States Meeting Transcript - 27/02/2008

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 27th FEBRUARY 2008

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................3

1. Waterfront Skateboard and Youth and Community Centre (P.8/2008)................3

1. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier . ...........................................................3
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ...................................................3
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................5
4. Senator M.E. Vibert :.....................................................................8
5. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................10
6. Connétable G.W. Fisher of St. Lawrence:..............................................11
7. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................12 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................12

1. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................12
2. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ........................................................12
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.......................................................13
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................13
5. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................14
6. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................14
7. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................14
8. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................14

9. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................15
10. Deputy J.J. Huet:....................................................................15
11. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:............................................15
12. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:....................................................16
13. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade:................................................16
14. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier : ................................................16
15. Senator F.H. Walker :................................................................17
16. Senator M.E. Vibert :................................................................17
17. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................18
18. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier:................................................18
19. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................20
20. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................21 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................21

8. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................22
9. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ............................................23
10. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................23
11. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................23
12. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................25
13. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................26
14. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................26 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................29

2. Goods and Services Tax: restriction on amendment of 3 per cent rate (P.19/2008)...29

2.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................30

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................31
2. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................32
3. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................32
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................32
5. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:......................................................32
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................33
7. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................34
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................35
9. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................35
10. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................35 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................36

3. Manual Workers' Joint Council Employers' Side Membership (P.24/2008)..........36

3.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):........37

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................37
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................37 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................37

4. Draft Distance Selling (Jersey) Law 2007 (Appointed Day) Act 200- (P.26/2008).....37

4.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):......................37

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................38
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................38
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................38
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................38 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................39

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................39

5. Connétable D.F. Gray ofSt. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .........................................................................................39 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier : ............................................................39 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................40

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................40

The Roll was called and the Deputy Greffier led the Assembly in Prayer.

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Waterfront Skateboard and Youth and Community Centre (P.8/2008) The Deputy Bailiff :

We return to the debate. Deputy Huet was the next, I see.

1. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier .

We have 10 St. Helier Deputies and a St. Helier Constable that lives in the Parish and we have some of our Senators that live in St. Helier and they - except for one Deputy of St. Helier- are well aware, I think, that our children for a long time had no space about, i.e. be it to mooch or whatever teenagers do which we have all had I think at some time or another. I think this is long, long outstanding, and it is for a long time we have tried site after site after site and each time there is an excuse, an excuse, an excuse. Usually the excuses are noise, and you have to be fair if it is close to an elderly folks' home, or people where they live on a continuous but this is not one of those sites. The reason against this site as far as I can see is cash. That is solely all it is. It is way out from anywhere else. It is not going to affect people that live around it, and it is central and this is what we need. Can I please ask, please, please, let our children have somewhere. The children of St. Helier are a lot more confined, dare I say, than if you are lucky enough to live in the Parishes and have a lot more space and that to roam and a lot more freedom, I might say. You are very, very restricted in St. Helier. We have very few spaces like this that are always moving our children on because they are causing a disturbance to somebody. This is a place that they would not be causing a disturbance to somebody, and I please ask you to finally give our kiddies somewhere to have for themselves.

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

I did skateboard when I was a child in St. Helier, I grew up in Don Road opposite the Howard Davis Park, and I was fortunate enough to have the Howard Davis Park and the Dicq Beach to play on. But children do like to perform a variety of activities and skateboarding was one that my 4 brothers and I used to like to engage in. I remember on many occasions coming down the hill that runs along the side of the Merton called Mary Street, which is a gradient - I do not know what that is, one in 2 or whatever it is - a very, very steep hill and at the bottom of it you would come out into Georgetown, and the occupation of the day was to jump on the skateboards and try to jump off before your skateboard took you into the traffic at the bottom of Georgetown. Sometimes we decided just to stay on and see if we could make it, and I remember once one of our friends was not quite as good as us and he got smashed into the side of a car. Now, this was in I was born in 1963, skateboarding probably around about 1974/75 and here we are in 2008 and we still do not have a proper facility for skateboarding. So while I would say there are greater amenities for children, a lot of those amenities that have been invested in have been taken away. The point that was made by Deputy de Faye of the cable cars, for example, in the year - and I usually have this to hand - but in the year that they stopped the cable cars they lost 160,000 visitors a year, when they took away the cable cars. That was then, in the days of the population then. So, there was that area when we were children to go and play in and many of us did go and play there. But as Deputy de Faye quite rightly said, it is not there any longer. I came yesterday quite intent on supporting the decision that this may be not the best way to use this space, with some reservation about the location because of the fact that I had worked in the marina prior to becoming a States Member as one of the States marina attendants and I know that the children used to congregate in this area and on the New North Quay to skateboard and it can be argued, or could be argued, that during the summer months when the visitors for the marina are high, and the visitor level spend is high also, that the noise from skateboarding would be detrimental to those people on the yacht facilities. I am struggling a little bit with the proposed location, but then as everybody has said since, it is location, location, location, is it not? It just keeps going around and around and around. I suggested to

Senator Walker and also to - naively I guess - Deputy Maclean that perhaps an alternative location would be to the side of the reversing bay at Mount Bingham, but I have since been informed by my colleagues in the States that many children would not wish to travel that distance to skateboard. That is unfortunate because I know that they do sometimes take their skateboards into the La Collette Gardens so I thought that that was possibly an opportunity. But then I listened to Deputy de Faye's reasoning about their preference to demonstrate and exhibit their skills to the onlookers and nothing pleases children more to be watched while they entertain and perform in front of their peers and in front of the tourists and in front of their parents, et cetera, so I really did take on board that memory that it may be a little bit of showing off but it is also about: "Look at me, mum; look at me, dad; I can do this, I can do this." That really drew me back to the point that Deputy de Faye made which is about the location. In his words, the location is pretty much the right location, just away from where they love to gather in Liberation Square. I was struggling between this concept of best utilised space in the harbours, potential noise, and then the Constable of St. Helier stood up and took away what was going to be a suggestion of mine, and it does sound a little bit glib, but really is the steam clock really something we want to continue to live with? I do not know anybody that likes it. If ever there is a health and safety issue, this thing that does not operate on time, costs about £250,000 a year to maintain or something stupid, blows the whistle so that people are distracted when they are taking the turn, and are surrounded by rusting chains the department has put in, as far as I am concerned there is going to come a day when the steam clock is going to have to go. If there is a need to provide children with greater access to play areas in town, and there certainly, is, then where is there a less commercially viable space than the steam clock? Any skateboarding activity in that area would not annoy the visitors and if we support this today I think that we might drive the Economic Development Committee to talking with the Harbours Department into finally getting rid of the steam clock, and putting in its place a skateboard facility. Either way the bottom line is, I think it has come time to say: "Let us make a decision on giving the children something." I was taken by the speeches yesterday, at the end of the day, by the Constable of St. Helier who remarked upon the difference between the morning and the end of the day when we had suddenly changed from our wishes to give to the children, and also struck and deeply moved last night - as I am sure most Members were during the service - about our need to provide for children and our need to look after children. I do not think we are doing as much as we could be doing, especially in St. Helier. I know many children in town, because I live in town now, do not have anywhere really to go, and I see a lot of them on the street corners smoking, sometimes at the age it looks like of about 7 years of age, smoking, drinking, cycling, playing football. You could take a picture and you think it would be something akin to Longsight in Manchester. This is quite serious hardcore lack of services for children in the heart of town. I think that there may be an issue, and I am certain that if anybody is going to know about the 3 key principles to real estate, the Assistant Minister for Economic Development will manage to find the location, location, location. I think that this area - this location - roundabout here, is very, very important for the commerce of the ports, but the steam clock is not. It is not yours. The Assistant Minister tells me it is not his. I do not think anybody would admit to it being theirs, I think everybody hates it; I do. I wonder if it is not time that we could not find an alternative location for it, or somebody that we could gift it to, put it on eBay, fantastic, [Laughter] as long as we do not have to pay for the postage. So, I am going to support it. I did tell the Assistant Minister I was not going to support this but I think, on reflection, listening to the speeches of my fellow Deputies from St. Helier, there is not enough for the kids in town, and that is the bottom line. There is not enough for the kids in town. There are no lifts and elevators going into Fort Regent, which have been promised for years and years and years. Nothing has been done. Fort Regent's swimming pool has been closed down, the swimming pool on the Waterfront is too expensive, everything is money, money, money, money, money. I am sorry, I think, there may be a problem for the Economic Development Department if we approve this, but I am sure it is not beyond their grasp to sort out. Sir, I will be

supporting it.

3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I know that my remarks are being eagerly awaited before Senator Vibert and some other people speak. I should start by saying that I will be supporting part (b) of the proposition because I think that that is obviously not contentious. Sir, I am I think, bar one, the youngest Member of the Assembly still, I cannot however in my youth remember being involved in skateboarding culture, and so I cannot say that I understood the passion at which lots of young people do enjoy skateboarding, but I do have one special adviser on the subject. I have a 15, 16 year-old Godson and I joked that he was going to become my special adviser and about 18 months ago, prior to last year's ice rink, paid for by Economic Development - I will come to Economic Development and our team approach with other States departments in a minute - he took me and spent an afternoon with me at a skateboard park in central London where he lives, underneath the Hammersmith flyover, the most fantastic skateboard facility manned with wooden jumps. There must have been, I guess, 150 young people enjoying themselves with suitable protective gear, et cetera. I could see he had always spoken to me about the passion about this particular activity had for him and his brothers, and I could see why. Clearly there were young people engaging safely in recreation and they are clearly better there than doing some of the other things that perhaps they may be tempted to. So I thought it was fantastic and I also thought that it was something that Jersey should have had a long time ago. I want to say about co-operation, Sir, because I know that it is going to be said that Economic Development are not being corporate. I would ask Members, with the greatest of respect, to judge Economic Development on our record. I am proud that my Ministry and my department act corporately with other departments of the States. All the time I am a corporate team player, I want to find solutions together with other Ministerial colleagues on the common good. Home Affairs, prison improvement plan, we help. We help with Social Security and Education on the Skills Executive. We have tried to build very strong relations with the Education Department on culture. We are admonished indeed I am admonished for investing Economic Development money in things like Liberation Day, an investment in the cultural identity of the Island. It was Economic Development that came forward and dealt with the ice rink, and did the trial, and paid for the trial for an ice skating rink with Serco. It was not at the Watersplash, it was on the Waterfront. I would ask Members to respectfully judge us on our track record of team playing and working with other States' departments. The Constable of St. Helier, not in the Assembly, said we should have our feet held to the fire. He did not tell Members, but there again Economic Development is working with St. Helier and has agreed by transferring existing resources to part fund the Town Centre Manager, which his ratepayers have been asking for, and he has not delivered. But we are bringing forward with him in order to do so. Another example where Economic Development is working in true co-operative partnerships with other States' departments. So I would ask Members, respectfully, when we do raise the flag on a particular issue then I would ask Members to listen carefully to our concerns and to take them on board. I am concerned and a number of Members have spoken about the financial considerations. We are only doing our job, Sir, when we do explain to the Assembly the facts in relation to the financial matters, and Deputy Ferguson wearing her hat as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is quite right to question and to ask questions about some of the costs. I will come to some of those in a minute because, frankly, the report that we have says that there are no financial implications to

the States on this. I am sorry to say, Sir, but I do not know how this gets into the system but that is just wrong. There are financial implications for the States and States Members this morning must understand the cost of this because there is no free lunch. Somewhere, somebody is going to have to pay. There are 3 elements of costs. There is the opportunity cost that Harbours will lose the parking revenue from that area of land, and that is between £48,000 and £68,000. We will lose that money because that money we will get no money for that. That is the first financial implication. The second financial implication is the cost of constructing the facility. We are told that W.E.B. (Waterfront Enterprise Board) are putting in £100,000 to do that, and I understand - and I have spoken to the Chief Executive of the Waterfront Enterprise Board this morning - that there is a discussion still going on about whether or not £100,000 delivers the skateboard park to the standards that people have been requesting. But the third thing is the implications and I have the letter from the Social Security Health Inspectorate. The third thing is, yes, they have said that the facility could be located on the New North Quay, but they have also said that there should be - because obviously it is a working commercial port - a fence around it; that is going to cost about £40,000, and it should be manned. Now that is not manning for the safety of the children as the site that I saw in London, which is ensuring that children are appropriately protected with knee pads and all the other things. This is just a security guard to ensure that we are not allowing young people to get into the busy operational part of the port. I do not know how many Members have been down there, but it is no under-estimation to say that there are 150 vehicle movements down on the New North Quay. I am afraid that Deputy de Faye, he cannot get away with simply saying to this Assembly: "Oh, there are no boats at the weekend." Ferryspeed operates out of that facility, and I think also there is a lack of clarity; some Members I think thought that this was going to be located in the TNT Ferryspeed building. No, it is not, it is going to be outside, right along the marina on the outside parking area. That operates 7 days a week. I am afraid that your Harbours Department of which I know that there are issues and concerns with Members about Harbours and have been for years, and yes, we are working very hard, just as we have done with all economic departments, to raise the standards and raise the game of all our departments. I understand all of that and I do not particularly hope that Members are going to send a signal for effectively a kick up the backside for the Harbours Department into pursuing that. We are working very hard to improve all our departments and the performance of them, and I recognise all of those issues. But the Harbours Department is saying the advice received is that it is not sensible to put a skateboard park in this commercial area. Indeed, I have had and I have been disappointed I have to say, and it pains me to say this because I, as a Minister, treat other colleagues and Members in the manner in which I would like to be treated myself, and the communication that we have had, it seems to me, has not been exactly 2-way. I regret that, because we will try, we will always try and work and the statement that the Chief Minister made ignored one interested party when he made his statement on 15th January that he had met with Deputy Gorst and Senator Vibert and Deputy Fox. There was nobody, I have to say to the Assembly, from the Harbours Department and I am afraid that we have been put into this position. We have been put into the position of effectively that: "Oh, it will go down there and they will make it happen." Well, the practical arrangements for that, I am afraid, are not realistic. I fear that this is an example of old-style States' decision of the States making a decision not with the full facts. Now, Health and Safety have said it can go down there. It can go down there if we put a fence and if we put in full-time security people. That will come at a cost of in excess of £100,000 a year. Who is going to pay for that? Who is going to pay because there is

no money? If Senator Perchard wishes to come in, I am happy to give way.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I know it is not his department, but is he aware as to how much the maintenance cost is per year on the steam clock?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I have enormous sympathy, Sir, for Deputy Le Claire about alternative sites and, yes, we can debate Fort Regent, I do not know, it is not my department. I certainly agree with him and the other comments that we should boil the thing down and sell it off for scrap metal but that is another issue. I am giving way to Senator Perchard.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

I would like clarification, Sir, on Senator Ozouf 's claim and insistence that a full-time security guard must be posted on any facility. Who said this, and is it credible?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

It is credible, and I will just find my notes here. I have the letter from the Social Security Department, Health and Safety Inspectorate, dated 25th January 2008 to the Harbour Master. This is from the Director of Health and Safety that basically sets out the examples. In paragraph (d) of his letter it says: "But in my view based upon the record of incidents will need to include permanent security personnel for the area." Now, we do have a track record, and I have here advice from the Harbours Department a report on safety of the number of issues down on the we already have an issue of young people around on the New North Quay endangering themselves. Yes, there are some security cameras, there are already incidents down there. We are aware of that, and that is why C.C.T.V (closed circuit television) cameras are put in there. But there are issues and there are real safety incidents. It is not only in Jersey Harbours - as my Assistant Minister explained yesterday, with sincerity and with information best available to us - other ports are saying: "Please do not have skateboarders around port areas of unloading facilities and where there is water, et cetera. It is dangerous." You can see why. All right, yes, we can put fences around it, but how are we going to stop kids getting outside of the fenced area and all the rest of it? So the advice is on here that there is going to be a requirement for Health and Safety, that there is going to be a cost of having a full-time security personnel. Now that is not, Sir, in the financial implications. But if we are to deliver this, and I understand it is Harbours that has to pay for this, it is Harbours that is going to have to pay for the fence I will give way to Deputy Fox if he disagrees.

Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier :

No, I will cover it in summing-up, Sir, but it is not true.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

He is going to have to explain to the Assembly the financial arrangements that we have, and I want Members to make a decision which is fully informed. Fully informed. At the moment we are being told that there is £100,000 available from W.E.B. for the construction costs. There is still a discussion about that, but presumably it could be made. Then there is the issue of the cost of the fence, then there is the issue of the cost of the ongoing security, and I have set aside the lost revenue for Harbours. All I need to say to Members is that the Harbours Department cannot afford to pay - and I am told the figure is here, and I am sure that Members will understand that this is a reasonable estimate - one security guard to cover the cost of the commercial south rate at a rate of 15 times 24, 365 is going to be within the order of - it is probably not going to be 24 hours - it is probably going to be in the order of £80,000 or £90,000. So Harbours is going to have to pay for and I see Members shaking their head but what am I to do? Am I to say: "No, we are setting aside the formal Health and Safety advice and we are not going to put a security person there?" I think we are going to be told exactly that, that we are going to be told that we have to put a security fence and we have to put security guards. I am afraid to say, Members would admonish Economic Development by effectively magicking out - which we have not got - that money from our budget. We have not got it in our capital fund, we have challenging future scenarios for the Harbours Department in terms of its capital, which we are meeting Treasury, et cetera, on. I am afraid we have not got the money. I am afraid that P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) needs to relook at the way in which a proposition is coming to this Assembly when it says it has no financial implications, because it does not. It is not right, and it is not good decision making, and we have been here many times before. Sir, it pains me to have to stand up and make a speech and make a set of remarks like this, because I will say that I support completely a skateboard park being constructed in Jersey, and I think that all Ministers should be working co-operatively to find a solution. I commit and I will undertake to Members to continue to work or at least to start because we have not been, in truth, particularly involved in any of these things and it is all the people that are recommending this that are effectively putting a situation, information Members: "Yes, it can be done" but without all the information having been made. I would say to Members that I think that we have got to either move on - and I am not going to put this proposition - but we either should not make a decision on this today or it is going to have to be rejected. I will have to vote against it short of any other procedural matter, but I do undertake and I do completely commit to Members to use, as is the normal spirit of co-operation and spirit of can do', I will work with Members in order to try and find a solution. But I am afraid I am not prepared to allow a situation where Members are making a decision blind. It seems to us that it is the wrong site, that has been clear, but it also seems to us that the financial implications of making that undesirable site safe have not been worked out moreover that the money is there. I fear the worst of all situations is going to arise, that we are making a decision and the decision today is not to hold the feet to the fire of Economic Development, it is to put it on the New North Quay and to deliver it by the end of the year. If there are other sites then we need to talk about that. I am told that the President of the Association, in meeting with Harbour officials says that he prefers it up at Fort Regent, but it was Education who did not want it at Fort Regent. Now, I do not know whether that is true or not but certainly that is what the President of the Association says. I do not know whether that is true. I would ask Members to judge Economic Development on our track record of co-operation. We have invested and we will continue to invest in youth and community facilities for the Island. But do not let this Assembly make effectively a decision on the hoof, without the full information, which I suspect would go disastrously wrong when we find the full situation. I am sorry, Sir.

4. Senator M.E. Vibert :

I hate to disappoint one of my fellow Ministers, Senator Ozouf , who was looking forward to my speaking. Can I say I - first of all - would like to totally agree and praise Economic Development for being a leader in being corporate and for working very closely with my department and other departments on many issues. I just wish that corporate feeling and working together had extended as far as one part of his department - the Harbours - because I do not see it, and I do not see it in the report that has come in. Can I say that I will mention E.D.'s (Economic Development) report and I do not think this Assembly and States Members were done a service at all by not having that report until either late the day before yesterday or yesterday morning.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Can I just say that my Assistant Minister explained that we apologise for the lateness of the report because we were trying to meet with senior officials right up until the wire to ensure that the States would be fully informed before making a decision, because we did not want to have to be put in this position that I would be opposing

Senator M.E. Vibert :

I asked for an explanation, not another speech. The issue with the late and I am sure for very good reasons, but I will go on. The issue with the late production of the comments puts Members at a disadvantage because none of those comments can reasonably be challenged, we have not got time to ask and challenge, and we have had, just before, Senator Ozouf making great play about the need for security personnel, which is not even included in the comments and the costs there. So what are we, as States Members, to make of all this. I can understand the feeling of Harbours, but Harbours did know about this and E.D. did know about this, not just on 15th January but they were contacted shortly after, I understand, by W.E.B. after we had a meeting on 8th January, which is nearly 7 weeks ago, to discuss this. I have been involved in it and I knew very little of any of the detail, in fact none of the detail of Harbours misgivings and concerns until the I knew they were talking about it, but I had no detail of it, nothing about it, until I received the e-mail from States Members as well. So we are talking about co-operation, we are talking about working together. I would have liked to have known about their concerns much earlier because then perhaps we could have tried to resolve them. I do and again I would not seek to compete with Deputy de Faye at all in his critique of the comments from the Assistant Minister yesterday, but I do find that they protest so much and not in a very balanced way. I find it quite incredible, there seems to be this absolute abhorrence that young people might go into that area on the New North Quay. Yet, right next to the proposed area is the Maritime Museum which is designed specifically to attract young

people, and young people go there already. I do think, and understand, that the Harbour want to protect their own, particularly commercially. The emphasis in the comments are on the potential loss of income. I can understand that, they are concentrating on income to them, but I do not see anywhere in the comments the value that this community facility will give to the young people of the Island, and the Island as a whole, to put as a balance against that potential loss of income. I regret that in this one instance, and as I say, Economic Development are a leader in this field, we seem to have a cannot do' attitude rather than a can do' one. I do not regard Harbours as a separate state but as part of Jersey. We have got to look at it as a whole and I believe this issue has been put off long enough, and if Members feel a skateboard park should be provided then I believe they should support this proposition and I am sure, if a better alternative in the area is quickly found that can be provided in the timescale, that is even more suitable and that there be no objection from Deputy Fox and this Assembly to changing it, say, for example, as Deputy Le Claire suggested, to the site of the steam clock if that was thought preferable all round. What I worry, Sir, is that we put off yet again, we disappoint the young people yet again in what we said we would provide and then do not deliver. I have got a lot of sympathy with Economic Development but I do not think, even if they were working to the last minute to get information, I do not think this has been handled well. This projet has been lodged for 6 weeks, I think they should have brought their comments out much earlier. I think it would have given States Members a chance to look at it to consider, to say: "Can we look at some of these objections, is it really going to be that loss of income, is it really going to cause all these problems?" Senator Ozouf quoted from a letter to do with Health and Safety; can I quote from an e-mail from the Director of Health and Safety of the Health and Safety Inspectorate clarifying their role in this, and that is: "The role of the Inspectorate has been to provide advice to Jersey Harbours on their legal responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work Law and on appropriate standard for construction and to the Channel Island Skateboard Association, on appropriate standards for construction of the skate park. We have not set out any objection to the location of the skate park at the New North Quay." That is from the Director of Health and Safety, the Health and Safety Inspectorate, which states clearly: "We have not set out any objection to the location of the skate park at the New North Quay." So, there will be issues to overcome. There will be security issues to overcome, but there will be security issues to overcome wherever we put a skateboard park, and it is an area now that is used and is open to the public, the Maritime Museum there, the Occupation Tapestry is there. I find the suggestions that somehow one part of the public should not be allowed to go there does not ring quite right with me, and I think Deputy Fox has brought this forward in good faith. He has convinced me that there is a need to create a skateboard park for the young people in St. Helier, in the basin of St. Helier, not up at Fort Regent, we had a skateboard park there and young people did not come up to use it in great numbers because it was

in the wrong place.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

I was the President at the time, it was solely because the charges were inhibiting people coming in; the cost of entering the Fort.

Senator M.E. Vibert :

I accept that there was a charge, Sir, and I accept the Senator's view, I just do not agree with it because some young people and we looked at it when I took over at Fort Regent, we looked at it again and we surveyed and talked to young people. They said, and told us, that the biggest objection was with their skateboards coming up there. They wanted somewhere down in the basin. Of course, the future of Fort Regent is under discussion and I do not think that again another option put forward - an option that has been tried and failed - is the answer. I say to Members to consider the issues, I will be supporting this as I believe it can be made to work, and is a facility we should provide.

Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin

I would like to propose a reference back, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

When your turn comes I will certainly hear you but I am not sure you can leap in before other people that I have

The Deputy of St. Martin :

Article 83 says a Member of the States may propose without notice during a debate on a proposition. That proposition may be referred back

The Deputy Bailiff :

When called by the chair, so when your turn comes you can do that if you wish.

5. Senator J.L. Perchard:

I do not intend to repeat the many comments made during what I think has been an excellent debate with excellent contributions particularly from Deputy de Faye, Deputy Gorst , Deputy Martin and Deputy Southern . I will confine my contribution, Sir, to matters anew. Firstly, I would like to touch and speak on part (b) of the proposition - the less contentious part. Part (b) of the proposition, to remind Members, is to ensure that a youth and community centre be established on top of the Waterfront multi-storey car park before 2011. As a States' nominated director of the Waterfront Enterprise Board, Sir, I can confirm that W.E.B. has recognised the requirement for a community facility on the Waterfront. We have identified a site for such a development, on top of the Waterfront car park, and as such we have engaged a multi-agency working party charged with detailing the functional requirements of any such community centre, Sir. I say to Members that if they support part (b) of the proposition today and if our Minister for Planning and Environment gets behind the momentum in accepting our social responsibility in this area, that W.E.B., at least while I am a director, will deliver this community facility well before Deputy Fox's target date of 2011. I would like to make, Sir, a few additional points on contributions made on part (a) by Members. Some Members have expressed their concern regarding children's safety when accessing and using the proposed new skateboarding area, Sir. People have genuine concerns about safety concerns. I was particularly moved by the concern shown by the Minister for Economic Development and his Assistant Minister who spoke very movingly about the children, their safety, and how they both support their needs. They spoke warmly about the requirements for youth facilities and  [Interruption] They spoke warmly, Sir, about the requirements for youth facilities and the need for a skateboard park, but somewhere else. Anywhere but not on their patch. They spoke at length, Sir, about safety issues surrounding access and use of the site. I know their concerns are genuine in this area but I do believe they were flagged-up as a diversion to Members and I will endeavour to explain why. If Members could picture the pedestrian walkway to the west of the Maritime Museum, this walkway may be 20, even 30 metres wide; no cars, no lorries, just pedestrians. This walkway leads directly from Liberation Square to the proposed skateboarding area and, of course, Sir, in reality this is how children will access this area. They will access safely.

The site will be contained with security fencing, which will not cost £40,000, so as to ensure that a child cannot just burst out on to a path of an oncoming vehicle, and when finished boarding, Sir, children will return the same way they arrived. The safety argument being promoted by our caring, sharing team from Economic Development, Sir, is a nonsense. It is a diversion, and I ask Members not to take it seriously. Finally, Sir, I would like to talk about the integrity of this House. For over 4 years we have promised the people we represent that we will deliver a skateboard park. The Chief Minister made a statement to this House on 15th January this year confirming that this very site had been identified and that this development will provide much needed facilities for our young people. I urge Members to keep the promise that has been made and not be swayed by the superficial money-grabbing arguments being peddled by some. They should know better. Sir, I will remind Members that the Health Protection Unit of the Health and Social Services and the Director of Health and Safety at Social Services both confirmed that this site is suitable. This debate today, Sir, is a microcosm of a much bigger debate that is taking place in Jersey. This is about our priorities and our principles, a debate about what is important to us: money, growth, economic development; yes, of course they are important. But we are an Island capable of developing huge business. We are a desirable place for business and people who want to relocate here. But where do we stop? Do we stop? Can we continue to grow? Office building, house building, developing new business, without providing proper facilities and infrastructure for those we represent. I ask Members, should we continue to grow without providing proper facilities and infrastructure for those we represent? No, of course we should not. We just cannot. I say to Members, we have a responsibility. No, we have more than a responsibility. We have an obligation, Sir, to provide youth and community facilities on the Waterfront. I ask Members to consider very carefully before not supporting parts (a) and (b) of this proposition, and I urge them to do what is right, and to support both parts and prove that we, the States of Jersey, mean what we say and will deliver on our promises.

Deputy J.J. Huet:

Could I just interrupt? I am sorry, I forgot once again to state that I was a director of W.E.B. I asked to be excused again.

6. Connétable G.W. Fisher of St. Lawrence :

In making a declarations, I am a port user from time to time - when I get some time - and I know the area very well. I wanted - not to disassociate myself from the comments of my colleagues in Economic Development - but I am speaking here as a separate Member, I am not speaking as Economic Development because my concerns about the site are quite different to those of Economic Development, although I do not disagree with the comments that have been made by my colleagues. My concerns really are, sitting back and looking at it, is this a suitable site for a skateboard park? I do not think any of us would have immediately thought of this as a suitable suite for a skateboard park in the middle of the harbour, in a commercial area where there are large trucks travelling around, where visiting yachtsmen are sitting there during the summer listening to the noise of skateboards where youngsters will be zipping past them when they are trying to get to town, they will just vote with their keels, they will not come back. What about the Maritime Museum? Senator Vibert says: "Oh, the youngsters go to the Maritime Museum" well, I do not know about you, but I do not keep on going back to the Maritime Museum day after day, week after week, year after year. I have been once, I perhaps have been twice. Unless there is something new there I will not go again, so I cannot imagine youngsters are really going to use the Maritime Museum very often. Those are parts of the story that worry me. I am worried about these big trucks and I know they are big trucks. The security down at the harbour is incredible. I have a boat down in the harbour which I visit from time to time, and I used to be able to go to my mooring down the New North Quay and drop chains over the side or whatever I had to do at the time but now I cannot do that anymore. So the port users are already restricted. If they have got to watch out for people on skateboards as well that is going to make it very difficult. But one of the things that concerns me more than that is the location. I can understand Deputy Fox's frustration and his desperation to find a site and that I fully understand, and I am not opposed to a skateboard site at all, but I think the location is totally wrong. We are not asked to consider other sites. We are asked to consider this specific site, so although we might come up with alternative propositions - my colleague on the left here suggested demolishing the steam clock and so on, well that might be feasible, I do not know - but all we are being asked to do today is to consider this one particular site in isolation down in a busy harbour area. Now I have sometimes left the States Chamber in the evening and walked up Hill Street, and occasionally I have seen skateboarders coming down the middle of the road. Nobody seems to worry about that. That is fine. So they come down the middle of the road, perhaps it is not so risky there because it is a one way road, and they are flowing with the traffic, they are coming down the hill. But what happens when they get to the bottom and decide they are going to the skateboard park? Do they then carry on across the dual carriageway, dodging the traffic, or will they stop and carry their boards in bags? No, they will not carry their boards in bags, they will skate across the traffic. That is just crazy. I am afraid common sense seems to have gone out of the window as far as this proposition is concerned. I would very happily look at other alternatives but this one is not, in my view, an alternative.

7. The Deputy of St. Martin :

I stand by my request on Article 83(1)(a) that I would ask for the reference back, and I think I am like most Members in the House, I think we all want to do something for our young people, but what I do not want to do is vote against something simply because it is in the wrong location and without the right information. As much as I want to support what Deputy Fox is doing, we are mindful that this proposition was lodged on 15th January and only yesterday and I do accept the apology from Economic Development, to get at this late stage. However, that is all we have got and there are other implications here. The first thing is, it has to go to the Council of Ministers and one would assume a report has got to go to them to request them to do something but we would have had a report from them, and quite obviously we have not got one. We have heard on the floor from the Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services that there is some support from some of their department but we have not got a full report there either. We also know that there are obviously education concerns here and we have got the Assistant Minister who has the responsibility for youth, but we have not really got an official report either from the Education, Sports and Culture Ministry. Also there are financial resources. We have heard nothing either, no report from Treasury. There are also planning considerations, and we have heard nothing from Planning again. There are no reports to accompany it. Now I have stood here a number of times with my own propositions and I have been hammered and said: "Where are reports?" It then had to go back. So I am trying to be consistent and I do want to support a skateboard for young people but I am not all together sure that this is the right location, and I think before we do go forward we ought to have all the information and all the information properly prepared so we are able to have a debate on it. What I would ask, Sir, for the reference back is that the further information can be provided to all Members, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Can I just be clear, Deputy , this is a reference back of a proposition by Deputy Fox, it is a private Member's proposition? The normal purpose of a reference back is so that the proposer of the reference can provide further information to the Assembly. What further information are you saying you require from Deputy Fox?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

What the request would be, Sir, that Deputy Fox would ensure that the information is required or requested from the Ministries that I have outlined, Sir. So we have written reports presented to the House.

1. Senator T.J. Le Main:

In seconding that, I would like to make a point on extra information. It was said by one of the Members that the chairman of the Skateboard Association would prefer Fort Regent. I would like in supporting this reference back that is an important factor in determining whether that should be looked at again, the view of the chairman of the

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

I have just got off the phone from the chairman of the Skateboard Association and he categorically said Fort Regent is definitely not their preference. They have never said that. That is definitely not their preference.

The Deputy Bailiff :

We are just going to consider at the moment there is a proposition from the Deputy of St. Martin which has been seconded, is that right? Now the rules have changed in references back. It is no longer a discretion in the chair, I simply have to ask myself is further information relating to the proposition required by the proposer, he has specified what he requires, it will be a matter for Members to decide whether they think that is reasonable or not, but the chair no longer has a discretion, I therefore allow the proposition for the reference back.

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

I am finding myself slightly not understanding what the Deputy of St. Martin is requesting. He is requesting information, a reference back to receive further information from Deputy Fox because it is his proposition. The problem is the further information he requires is from Ministers of departments which are outside the control of Deputy Fox, therefore Deputy Fox is not at liberty to provide the information that the reference back is requesting.

The Deputy Bailiff :

That will be a matter that you can all consider when deciding whether to vote for the reference back, but the Standing Orders simply say that further information can be provided, it is open to Deputy Fox to ask these Ministers for information, if they do not give it then he will not be able to obtain it, and this may be a matter for you to consider when deciding whether to reference back. But I am afraid Standing Orders have made the propositions for reference back much easier and that is a matter for Members. So I have allowed the proposition so we are now debating whether to refer this matter back and I do urge Members not to rehash every speech which has been made already. Anyone who wishes to speak of course can do so on the reference back. Senator Ozouf , do you wish to speak?

4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I will support the reference back because I do not want the States to be making decisions without full information. What I will do is I will commit absolutely and give a categoric promise and undertaking to work with Deputy Fox and other Ministerial colleagues who, I have to say, have not, at the moment, worked as a collaborative team. Deputy Fox may well be a Back-Bencher, but he is the Assistant Minister for Education, therefore he has all the access that is available through colleague contact and through his department to work. We have a proposition which says the manpower implications, and if there is one single reason why States Members should be saying: "Please come back with the appropriate information", it is the financial and manpower implications. It says - and this Assembly should not be making decisions which it knows are inaccurate - it says there are no financial and manpower implications for the States arising from the proposition as any costs will be included with the overall cost of the commercial developments. That, I am afraid, Sir, is not true and the Minister for Education and the Health Minister and the Social Security Minister can all say that Health and Social Inspectorate say that they have no opposition. They have no opposition but they have a report of what the legal obligations are that Harbours must do and that has a financial implication of which paragraph (d) says: "In my view, based on the record of incidents, will need to include permanent security personnel for the area." So therefore it is not right to say that there were no financial costs. I support a skateboard park. I support all people working together to secure it and I will work immediately on doing that with colleagues to provide it. Economic Development will be, as is always, a team player and I would respectfully suggest that colleagues and Ministerial colleagues, when I sit down and when they also have their say in respect of this matter - which no doubt they will - do not talk with forked tongues [Interruption] and treat Economic Development in the way that we have done. We have got a track record here, we are the ones that supported the skateboard park previously, we will continue to do so and I would just ask Members to bear that in mind when we are hearing from other Ministerial colleagues about what they are doing. We are being asked to foot the bill here. We are being asked to solve the problem. The financial implications are not clear. Let us get them to be clear and then let us work to provide what the children and the youth of this Island want.

5. Senator B.E. Shenton:

I will not speak with forked tongue and I certainly will not tell the House that the Skateboard Association would prefer Fort Regent when they do not. Can I just say that Health Protection have worked very closely with Deputy Fox on this. They have done the report. They have been a bit of a bugbear because they have come out against numerous other sites that have been suggested. This site is well away from residential area. All I would say to the Chair is the report has been available; it would be available to Deputy Hill or any other Member that seeks to ask for it. I think it is a bit rich asking for information halfway through a debate. I would suggest that States Members read their papers when they get them and ask for information before the debate and not halfway through at the last minute because otherwise we will end up with a reference back on almost every debate we have.

6. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

The proposer remarked that there had been no comments from Treasury and if that is remiss of me it is because when I read the proposition I read that there are no financial or manpower implications. It is quite clear from the discussions yesterday and today that there are financial and possibly manpower implications and on that basis I will undertake to provide a report, either to Deputy Fox or to the Members of the House so that we can be fully informed and debate this and make a decision based on all the information. I am quite prepared to accept the reference back and provide that information.

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

It seems to me fairly clear, I am shocked and surprised that the Deputy of St. Martin should have brought this reference back. It seems to me like a mere procedural trick to derail this in a debate which is going the wrong way according to some.

8. The Deputy of St. John :

I am afraid I will support this reference back. This has been going on for 6 years now. There is lots of information out there that clearly is not in this proposition. Deputy Fox should be applauded for his efforts here, but the information is not in the document. There is no risk assessment, there are no financial implications, there are not any attachments or reports that the Skateboard Association have done in the past. That could have all been given to Members. We have been having a very informed debated about their request and the informed debate about the information that Economic Development have given us today. For Senator Vibert to say: "Well, I have got a report here now from Economic Development but I am not going to read it because it is too late, even though there is some severe safety implications for children." What a nonsense. You should be reading this, Senator, you should be

The Deputy Bailiff : Through the Chair, please.

Senator M.E. Vibert :

Could I correct the Deputy ? I did not say I had not read it - in fact I read it through - I said it was difficult to challenge any of the things in it at such late notice.

The Deputy of St. John :

I would accept that, but the fact the Senator was suggesting was that he did not want to take on board these facts and asked more questions. Clearly he is now shaking his head and saying yes, he would like to ask more questions in which case a reference back is highly suitable to do that. I think to bring back to the House information such as that to satisfy the Education Minister that this

is safe, and to satisfy us that it has no financial implications of the kind that the Minister for Economic Development is suggesting, or that it does, and also a full risk assessment which I do not see in Deputy Fox's proposition, Sir. All that information should be before Members before making such a decision. Frankly, Sir, there are also other departments that have not fed into this; Treasury have just admitted that; Planning, for example, one of the few jurisdictions in the world that says that noise disturbance of this kind has to be further than 100 metres away from such a facility. That is unusual, it does not happen anywhere else in the world, maybe Planning should have a justification for that here as well and it is not there. There are so many unanswered questions, to make an informed decision on this today is just not possible, Sir. I think a reference back is a perfect solution to today's problem. To be debating this at a time when the eyes of the world's press  are on us, a skateboard  facility and our  national  [Interruption] I am afraid  is unbelievable.

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

I am going to come from a completely different angle to Deputy Southern . I thought his assessment had somewhat missed the point, Sir, because from the speeches we have heard so far - and I had avoided speaking on the subject itself, but I do feel free to speak on the reference back - it is clear that there are a number of uncertainties. Is the steam clock site a possibility? We do not know. What are the obstacles to using Fort Regent? We are not sure. What are the true financial implications of this proposition; the fencing, the security, the loss of revenue to Harbours? What are the dangers? They have not been fully quantified. There is a lot of missing information, Sir, and I believe it would be a tragedy if the lack of that information ended up in the infrastructure that our children so badly need being turned down. Sir, I realise that a reference back produces a problem when the proposition has been brought by a Back-Bencher, but that surely does not mean that he cannot collate the information that we do need, gleaned from Ministers or maybe by a meeting with the Council of Ministers and then bring that information to this Assembly so that we can move forwards, because I fear that we might otherwise either reject it or make the wrong decision. Contrary to comments made by the Minister and Assistant Minister, I do not see the corporate behaviour that I might have hoped would have come to support this proposition and I am hopeful that this reference back will be the catalyst that gets this logjam finally moving, Sir.

10. Deputy J.J. Huet:

What I find remarkable is that Deputy Fox has had this projet lodged and if the Ministers or Assistant Ministers or whoever is involved in certain committee areas, why have they waited until right now? [Interruption] Why? They should hang their head in shame, to be quite honest. Why have they not come through to Deputy Fox to say that they have these concerns? All of a sudden, on this floor, today, at this moment in time, we suddenly get all these concerns. They have had weeks to bring them forward and to bring them up and nothing has been done. They should be ashamed of themselves, it is like a lot of children: "I cannot have the sweets so you are not having them either." Sir, I should think this should be thrown out and we should carry on with the debate.

The Deputy Bailiff :

If I may say, as I drove in this morning I listened to the Today programme and the interviewer was having terrible trouble with 2 guests who were all speaking at the same time. I now understand the problem he had. [Laughter] Now I had seen next Deputy Scott Warr en and then Deputy Martin.

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

I will be supporting this reference back. Like many, I think, like most Members of this House, I want to vote for this skate park. Most of us want to give a positive sign and vote for it and, Sir, I feel unable to do so [Interruption] today with the many concerns that have been raised. I would feel torn between the support I want to give to this and whether I really should give that support with, as I say, the many unknown factors that have been raised. One thing, Sir, is certain; we have either got to find a better alternative or support this site. Something has got to go ahead, the skateboard park has got to go ahead and not with years more of delay. But, Sir, I believe the reference back, hopefully a short reference back, may provide a solution we can all support.

12. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

Well, Deputy Huet stood up yesterday and said she thought she was Mystic Meg. Well, I had this conversation last night with a couple of St. Helier Deputies who said: "You know, we might win this one" and I said: "Not overnight, there will be some tactic brought out by" and I am not supposed to, Sir, call him with forked tongue, but I call this contemptuous. I am absolutely furious at the way this is going. Now we are asking - or the Deputy of St. Martin is asking - another Back- Bencher to go back for more information and everyone who is on the wobbly is saying: "I am going to support this reference back because I might have to make a decision. The decision might be that I am going to vote against the children of this Island and I am not going to give them a skateboard park" but have the courage of your convictions to do it. This is tactical, there is no more information. If Treasury was that bothered, and I am telling you I respect the Minister for Treasury, we would have had 3 or 4 pages of why we cannot do this and how much it will cost. We have got last minute reports, Sir, and we have got enough information from the one Ministry that it matters. They are telling us what it costs. It may be a cost. Even if it is that cost, the decision, at the end of the day, Sir, is do we provide the much promised skateboard park? It is even now, Sir, more information about is there another possible site? Well, we have had it, Sir. No, there is not. We know this is not ideal; it can be made to work, the children are there at any rate, but, as I say, basically the people will I will have contempt for the people who vote for this reference back. I will admire the people who, if it goes through and then they vote against the skateboard park, that is their prerogative but this, to me, Sir, is tactical, it is demeaning of the work a Back-Bencher and the respect that Deputy Fox should have, it should not go back. A Ministry again has had all the time and the Minister for Economic Development had time to talk with all the other Ministers if he thought we needed more information on the table. He should have provided it before yesterday morning. Do not vote, I really urge people, do not fall into this trap of a reference back. I am glad you waited for a few minutes to call me, Sir, because I was very angry, but now I [Laughter]

have calmed down. Thank you.

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

Yes, I started the debate rather concerned about all this, but I have I suppose undertaken a Damascene conversion. Particularly when the Minister for Health usefully brought to my attention the fact that there will be a youth and community centre as well included in the cost. The current drop-in provisions are cramped, new premises would be helpful, welcome. Anything which takes children off the hills of the Island

The Deputy Bailiff :

I am sorry but we must confine ourselves to the reference back.

Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

Well, basically what I am trying to say perhaps is that this is a call for perfect information. There is no such thing as perfect information. From my reading of the debate so far, we have a considerable amount of information which enables us to make a decision to look at this whole problem. Please, if you want perfect information we will be here until a week next Friday. I am sorry, I will not support the reference back and I urge Members not to.

14. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier :

I do not support this reference back for one moment. We do not need more information, in fact we could have done with a little less disinformation coming to the States from this department. Because that is what we have had. We have had disinformation. I am disappointed that some of it came from the Minister himself. I apologise to the House for misleading them yesterday. I was

under the impression that perhaps there was not quite so much work going on at the weekends at the harbour and the Minister has properly corrected me on that point. Nevertheless, let us just look at the so-called important security issue as one aspect of something we need to flesh out a bit more. I do not believe we do. I think we have all the information that we need. It was given to us by the Minister today. We were told originally this was going to require 2 full-time security staff all year round. Then we get read the letter that has come from the Health and Safety Inspectorate and it says nothing of the sort. Certainly it does not mention a requirement for 2 full-time security staff. But it is interesting, we do discover how the Harbours Department have worked out their calculations because as the Minister - before he corrected himself - began to read out the calculation; 15 times 24 and then he realised what he was informing this Assembly; £15 an hour times 24 hours a day. Do we really need 2 full-time security staff at this skateboard park for 24 hours a day? No. What we were hearing was the inflated disinformation applied to this subject by the Harbours Department or someone linked to this debate. I do not think the States need any more information and I say again what we could do with is a little less disinformation. Serious concerns about a commercial port? What is a maritime museum doing at the heart of a commercial port? And this is the area immediately next door to the Maritime Museum. Is it a commercial port or is it leisure area? Hard to tell, there is a marina right next door. That is certainly leisure. What exactly is this space? It is a car park for the convenience of the employees working in the harbour area.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , like Deputy Ferguson, I must ask you to confine it to the reference back.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

This is part of the information, Sir, that I am saying that we have already and we do not need further clarification on. It yields £68,000 a year. Well, let me say in the spirit of co-operation, I am prepared to look at the floors at Pier Road car park that are currently unused and see if we can find some alternative spaces for the people who might be moved out of the way by this much-needed development that does not require any more information to be decided upon.

15. Senator F.H. Walker :

I have been supporting and working to an extent alongside Deputy Fox and Deputy Gorst in all the incredibly hard work they have put into this over many months. They have, I think, left no stone unturned in trying to find a site for a skateboard park. They and I have been frustrated time and time again. I have to say I am frustrated again this morning. Honestly, what sort of Assembly are we when we cannot take a decision on something like the location of a skateboard park? The last thing we need is a reference back. We need to take a decision. This is just fiddling around at the edges and I am very sad that the Deputy of St. Martin brought the proposition. Sir, Deputy Fox, Deputy Gorst and others have investigated other sites, they have come to the conclusion and they have provided the information to support that conclusion that this site, although I accept not ideal, is the only chance we have got to provide a skateboard facility in the foreseeable future for our young people. So let us not delay any longer, let us get on with it, let us vote for or against, but for goodness sake let us not go back over the same thing again and agree to this reference back. In my view it should not have been brought and I hope it is comprehensively thrown out.

16. Senator M.E. Vibert :

I regret that we have got here - and I do repeat, I am sure with the best intentions - but I believe the main reason we are here was the very, very late provision of the information and comments by Economic Development. I do not believe that is a reason to put off making a decision. I believe that Members have had the information, they have looked at it, it has been fully discussed here. There are some issues and again - I repeat what I said, Sir, in seeking to not support the reference back - if a better alternative in the area E.D. can come up with if they feel this is so wrong, if they can quickly find that, I am sure this House - if they came back with an amendment - would

accept it. We have not been able to find an alternative in the area. We believe this is the best site; everybody who has looked at it, apart from Harbours and Economic Development, Sir, believes it is the best site. I believe that this Assembly would be doing itself a disservice and the Island a disservice by supporting a reference back and not making a decision today in line with statements that have previously been made publicly in this House to the young people and to the whole Island that we would be making a decision and going ahead with it.

17. Deputy J.B. Fox:

I was planning to cover much that has been said by the Minister and Assistant Minister on the question of the position, the costs and everything else with the skateboard park in my summing-up. Obviously at the moment, I do not have that opportunity, we are only talking about a reference back. I would like to have that opportunity. There is just one thing that I think is important that I should say at this stage; everyone keeps talking about the clock and the area of the clock. We have already looked at that site. The sites that I mentioned before are just the big obvious ones in St. Helier. You will not believe the amount of other sites that we have looked at. The one with the clock we looked at, it needs extinguishing of the road which gives the access in New North Quay and re-opening of the road from where it used to go into the New North Quay in order to facilitate such. If you remove the clock, you can still have all the other fancy granite work that is surrounding it and the pool and that could be used as part of a skateboard feature. So there is no reason that it could not be done, but the realism is, is that no one will change the road at this moment in time because it is subject to East of Albert considerations and also for the commercial port use. The only other thing I would like to say, as far as the security goes at this stage, I do not see that it is going to cost Harbours and Airport anything. It was never in the remit that it was going to cost the States anything. If necessary, I will find it. If he is talking about the security of his commercial area, that is the responsibility of Harbours. I am talking about an area that is in front, that is open to the public at the moment and is next door to the museum, et cetera. If there is a question of not wanting people to walk down that front area, well why can we not put a fence along the pavement at the back of those granite old warehouses and have a dedicated access route for the young people? There are lots of things that I would like to sum-up, but this proposition at the moment is stifling that opportunity. If I had to go through all that information that has been requested me now for every site that we have looked at, we would not be here today. The reason I have come here today and asked for this is because we are at the end of the road and I need to have a States decision on the principles of a skateboard park and this is the only one that we can come up