994, when my first Committee that I was on was Planning - and in those days it was called I.D.C., Island Development. I can remember this particular field and walking around this area in those days, 2 or 3 times and we had people come over from England and officers spent hours of time putting up a golf course. It was very, very interesting, I must admit. I had never been involved in anything like that and I found it quite fascinating, but I kept the same with the thing on Goose Green, and the back of Romerils, exactly the same. I kept saying,: "Should we really be spending all this money and time and getting all these consultants over and everything else, especially the Goose Green one? The man does not want to sell it, unless he can have some houses there." And I said: "We do not own this property at St. Brelade to put this golf course. Why are we spending all this time and money and effort?" and I was told: "Now, listen. You do not understand how business is done. This is how business is done. This is how we should do it." Well, maybe, maybe. Obviously in my youth, as I might say I did not understand, but is that not remarkable? We did not get the golf course. We did not develop Dumaresq Street. Goose Green did not go for a leisure centre. I would like to know, Sir; plain nosiness I suppose you could call it, but like the Deputy for St. Lawrence , I find this short on facts. I am curious to know how much we paid for this field, as it is only worth £50 a year renting, and how much we are going to sell it for. I am very curious because I would like to know the answer to that. Did we buy it as commercial or entertainment or sporting or whatever it was? At what price? And what do we expect to get as a return on it? Or have we landed ourselves with another Sunshine Avenue deal? As I say, pure nosiness, Sir, but I think we have a right to ask. It is taxpayer's money at the end of the day and I

would like the answer to it. Thank you very much, Sir.

11. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin

It might be appropriate that I follow a blast from the past because I too was in the House in 1994-95 and I was one of the 6 who got it right and who said: "We ought to have bought the property and we should have had a golf course" and I still think there were 47 Members who got it wrong, including, I assume, Deputy Huet who was on I.D.C. at the time and I suppose against the golf course. But I think it would be interesting to find out how much we did pay for that field because it probably is going to cost or we did pay a lot more than what we are going to get for it now. But anyway, back to the Business Plan. I do support the principle of selling all our properties that we have no need for and I do not have a great problem about supporting this particular Plan except of course the question marks which have been raised - maybe fairly or unfairly - about the way in which Property Holdings or the efficiency of Property Holdings. I would ask the Minister maybe, in summing-up and I know the Deputy of St. John has touched on a thing that was not terribly important, but I do think it is. I think it is important that the House knows how in fact the properties are going to be disposed of. Are they going to be handling the sales by Property Holdings or will they be put in the hands of estate agents and if so, will it be a few estate agents or one? Also the fact will it be sold by tender, because I think it is important that we get the best price possible for these properties and also they are sold in a businesslike manner. I think it is quite fair to say the House, and I have said it yesterday, it has not had a very good record of buying, selling or maintaining its properties and I think what we have got to do is to be much more businesslike about it. So in summing-up what I would like to hear from the Minister is how these properties are going to be sold and also an assurance that they are going to be sold in the best to achieve the best property likely - possible - and also can be sold in a transparent manner, because I do think that those people who want to buy it feel they have a chance of buying a property at the best price and also in a good manner.

12. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier

I would like to start today with a good news story about States' property which of course many Members have heard does not have a great reputation. But there is a good news story which started when I catalysed an initiative on the Tourism Development Fund some 4 or so years ago with respect to what is now the Fortifications Letting Project, and from that start inquiries across the Civil Service soon revealed that other departments were going in a similar direction. We just did not know. Thereafter was formed a group drawing-in Property Services, Jersey Heritage Trust, Transport and Technical Services Department, Economic Development: all working together to achieve what is now - has been - an award-wining project with success, with nominations from the British Travel Writers Guild and I am delighted to say that the latest news is that the bookings for this summer are already standing at figures of 80 to 90 per cent. It is, I think, a very useful example of what can be done with some joined-up thinking, some creativity, some pump-priming money from the States and it is all developed into a highly successful project that is meeting and exceeding, I think, the aims that were originally set before it. The reason I tell that little yarn is simply because that is the sort of thing I would like to see Property Holdings develop into. A

branch of the States that thinks out of the box, uses a little bit of creativity in how buildings can be better utilised than they are and generally has something of an entrepreneurial and commercial flair about it. I am not entirely sure that we are there yet. But I want to maintain a positive view because I think the general concept is the right thing. But are we really getting that joined-up thinking? To illustrate my point I would ask Members to turn to page 11 of the report where they will see a map of the car parks behind Romerils in Dumaresq Street and Hue Street and I just want to give an illustration of what I call thinking out of the box, and that is if Members look to the north of the drawing, Hue Street, they will see a little sign a little notification of a car parking area and then they will also see - if they go and look just below where the car park C and car park B is, which is opposite the Post Horn Pub - there is clearly an access way called Shared Access. But the point I put to Members is, if we are contemplating a serious development here, which we clearly are given the scale of the ground plan, do we still need Hue Street? I have already put this point to the Connétable as to whether there is any mileage in order to create an even better proposal for development here as to whether there is a requirement for Hue Street and should Hue Street, or at least a section of it - potentially running from the car park zone at the top down to the shared access area or even further around - should that be simply extinguished and used as part of a straightforward planning gain to establish a nice green lung in the centre of town there, a little piazza area outside the pub and right next to the 2 tall States' flats there? Now, maybe that is a step too far in terms of stepping out of the box and thinking laterally, but I do not think so. In fact I was so positive about it that I have approached the Connétable of St. Helier and discussed it with him, and he thinks it may not be a bad idea. I do not think it is a bad idea, but this is the sort of thinking that I would like to see coming out of Property Holdings in the future, without any one of us having to pop up and make the suggestions necessarily ourselves. If Members would just flip over to page 13, I do want to be very positive about this, because as part of my previous role on the Environment Planning/Public Works Committee I know what an awful lot of work has gone into all the aspects relating to No. 4 Dumaresq Street which has the potential, as Members will be aware, of very successfully restoring the streetscape, both the art deco featured building on the Charing Cross side and the older buildings around Dumaresq Street which have all been researched in historical detail in, quite frankly, enormous academic style. There is quite clearly an obvious solution sitting here with the main neighbour, and that is who all the discussions have been with about how to take the project forward. What I would like, though, is an assurance from the Minister that if we are to, as it were, select a preferred purchaser - which clearly there is one in this case - are we going to suddenly find that Property Services are tied by some obscure piece of States' financial chicanery regulation in that this will have to go out to public tender to get the best price? Because frankly that would utterly destroy all the work that has gone on so far. I think that this is another aspect that I would like Property Holdings to bear in mind in the future. There are, surely, going to be occasions when getting the best price is not the best result. This I have selected as an example of

one where getting the best result for the Island is probably to do a good deal with a single preferred purchaser. If Members would just like to look at page 26, the fields at Le Rondin Farm, and I will make just a brief reference to what it says on the page before without having to trouble Members about turning back. Right at the end of the last page it says: "Redevelopment potential, if any. None", it says. None. Field 864 is in the green zone, the other 5 fields are in the country zone. Well, I have got to say that I am slightly worried about that blanket conclusion on the value of the fields at Le Rondin as having no potential for development, because if I could just draw Members' attention to the fact that immediately above the area marked down as The Fields is a location known familiarly as Howard Davis Farm and there is a very large field there, I think it is marked down as 827 which if I am not mistaken is currently a popularly viewed site as somewhere to put a new dairy. I am told it is slightly to the left. Anyway, this is the general area to where the new dairy may well go. Up at Howard Davis Farm. Now given that level of development there and given that 5 of those fields are in the countryside zone, I do query whether it is simply accurate to say there is no potential for development. Quite frankly I think there probably is potential for a development. It may not be this year. It may not be in 2 years' time but if I had the cash I would certainly be wanting to be bidding for at least Fields 849 and 851 because I have a very good idea that that will be a nice little long-term investment. So I do think that before we make these sweeping statements about no potential for development, hang on, we have not had the latest review of the Island Plan yet, and that could potentially reveal changes. Now I know the Connétable of Trinity is shaking his head at me, but that, I suggest, may be rather hopeful. We just do not know what the Island Plan review will turn up. I am quite prepared to be corrected and told that there is no possibility of any development on those fields, but I am a cynical old bird. But where do all these examples take the thrust of my argument? Really in a number of obvious directions and I will express my concerns directly. I am worried, and it is early days for Property Holdings admittedly, but I am concerned that the move of all departmental property into a single body has given enormous relief to departments who can now simply wash their hands of their previous responsibilities for property and maintenance and so on. So that is jolly good news, but I am concerned though that at the moment Property Services/Property Holdings is looking a bit like one of our famous old silos. I do get the sense of a certain prevailing silo mentality and am not really seeing the thinking outside the box that would encourage me about the way forward. Now I hope to be reassured in that point but I keep bumping into hurdles from various Members' speeches, for example, the clear tendency to want to simply sell-off properties and a clear indication that: "No, no, we do not really want the States to act as landlord." Well, I am slightly puzzled by that approach. I may be suffering from early onset senile dementia but I do not recall when we had the debate in the House about whether we wanted to just stick to sell-offs or whether the States perhaps should be a landlord and take a perhaps more proactive approach to its property portfolio, so I think that is frankly a debate that has yet to be had and certainly I would far rather see Property Holdings taking a broader approach to how property is handled. As I say, I would also like to see a creative approach. I do not want to go into specific details but it seems to me that not only in my experience with the fortifications project where there are a lot of old buildings and towers and bunkers sitting around the Island just acting as attractive and cosy homes for pigeons there are also a number of properties that are in various people's portfolios that probably could realise a lot more money than they are realising at the moment. Now I know that the Minister of Housing is quietly going through his portfolio to look at those and I would encourage a creative approach to some of the properties that we hold, but again going back to the States acting as a landlord, I think we have got a reasonably strong record of that. The Housing Department seems to play that role in a fairly extensive way as far as I understand. So I say we have not had this debate as far as I know and I would not want Property Holdings to adopt a closed approach to how

property is sold-off. Finally, as Members will appreciate, I do generally support the concept but in terms of the fine tuning I really do think that the priority in terms of how we handle the States' property portfolio should not be seen from a purely black and white accounting point of view. I think it is absolutely vital that on each property we look in the round, we look for joined-up

thinking and we first of all consider what is the community advantage in how a property - any individual property - may be used? I do not use the words "public interest" necessarily because obviously taking in huge shed loads of cash for a property may well be perceived as being more in the public interest, but I use the phrase carefully, what I describe as "community advantage", and that goes back to examples I have given where it just might be to the greater community advantage to either have a preferred purchaser, or take a lower price than you might realise in the marketplace. Now, I hope that the Minister can assure us in his summing-up that the new Property Holdings Department is going to show flair, joined-up thinking, entrepreneurial skills and so on, because then I will feel that I can give Property Holdings my full confidence.

13. Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter :

Deputy Huet earlier on remarked on 2 very old, hardy annuals that invariably come up from time to time. One was the La Moye land for the golf course, and I would remind everyone that the States took the decision to effectively scupper that plan, so that was really where that one floundered. But it was interesting to hear the mention of Goose Green marshland, which has proved to be quite controversial, because I am quite amazed at what has happened in all the arguments that have prevailed in recent times that nobody has mentioned the work done and carried out by the Bel Royal/Beaumont study group. Now, while I acknowledge that a number of them unfortunately are no longer with us, I can assure you that some of them are, because I was on it, and there are others as well that I could name, but I will not embarrass them. But, anyway, there was a lot of work, a lot of time spent, and there are any amount of reports on the shelves with the planners, which give you every reason why there should never be any houses built on the actual site that has proved all the argument and contention. But I will just leave it there, and let someone else deal with that. Dealing with the current proposal, Sir, there are 2 sites which I have difficulty with. One has already been mentioned by the Deputy of Trinity , namely the Belle Vue site. Now, that one, at the time, was clearly the subject of very bitter - and I mean very bitter - acrimony, discussion, negotiation, and absolute blistering arguments for a long, long period of time, and the entire site was only purchased in the end through the compulsory purchase measures. Now, the compulsory purchase measures on that site is the end product that you see in the housing that currently exists, and it is to the credit of all concerned that what has been produced clearly has provided homes for a large number of people. But the site that remains, which is under 5 vergées of land - which is not really that big an area - I think it would be absolute folly, in my opinion, to let this one go to the highest bidder. There have been a number of proposals. There was a scheme to deal with the residential care, and various units for a medical facility. Given that the area sits within a very heavy and densely populated area of St. Brelade, there is a lot of need - requirement- and undoubtedly that is not going to diminish. That is going to be there for as long as there are people living in that area, there will be a requirement for all sorts of different services which a site like that

is invaluable to have as an option, be it land bank or whatever you want to call it or describe it. Now, the general principle of the proposal that is presented today has a lot of merit. I am not going to quarrel with that at all. But I think the balancing act between some of the sites clearly has sadly gone a little astray. What I believe, how we could get a true perspective and value on that particular site, would be very clearly that - with the sale of the majority of other sites which are contained within the proposition, the proceeds of those sales would develop, without selling it off and having a Dutch auction where it is going to be hawked around to the highest bidder, and possibly end up with a lot of argument and all that goes with it in today's climate - we show a productive end to it and build the actual residential units that are required, one, for the care of our elderly residents, and the sheltered housing, which is much sought after now. I know that the Connétable of St. Brelade in the recent past has been highlighting the point and need for such a requirement, and I think we could have a considerable public gain all round if it was treated in an all embracing plan and proposal, as opposed to just saying: "Right, we are going to dispose of this site." There would be a tangible benefit overall to the Island. We could build it, I repeat, with the proceeds which, in effect, would not mean money being drained out of the public purse, and there

would be a considerable gain to be had from it. Moving now on to the other site which troubles me, I am going into the territory of Trinity . Saying Trinity , I am not going to suggest that the Connétable is on the saintly ground, but I am sure he is, coming from holy Trinity , Sir, but nevertheless, that is a very valuable site, and I am referring predominantly to the land adjoining and adjacent to the R.J. (Royal Jersey) building on the west side of the main road. Now that site is at the moment complete open landscape, open land. It has been under cultivation in the recent past and it is too valuable to separate and have under separate and other ownerships, given the popularity and the great public benefit to which the R.J. building now is being put to. It provides as a vital springboard to so much, not only in the Parish of Trinity , but indeed for the whole Island with so many different from agricultural shows to events which are staged there, and again the public would be better served with clearly maximising that as opposed to putting it up as suggested possibly by Deputy de Faye, and could one day end up in development land. I think the open land around there is absolutely vital because if you are going to have, and if the Island is going to stage, something which is going to attract so many to the Island generally - be it shows or events - we are getting limited where we can hold those events and clearly that represents a sensible and beautiful setting for any event, and for many, whatever they depict. Now, what I would like to ask you, Sir, as to when we reach the conclusion of this debate, the manner in how we are going to be expected to vote on these sites. Is it a case of having to vote for the entire list as presented in the projet, or will there be any separation of the sites?

The Bailiff :

There is one proposition, and Members must vote on the proposition as a whole, Connétable .

14. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

I refer once again to the proposed site of development at Belle Vue, St. Brelade . Members will be aware that the site was originally rezoned for the construction of a residential home, and the States subsequently decided not to proceed with this project for want of funding. I think, in practice - in retrospect - this was probably a good decision, in that the need and demand for residential care has altered to the effect that it has been decided to try to keep people in their homes for longer. This, in fact, has stimulated the need for sheltered housing, which is quite a contentious subject at the moment. The projet refers to the preferred development potential as sheltered accommodation for the over-50s. I have to say I would have preferred that a development brief would have indicated over-60s, but I am sure that with the co-operation of the Housing Minister this can be achieved and a community advantage, to quote from Deputy de Faye, be attained. The Parish supports the sale of the site, or the transfer of the site ownership of the site, in a way that will provide the best numbers to reduce the lists that the Housing Minister presently has for sheltered accommodation purposes. We look forward to working closely with Housing on the matter. Acorn Lodge in St. Brelade, in the corner of the Les Quennevais School site, the sale of which strikes me as being a short-term solution to an education project which they have on the cards at present. Clearly, the States, as has been demonstrated, are not terribly good property managers so, I think, on balance, that would be best disposed of. Field 373, which has been alluded to earlier on at Les Creux, I suppose I have to declare a slight interest in it. My sister has a house adjacent to it, but I do note that the houses adjacent were built subject to the States' ownership so its potential for development as a golf course has been severely reduced. It now accommodates sheep and geese in a fairly inaccessible area and I would think once again its development potential is very limited and value to the States once again limited, so I would support the disposal of that.

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

The last 3 speakers have in some way stolen a bit of my thunder, but I think we all tread the same paths ultimately. I should advise the House that Deputy de Faye's suggestion about what could or could not be done on Hue Street was part and parcel of alternative development plans that were considered by previous Planning Committees in conjunction with the Urban Designer and Architect. That said they do merit further attention. But one of the things, Sir, that really worries me about this proposal is that we are breaking new ground. Now we have been presented, Sir, with a whole selection of properties which we are being asked to give our approval of for disposal. We are also, within the body of the report, Sir, being asked to approve the Annual Property Plan, beginning to give an approval, and certainly moving towards that direction of setting-up the States Property Holdings as a States' trading organisation. Now, in terms of the organisation and how they will carry out their business, and the extent to which this House will have or will not have a say is not determined as yet. If Members turn to page 5, you will see that on the third paragraph before the end: "It is intended in 2007 to seek approval from the States for Property Holdings to be established as a States' trading organisation. If this approval is gained at a later stage, capital receipts will be credited to that organisation's trading fund", et cetera. The real thing that worries me, Sir, is that we seem to be being presented with a one-dimensional plan which does really emphasise a single solution for a large number of properties, and that is their disposal. If we read on page 3, under the report, Sir: "The Property Plan for the period to 2011 incorporated into the States' Strategic Plan that was approved in June 2006 contained the following key objectives." I will read 2 of them to remind Members and the public. One of them is: "To ensure that property is used, managed and maintained effectively", and we have heard, Sir, the appalling tales of a number of properties within the administration of the States that we have not really done very much on in terms of the maintenance and we could do, and certainly should do, a lot better in that respect. The last bullet point, Sir, is the one I would like to concentrate a little on, is: "To dispose or extract better value from property that is not contributing satisfactorily towards service delivery or the achievement of the States' objectives." So quite clearly, Sir, in terms of the overall remit of the Property Holdings Department, it is unjust to come to the House and to suggest, as they are doing in Appendix A, a schedule of properties to be disposed of. I am in complete accord with Deputy de Faye that we need a States' Property Holding Service that can think outside the box, can apply creative thinking to particular developments that we have and indeed, Sir, on page 5 of the report it

says that this is one of the things that they will be doing. But they have not done it in respect of the properties that appear in Schedule A at the moment. On page 5, Sir, it says under Net Capital Receipts: "In pursuing the primary objectives of more efficient and effective use of States' property assets, Property Holdings will identify properties that are not contributing optimally to the delivery of priority services. This may be through the under-occupation, high maintenance cost, inappropriate size or location, or number of other factors." It then goes on, Sir, to say that having identified such properties: "Property Holdings will determine an appropriate future use, which may be an alternative in-house use, short or long-term lease to a third party, or a disposal." Not just disposal, disposal and disposal, but a whole host of other things which potentially could derive a maximisation of the value of the States' property that we have under our administration. As I say, Sir, I do not think in bringing this proposition to the House that the States are being done any particular favours by the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers in solely recommending these properties for disposal. A number of Members have referred to the inadequacy of the reports that accompany each particular proposal, and I would like to refer to the inadequacies as well. What I would have liked to have seen is a little bit of thinking outside the box appended to each particular report, to suggest why anything other than a particular disposal of the property was not, in fact, possible. Now, we do not have any of this at all, Sir, other than we are being asked to get rid of these properties at a price to be determined by the Minister on the recommendation of the Property Holdings Department. That, Sir, brings me on to another point. Now, Members will know that I had, and still do have, extreme reservations about whether or not value for money has been found, in terms of one of the large property disposals that was being spoken about in this House a number of weeks ago, that being the Girls' College site. Now, we have mentioned the Le Seelleur Trust building at Oxford Road, and I recall, Sir, when we were debating this particular item a number of years ago I made a speech to suggest that it was not just the capital assets that were going to accrue to the House at any particular time that were important, but we need to be justified in terms of the monies that could accrue being greater than what could potentially accrue if a long-term lease,

which required the person who was taking it over to maintain the building, would be able to place in terms of the States' coffers. Long-term leases do give the States the best of both worlds. Now, we can, through the legal agreements, require the people who are taking it on to maintain the building, should we see fit, and we retain, in particular with the rising property market, the opportunity to release the capital asset at a later point in time. So it does not follow absolutely in terms of property management that a sale is always your best course of action. It certainly does not follow that a disposal of an asset which may have an alternative use, which has not as yet been identified because the process of asking people to think about potential alternative uses has not been carried out as extensively as perhaps it should have done, as we heard from the Deputy of Grouville in relation to educational uses. If we ask a particular department: "Do you want this property or not?" that is not the same as saying: "What uses do you think could be found for this property which might reside within your department or within somebody else's?" So, I am extremely worried, Sir, because we are breaking with tradition, we have new Finance Laws, and we are asking the House today to agree to the disposal of the properties that appear in Schedule A. The House is not being asked to agree to alternative proposals. We are going to dispose of these properties, and I think that is really short sighted.

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

May I interrupt the speaker to ask him a question, Sir, if he may give way?

The Bailiff :

If the Deputy will give way, you may.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel: Yes, certainly.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I am very supportive of the moves of the proposition, and I reserve my right to speak on the workings of the Property Holdings Department, which I think have gone great strides towards the right direction. What I would like to ask, Sir, during the course of the last couple of speeches, Sir, especially given the input of Deputy de Faye in relation to the disposal of the properties that are highlighted opposite Hue Street, I am considering bringing forward Standing Order 79 to refer the issue of the car park disposal to our Environment Scrutiny Panel, who are looking at the issues of the Transport Strategy, which is going to consider the disposal of Minden Place Car Park into building another car park in Ann Street, which we have just found out about on Monday. The question, Sir,  is whether or not the Chairman of this Panel, which I would possibly consider motioning this to, is speaking, and I wonder whether or not he feels that that is possibly a suitable approach for me to suggest or not?

Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :

It is not my understanding that you can just pick a paragraph or a particular property from this proposition and refer it to Scrutiny. I do not believe that Standing Order 79 would stand in this case, whatever the Chairman of the Scrutiny Panel's view on whether he is prepared to scrutinise that particular property is.

The Bailiff :

We will come to that in a moment. You may well be right, Deputy .

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I need to consider that. I think it might well be difficult, as mentioned by the previous speaker, to unpick this particular proposition in the way that is being suggested. But I do want to get back on to the point I was making, Sir, that we are being asked as a States' body to agree to the disposal of

all the properties that appear in Schedule A. Under the previous system of the States we would have probably been presented with each of these individually. We would have had the opportunity to discuss, along the lines of what is suggested by Deputy de Faye and others, alternative propositions to see whether or not the value that was being asked for, in terms of a disposal, was worthwhile in whatever terms that this House brought to the debate. In asking for us to give a blanket approval to all these disposals I think we are taking away the opportunity of all Members to get involved in the nitty-gritty of each of these particular sites. There are certain community uses that, as Deputy de Faye mentioned, might outweigh a short-term commercial gain in financial terms. Likewise, there might be better deals available which would derive greater income to the States in terms of maximising a financial gain. None of these things has been referred to specifically in any of the papers that are appended to the diagrams within the report. So, it is with that in mind, Sir, that I have extreme reservations about voting for this particular proposal, and would also suggest to the House that if they read on page 3, some Members have already alluded to the fact that this is just a first stab at it. I think we have heard mentioned from the P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) that this is Property Holdings' first attempt, and although they have said that they could do better, in fact, the Property Holdings Department will have an opportunity at a later stage to publish a revised and more detailed Strategic Property Plan towards the end of 2007. So, there is going to be more information coming forward at a later stage, and I think perhaps the better way of dealing with the debate might well have been to have waited until that report is published. That certainly will give the opportunity of setting the context for these property disposals, should they remain as property disposals within the broader framework as Deputy Southern was calling for, and the Deputy of St. Ouen. So, I think, unfortunately, I am really of the mind that this probably goes a step too far at the moment. It does not provide the flexibility or the certainty that whatever deals are done by way of asset disposal will be the best deals for the Island, and it removes an element of the ability of this House to make statements or comments in order to bring about a betterment in some particular cases. So, on those grounds, Sir, I think I would recommend that Members do not support the Property Plan, and indeed wait until the revised Plan has come

forward at the end of 2007.

16. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

I would like to speak briefly about 3 sites. I would like to start by talking about sheep. On your proposition on page 28 in green there is a field marked 373, and on the previous page it says that the field is presently let on an annual rolling licence to a sheep farmer, the licence fee being £50 per annum. I think, Sir, this is a classic example of an agricultural field being used for agricultural purposes in an agricultural area, and I would wish it to remain like that. So I would ask the Treasury Minister to bear in mind in the tendering process that if the said user of field 373 expresses an interest in purchasing the field for agricultural purchases for sheep that that is borne in mind as much as the tender prices that are offered. A little bit of background on this before I move on, this sheep farmer had 27 lambs born this spring and lost 9 of them because of the weather and the loss of one in 3 is extremely high. I would hope that as this sheep farmer develops his business that he can reduce the mortality rate of his sheep. [Laughter]

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I am sure that all the Members would join with you in that hope, but can we please come back to the proposition and move forward.

Deputy S. Power:

Moving on from that one, Sir, I want to move on to Acorn Lodge. The Constable of St. Brelade referred briefly to his reservations about Acorn Lodge and its possible disposal and timing, and I would like to make a few comments on that. This house, in my view, sits within the curtilage of Les Quennevais School and is not a separate site, if one looks at the map on page 31. Les Quennevais School is due for a major renovation, expansion and overhaul in the next few years. It

is the secondary school on the Island that is due for a major investment, as it is near capacity. One of the things that worries me about the disposal of Acorn Lodge is that the refurbishment of the school may have Health and Safety issues to do with it, and I believe that if the property is sold before the school is refurbished, that there may be issues that impinge on the redevelopment of the school, so I would ask the Treasury Minister to take that into account as to whether or not he allows it to go forward. Finally, Sir, I move on to what has already been referred to on the Belle Vue site at Les Quennevais. I also have a list of people who have expressed an interest in downsizing and moving on to sheltered housing in and around this site. Most of them are in the over-60s, and I would ask the Housing Minister when this site is delivered that he considers it would be the over- 60s rather than the over-50s, and I think that is an important point. I think when the Treasury Minister does go to tender it looks as if it will either be a developer or the Parish or a Trust that will look to develop the site, and I would hope that when the Treasury Minister moves on this that the Parish are given nomination rights on the allocation of these units. So I shall be taking a very deep interest in this site as it progresses through the process, but overall, Sir, I shall be supporting the proposition, irrespective of the mortality rate of sheep on it.

17. Connétable J.L. Gallichan of Trinity :

It is quite interesting how everybody has various views on property and land. I can only say I am delighted that fields 849 and 851 are going to be transferred to the R.J.A.&H.S. (Royal Jersey Agricultural and Horticultural Society). When I first became Connétable of the Parish, it was a concern to me and to the Honorary Police of the amount of vehicles and the access to the R.J.A.&H.S. As one already realises, this is now the major Island centre for shows and for festivals. It is very rarely it is not used every week, and I did write at that time to I think it was Public Services to see whether these fields could be at some time transferred for the benefit of the R.J.A.&H.S. to give an improved facility there, and I am pleased to see that it has happened. If people are concerned on whether this could be used for development, surely the simple way is that when the contract is passed there is a clause there saying that it is not possible to have property built on this, to keep it as a green lung. I would say there are ways, and all I would say to Deputy de Faye; the dairy to my knowledge is definitely not on field 827; it is to the left of that where, if you looked at the map on page 26 where the outline is - the little blue and the yellow - it is where the tunnels are at the moment, but definitely not on field 827. As for the other fields at Le Rondin on the other side of the main road, of course, these are just meadows and sort of catchment areas, very small fields indeed. I see that may be kept as rural; there is no possibility of building there. I certainly would not support any building or development on these fields in the future, but I am pretty sure that that is not the planned area for development anyway. Well, I hope it is not. I have a field which I have planned for first-time buyers, and I hope that will be the field that will be reserved, Sir, and not these. I fully support the Property Plan, and I do share concerns, Sir, that if we are going to come back with this sort of large projet, 53 individual Members have 53 different ideas, and we could be here for days and days if we have to either say this one should be kept or this one should be improved or this one should have better facilities. There must be a better way forward than just bringing a whole projet with all these properties that we can all just have our

different ideas on, but I will definitely be supporting the projet, Sir. Thank you.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

Could I say I am very indebted to the Connétable of Trinity for his superior map reading skills?

18. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I think I might be guided, Sir, a little bit by the reactions, if I can get them, from the Minister for Transport and Technical Services and the Chairman of the Environment Scrutiny Panel. As I said, Sir, in my introduction, I did want to know whether or not, having considered this morning the points made by the Minister for Transport and Technical Services, Minister Deputy de Faye, about whether or not Property Services is living in a silo mentality, whether or not they have considered

the alternative uses for the car park as been identified in the Hue Street area. The Transport and Technical Services Minister came to the Scrutiny Panel that we sit on, the Environment Services Panel, and with his Chief Officer presented a list of his business for this year and the forthcoming years. We sat there and we had a nice talk with him and his Chief Officer and we came to a mutual understanding that what would be of most benefit for us to scrutinise, in respect of the States getting best value for money from a Scrutiny perspective, was the Transport and Technical Services Transport Strategy for the Island, because we figured that that was probably the most expensive allocation of public money in that area, that we could help to scrutinise and perhaps come up with some better suggestions. One of the things that have been troubling me is the late release of the EDAW Report and why it has taken so long to hit the table. Now, while there are some wonderful things in the EDAW Report, one of the things that came to my attention on Friday, when I had a telephone call from an Assistant Minister, was that the plans to knock down Minden Street Car Park - which is a specific issue within the Transport and Technical Services Transportation portfolio - was going to be satisfied by creating an open space in that area, and knocking down Ann Street's accommodation there in my district where there is, in my view, inadequate housing facilities for people, and creating a car park towards the ring road and moving the vehicles away. Now, on the whole, that did seem to make a lot of sense in many, many respects. I think that offering people in those areas better facilities and more modern facilities is a wonderful thing, especially for people in our district. But I am just a little bit concerned now, and I was not before, but I am a little bit concerned now, that this Property Plan has to be approved en bloc or thrown out en bloc bearing in mind that it is properties recommended, not necessarily the wording of the proposition is key: it is we are to approve the annual Property Plan for 2007, including the Schedule of properties recommended for disposal. Not obligatory, but recommended. So, there is always the fall back there, but I am just a little bit concerned that what we are looking to do is knock down Minden Street Car Park because we are told it is in degradation, build a new one in Ann Street, and then get rid of the car park that is sitting in Hue Court that is empty. Why is there not a possibility of building a multi-storey car park there, if we need a new multi-storey car park? Maybe not, but has a serious evaluation been done on it? Well, I am told that because half of it is privately owned it is not possible, and there does not seem to be much enthusiasm for my concerns so perhaps I could shelve most of my concerns but at least I have raised them. I think that is important, to have raised them. Getting back to the overall support of the Business Property Plan; I think, in fairness, although there could be more information, I have seen bigger propositions come before the Assembly in respect of the Waterfront. They had far less, and we did deals for 150 years on those. So, I think they are to be commended in certain respects in the way that they have set out the position for us today. Albeit that there is a lack of information in many respects, there is a lot more information than we have been used to seeing. If you look historically at what we have been getting it has not been as comprehensive as this. If you look at some of the reports and propositions when I first came to the Assembly, they were very small pieces of paper, 3 or 4 or maybe 16 pages, quarter-size like this, with maybe one black and white drawing on the back, and no analysis whatsoever on a cost benefit basis. So I think that while there are recognised needs within the business of the Property Services Department, I think that they are going towards achieving many of the problems that we have had, and I commend them for the work they have done. It demonstrates that they are moving in the right direction. But what I do think is that there is always an argument that we should not sit down as 53 Members and become a planning committee, and Members say that that is a ridiculous thing for us to do because we all have different ideas. But, in this respect, they have demonstrated the histories of the different departments and developments and the properties that we all have some knowledge of, and even on my feet I have been able to pick up from Members very quickly - to my satisfaction - that the historical knowledge and the knowledge of the issues are there for me to be not concerned and to go back to my constituents and say that during the debate I had these concerns but they were shelved by the reassurances of the Housing Minister and the Transport and Technical Services Minister, who negated those during my speech. So would it not be better in the future for us to continue to do this? But in the future for us

to identify approving each an individual one at the final outset, so the same kind of proposition but just the numbers at the bottom. Then en bloc we can approve the ones that are non-contentious. There is no problem I can see with much of this, but on the individual issues, for example, the one brought about by Senator Shenton, rather than bringing in an amendment, we would be able to vote that one out based upon its merits and the interaction of Members during the course of the debate. To sum up, Sir, I congratulate the Property Services Department in what they have done. They have come a long way. They need to go a lot further, but they have come a long way in a short period of time. I would like to put across my thanks for Members helping me satisfy myself that there is no need for concern about that suggestion I had, but I would also like to make that point to the Treasury Minister - and the Chief Minister, especially as this is his proposition - that in the future I think it is of value for States Members to debate this but would you please put the numbers underneath the proposition so that we can approve each individual property? And if it is not to be done, then it will have to be done by an amendment.