States Meeting Transcript - 05/10/2009

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT MONDAY, 5th OCTOBER 2009

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption...........................................................5

1. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) - paragraph (f) .........................5

1.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):.......................5

2. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) third amendment (P.117/2009 Amd.(3)) (paragraph 2) .............................................................................6

2.1 Senator B.E. Shenton:....................................................................6

3. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) nineteenth amendment (P.117/2009 Amd.(19)) (paragraph 2)..................................................................7

3.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):............................................8

4. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) seventeenth amendment (P.117/2009 Amd.(3)) (paragraph 7)...................................................................9

4.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:.................................................................9

1. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................10
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................11
3. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................11
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................11
5. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ........................................................12
6. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................12
7. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................12
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................13
9. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................15
10. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:...................................................16
11. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier : ..................................................17
12. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:....................................................17
13. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:................................................18
14. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen : ......................................................19
15. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................19
16. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:................................................20
17. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................21
18. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity : .......................................................21
19. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour:..........................................22
20. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................22
21. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................22
22. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................22
23. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................23

5. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009): seventeenth amendment (P.117/2009 (Amd. 17)) (paragraph 9)................................................................25

5.1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................25

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................26
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................26

6. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009): seventeenth amendment (P.117/2009 (Amd. 17)) (paragraph 10)..............................................................27

6.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................27

7. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009): paragraph (f) - as amended..........28

7.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................28

8. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009): paragraph (g)........................30

8.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):......................30

9. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009): second amendment (P.117/2009 (Amd. 2))........................................................................................30

9.1 Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................31

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................33
2. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................34
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................36
4. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................37
5. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................38
6. The Connétable of St. Saviour:.........................................................39
7. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................39
8. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................42
9. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................42
10. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................43
11. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................43
12. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................43
13. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................44
14. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................44
15. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................45

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................48 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................48

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption..............................................................48

10. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) twelfth amendment (P.117/2009 Amd.(12))................................................................................48

The Deputy of St. Ouen:...................................................................................48

10.1 Deputy A.K.F. Green (Assistant Minister for Education, Sport and Culture - Rapporteur): 48

10.1.1 Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:...........................................................49 10.1.2................................................................ Deputy K.C. Lewis :

49

3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:............................................49
4. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................49
5. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................49
6. Deputy A.K.F. Green:...........................................................................50

11...Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) thirteenth amendment (P.117/2009 Amd.(13))...............................................................................................51

11.1 Deputy M. Tadier :.............................................................................51 11.1.1............................................................The Deputy of St. John :

..........................................................................................................52

2. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................52
3. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................52
4. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................52

12. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) eighteenth amendment (P.117/2009 Amd.(18))................................................................................53

12.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................53

1. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................56
2. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................57
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................58
4. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................58
5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................58
6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................59
7. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................60

13. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009): paragraph (g) - as amended.........63

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................63
2. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................64
3. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................64
4. The Connétable of St. Ouen:............................................................64
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................64
6. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................64
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................66
8. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................67
9. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................67 13.10The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................67 13.11Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................68

14. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009): paragraph (h) ........................70

14.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................71

15. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) sixth amendment (P.117/2009 Amd.(6)) ...........................................................................................71

15.1 Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................71

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................75
2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................75
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................77
4. Deputy A.K.F. Green:...............................................................77
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................77
6. Deputy D.J. De Sousa: ..............................................................78
7. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................78
8. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................79
9. Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................80
10. Deputy J.A. Martin:................................................................80
11. Deputy A.E. Jeune :................................................................80
12. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:................................................81
13. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..............................................................81
14. Senator B.E. Shenton:..............................................................82
15. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:............................................................83
16. The Deputy of St. Martin:..........................................................84

17. The Connétable of St. Mary:.......................................................84
18. Deputy M. Tadier : .................................................................84
19. Deputy J.B. Fox:...................................................................84
20. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..........................................................84
21. Senator A. Breckon: ...............................................................85

16. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) - paragraph (h) - as amended........87

1. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................87
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................87
3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................87
4. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................88
5. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................88

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................89

17. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................90

17.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................90

PERSONAL STATEMENTS....................................................................90

18. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................90

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................91

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) - paragraph (f)

The Bailiff :

We return to the debate on the Business Plan and paragraph (f) is the next matter and I ask the Greffier to read paragraph (f) of the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

(f) To approve indicative total net revenue expenditure for the States funded bodies as set out in Part 3 of the report Summary Table C page 96, for the period 2011 to 2014 and the proposed programme of capital projects for the States funded bodies for 2011 to 2014 as set out in Part 3 of the report Summary Tables F to I, pages 99-102; and to request the Chief Minister to present Annual Business Plans to the States within these indicative total amounts, with any additional growth in the total net revenue expenditure of a States funded body being offset by compensatory savings elsewhere within the total amounts.

1.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

I would like to welcome Members back for part 2 of the Business Plan debate. The purpose of this part (f) of the proposition is to expand on the allocations for 2010, that the Assembly has already agreed in parts (b) and (c), and now to determine the indicative allocations between revenue expenditure and capital expenditure for the 5-year financial forecast. The proposition provides the in principle financial target for each of the Ministerial departments and States funded bodies, Members will understand that targets need to be established for the purposes of longer term business planning and are based on the States agreed Strategic Plan objectives and initiatives. In respect of capital projects, this is important as obviously capital projects have a long lead time and some certainty to the availability of funding is required in advance. The indicative allocations for revenue expenditure in the forward years are based on the financial model which makes specific provision for pay awards at the uprating of benefits, non-staff inflation and continuing efficiency gains. Members will recall that the figures proposed for the net revenue expenditure and capital expenditure allocations for 2010 to 2014 are shown in Summary Table C of the Business Plan, the details of the capital projects which currently make up the proposed capital project are shown in Summaries Table F to I. Members will note that these future years' figures are no longer in principle numbers but they are regarded as indicative. I think that I would like to say just one thing in respect of these indicative numbers, and as I think back to the debate that we had the week before last, the one concern that I have is that many Members want to improve services in the area of public services, whether it be health or other areas. However, I need to say - and I will continue to try and be the financial conscience of Members during the rest of this debate, and particularly in part (f) and I need to say, wearing that hat - that all of these expenditure items and additions are going to need to be paid for. Without wanting to get off to a bad start with Members on a Monday morning, I do think there is a debate to be had in future as to how the States matches income lines with expenditure. Many of the discussions that we had the week before last was on spending but not many Members wanted to take the time to explain to me, and perhaps the public, how these projects were going to be paid for. I need to say to the Assembly that these indicative spending

limits cannot be met by current levels of income and therefore going forward the Assembly is going to be faced with 2 choices; either to increase taxes or to revisit these indicative numbers and to cut spending in other areas. I am committed to having that debate with Members, not today, but in the next 6 and 18 months' time. We have started the process of a comprehensive spending review, finance directors and accounting officers spent 2 days at the end of last week discussing how to deal with a scaleable comprehensive spending review. We have also started the review of the fiscal strategy. I am committed to having a proper debate with Members on this balance. It is also needing to be said that these indicative figures do not necessarily also include the numbers, in fact

in many cases they do not include the actual financial consequences of many of the big spending initiatives that were contained within the Strategic Plan, most importantly the ageing population, New  Directions  at  Health,  the  reforms  needed  to  the  liquid  waste  network  and  the  ongoing challenges of States maintenance, and now perhaps also the issue of pensions. That is all I am going to say in respect of these indicative plans. There are a number of amendments to be had, so I make the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Is paragraph (f) seconded? [Seconded]

2. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) third amendment (P.117/2009 Amd.(3)) (paragraph 2)

The Bailiff :

There are a number of amendments. The first one is paragraph 2 of amendment number 3, lodged by Senator Shenton, and I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Page 3, paragraph (f), after the words "Summary Table C, page 96, for the period 2011 to 2014" insert the words "except that total indicative net revenue expenditure of the Health and Social Services Department shall be increased by £487,000 in 2011 and by £499,000 in 2012 and by a similar sum (increased in accordance with the appropriate non-staff inflation figure) for 2013 and 2014 to provide funding for adult respite care."

The Bailiff :

This is a matter which was carried overwhelmingly for the year 2010. Chief Minister, what will your approach be on this amendment?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

We would be prepared to accept this amendment.

2.1 Senator B.E. Shenton:

I will be very, very brief because I believe this amendment will be accepted by most Members of the Assembly. I think all of us, as politicians, sometimes wonder why we do this job. It is fairly thankless at times but I was in town the other day and a chap came up to me and the department has already started  speaking  to the  stakeholders,  who  are  the  people  who  will  benefit  from  this amendment, and he was telling me what an absolute fantastic difference it will make to his life; the fact that we voted through this money. I do not really want to say any more than this. This is just putting the funding in place for future years. I think this Assembly did very well and did the right thing when we unanimous .. well, no one voted against this amendment and I would like to put forward this amendment.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment? All those in favour of adopting the amendment kindly show. The appel is asked for then in relation to this amendment. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

3. Draft  Annual  Business  Plan  2010 (P.117/2009)  nineteenth  amendment  (P.117/2009 Amd.(19)) (paragraph 2)

The Bailiff :

The next amendment is paragraph 2 of amendment number 19, lodged by the Chief Minister. This is one where the Assembly must decide whether it agrees to take it despite the fact it has not been lodged for sufficient time.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

On the same principle as previously, I believe it is appropriate for this amendment to be debated today.

The Bailiff :

Do Members agree to take this amendment today? Very well, so the amendment is agreed to be taken today, in which case I will ask the Greffier to read it.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Page 3, paragraph (f), after the words "Summary Table C, page 96, for the period 2011 to 2014" insert the words "except that total indicative net revenue expenditure of the Health and Social Services Department shall be increased by £1,127,500 in 2011 and by £1,155,700 in 2012 and by a similar sum (increased in accordance with the appropriate non-staff inflation figure) for 2013 and 2014."

The Bailiff :

Chief  Minister,  this  again  is  consequential,  as  I understand  it,  upon  the  vote  on  the  earlier amendment?

3.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

It is, and I do not want to dwell on it for very much longer, other than to reiterate what the Minister for Treasury and Resources was saying, that although this expenditure is necessary in dealing with the starting issues arising at the Health Department, we have to be conscious of the fact that it is adding to our ongoing spending and we have to find ultimately ways of resolving that problem. For the moment, this is necessary; having voted it for one year, it would be ludicrous to withdraw it for subsequent years. We need long term planning on this one, and I maintain the amendment to this proposition.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? All those in favour of adopting the amendment kindly show. The appel is asked for then in relation to this amendment. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

The Bailiff :

The next matter on the Order Paper is paragraph 8 of the seventeenth amendment of the Deputy of St. Mary. But, Deputy , I think this falls away in view of your withdrawal of the earlier one, is that right?

Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary :

I assume so, Sir. If that funding is available and if it is continued anyway, in its own right, then it is transferable in the same way that it would be for 2010, so I withdraw it.

The Bailiff :

That is withdrawn.

4. Draft  Annual  Business  Plan  2010  (P.117/2009)  seventeenth  amendment  (P.117/2009 Amd.(3)) (paragraph 7)

The Bailiff :

Then we come to paragraph 7 of the seventeenth amendment lodged by the Deputy of St. Mary and I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

After the words "Summary Table C, page 96, for the period 2011 to 2014" insert the words "except that a sum of £400,000 (increased in accordance with the appropriate non-staff inflation figure) shall be allocated in each of the years 2011-2014 to the proposed programme of capital projects for the funding of the rolling Urban Renewal Fund."

4.1 The Deputy of St. Mary :

I  thought  I  would  be  the  first  to  mention  at  this  sitting  the  amazing Line  in  the  Sand' demonstration yesterday and congratulations to the organisers are in order. [Approbation] I was hoping for that. I think there was an important message that went out from the thousands and thousands of people who were there. What they were telling us is that the coastline of Jersey needs our care and our protection for obvious reasons, but, or and - because it is not a negative "but" it is a positive "but" - our urban areas need the same care and protection.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I am sorry to interrupt. My mistake entirely, I have always asked the Chief Minister whether he is going to accept the amendment and I forgot to do so on this occasion, so we had better establish it.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

No, Sir. The Deputy can continue. [Laughter]

The Deputy of St. Mary :

The next one I am hoping for a different response, but this one, yes. I was saying that our urban areas, the contrast is in a way false. We know that our countryside is beautiful and our coastline especially so, and it is easy to take our urban areas for granted or even to neglect them. This amendment seeks to put, as the Minister for Treasury and Resources just said, indicative funding in place to fund an ongoing programme of urban renewal. In fact, it does not seek to put the funding in place but to restore the funding because, as I understand it, there has been a rolling grant for urban renewal for some years and it has only been cancelled in this Annual Business Plan. So it is putting back a commitment to our urban areas. As a former guide, I know that St. Helier is under- rated. If anyone here cares to look at the gates to the main market from French Lane, I do not know how many people know how fantastic the workmanship on those gates is. Or just the other day I noticed a couple who were obviously visitors at the crossroads, just 100 yards from here in King Street, and something just about the way they were talking and the way I related to them, and I said: "Have a look at that" and I pointed up at the Mappin and Webb building, and they were amazed. They had not noticed, they were looking down, you see. They were engaged. That building is just amazing and it is a really, really nice building and I said there are plenty more if you look up. It is true that St. Helier , if you look up, is a remarkably nice town and we often forget. Just think of Bond Street, just think of Broad Street. They are fine streets. What this funding would do, would be to allow us to continue to invest in our urban areas so that what you have underfoot is as good as what you can look at if you care to look up for a moment. I always get excited about the potential for St. Helier and this funding is needed to keep the improvements coming. Who would be without Broad Street now, the new look of Broad Street? It is just so much better than what was there before. Now the main criticism of visitors, and I know because I surveyed them when I used to have a cycle hire business, their main criticism was St. Helier. The main aspect about beautiful Jersey that made them not happy really was our capital town. Is that not sad and it does not have to be so. We can keep improving it. We can make it better. I have mentioned St. Helier but what about Les Quennevais? What about Gorey? What about St. Aubin? I will say a few words about St. Aubin, not about the others hoping that maybe other people will chip in on that. But St. Aubin: I attended the community forum there which was excellently led and really inspirational. It ended up with a programme of different areas in St. Aubin; the traffic, the harbour, parking and so on, where people were beavering away to secure improvements but without any funding. That energy that was generated in the community forum will go to waste. Many of those improvements, for instance the Bulwarks cannot be done without a small amount of money. The Gateway, just saying to people as they come into St. Aubin, making that statement that this is a special place. Then the main road, the treating of the main road as it goes round the corner. These things take modest amounts of money and they simply will not happen. I asked at a Planning Scrutiny hearing what would happen if this money stayed not there and they said these improvements will not happen. It was as simple as that. I think it would be tragic if we simply let down the people who live in our urban areas. It is not just those who live there, is it? We all work or use or live in St. Helier, in particular, let us show some sort of pride in our Island. Let us not go tawdry and cheap. Let us do the job properly and that does require this kind of steady drip-drip funding for those improvements

that otherwise will simply not happen. So I move the amendment.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment?

1. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier :

I would just like to say that I would implore the House to back this amendment. The Constable of St. Helier got the successful amendment accepted in this House in the last sitting to get the money put back in the pot for 2010 for the regeneration programme. We now need to secure the funding for 2011 and 2012 on to 2014. If we neglect our regeneration now because times are difficult and unsure, in the good times it will be much more difficult to keep up. We know from the past that things have been neglected and now in really difficult times we are having to put money in to maintain the infrastructure. We have problems with the States assets as well because they were not maintained. It is important that we do not rob Peter to pay Paul and I ask the House to accept this amendment.

2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I do not doubt the merits of urban regeneration and nor, I am sure, does the Constable of St. Helier , and it is really a question of how this should be funded. Conscious of the need not to increase our spending, even by a relatively small amount like this, I am heartened by the fact that this programme can be funded by alternative ways, and I think it is far better that we do it that way rather than add to the burdens of our funding. So I speak not to oppose any of the very laudable objectives raised by the Deputy of St. Mary and echoed by Deputy De Sousa, to welcome those, but to urge Members to take note of the fact that this worthwhile expenditure can be funded in a better way than adding to the burdens that we are already facing. For that reason, and that reason alone, I will be opposing this amendment and urge others to do the same.

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

Elsewhere in Europe there is a tremendous amount of investment going into small communities and I have been fighting for vibrant villages, as I call it, for many years. These are little urban areas within a parish and they do not have to be in St. Helier alone, although for the life of me I do not see St. Aubin as being an urban area, but never mind. I lived there for 5 years very happily and it is very attractive. But there are other areas that are not attractive. There are other areas that need doing. I have just heard the Chief Minister referring that there are other ways of funding it, I would be very happy to see them but at the moment they are not here, and we need this programme to continue, so I will be supporting this amendment until such time as someone shows me that there are continuations of financing to improve those urban areas, and there are a lot of them, not least the new Rue de Funchal which needs to be improved. Otherwise I would be a little embarrassed to say, at the very least, to bring a president of Funchal or the Mayor across to look at that. So there are lots of other small areas that need attention.

4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I think many Members of the Assembly will know that I and other members of the Council of Ministers are very keen supporters of urban renewal. Some of us have fought the difficult battles in relation to urban regenerations of Broad Street, maybe not so difficult of La Motte Street. I think that urban regeneration makes a profound difference to the lives and to the streets of our town. I think the investments that have been made have made a huge difference to those areas and I continue to support them. Therefore, it is difficult to rise and to have to speak against this allocation in future years, but I have to say to the Deputy of St. Mary and to the other Members, that this is an example of where the Council of Ministers has to bring forward a Business Plan that is affordable and that works. What the Deputy of St. Mary does not say is how does he expect this £400,000 for the next 2 years to be funded? I do not need, I think, to remind the Assembly that there is the prospect of a structural deficit in 2012. Work is going on to confirm the effect of the credit crunch so that we understand what the potential ongoing deficit of the States of Jersey is in 2012; I will be reporting that when I lodge the budget in October. In addition to that, there are other under-funded services. There are expenditure challenges that the States have. What I am afraid, and this is a difficult debate, because what never happens is those choices are put before the Assembly. The Assembly each time in every one of the Business Plan discussions has come forward with increases in spending, but there is no explanation, there is no mechanism put in place to fund that. Simply it is something that the Treasury is going to sort out and the Minister for Treasury and Resources will find the money. Well, the Minister for Treasury and Resources has found the money for urban renewal because it can be fit within the fiscal stimulus plans, but I cannot support a proposal which increases the deficit going further. I am committed to having a proper review of States spending. I am committed to having a fundamental spending review of the 3 big departments and I am committed to engaging, with Members and the public, in debate on spending going forward. But I am afraid that this is the kind of debate which sends the signal that the Assembly are simply prepared to add to expenditure and increase the deficit. I have to say to Members that at the current spending rate the States of Jersey, in terms of its stabilisation fund, is going to run out of money in 2012. We will then have to start drawing from the Strategic Plan or we will have to be raising taxes. There are some choices to be made, and I think that we should not be sending the signal that we are going to increase an already stretched and already difficult financial forecast going forward. Does that mean to say that we are not prepared to work jolly hard to try and find a solution for urban renewal funding? No, it does not. I am committed to finding a solution for urban renewal funding. I want to see an extension of section 106 alternative arrangements in Jersey and planning obligations. I would like to see the North of Town Masterplan approved by this Assembly and see the urban regeneration - which I suspect, this money, if it is made available, would be made to improve the roads of the North of Town in order to try and find ways of bringing developers into schemes so that they pay for them. The Assembly cannot continue to spend money at this rate without having to face even larger tax rises than are already going to have to be put to the Assembly in the event that the structural deficit is there and to pay for other projects. It pains me to say so, but financial discipline is a responsibility of this Assembly.

5. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

Much as I would like to support my vice-chairman, I cannot. I have got areas within my own parish and within all outlying areas of the Island which have still not got mains services. "I know Rondel is going to be on his feet again", that is what Members must be thinking "about main drains". But there are people who are paying twice to have their sewerage removed and it is totally unfair. We have other people who do not have a proper bus service, whether you live in St. John, St. Martin, St. Ouen, across the north of the Island, and I am surprised that the Deputy has not raised that particular area. We have a very poor bus service. We pay £4-odd million to a bus operator and, in my mind, he does not portray himself as going out and increasing his business. When that contract comes up I sincerely hope that we have a good chance of seeing exactly what is in that contract because there are a load of areas that we need to spend money on. Last week we voted some £10-odd million for the town park. All this money has to come from somewhere. We have to cut our cloth accordingly. I did not bring a report and proposition to increase the funding on main drains, and I can assure you it is needed, and now that the rains have started yet again we are going to see people pumping out waste on land, which is illegal, but people still do it because they cannot afford the £100 every other week to have their soakaways emptied by the tanker. Therefore I would turn a blind eye because I know the difficulties, especially now when we are in a time of recession, that people are having. I sincerely hope that Members do not go with this one because we have to cut our cloth accordingly, as I have already said. Think of those people out in the outlying areas who do not have all the amenities which the people in the town and the south of the Island have.

6. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

The Deputy of St. Mary spoke of urban areas. He spoke of St. Helier, St. Aubin and even Gorey. In his summing up, can he confirm that areas such as Georgetown are seen as urban areas for my vote? [Laughter]

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

It is always a pleasure to follow the Deputy of St. John and my heart bleeds for all the people who live in the massive town park in every other parish except probably St. Saviour, St. Helier and St. Clement, because in your backyard you all have a lovely town park. Open fields and fresh air. So I am sorry [Approbation] my heart does not bleed for the people who live in the country. My heart is as a St. Helier Deputy . I was not here last week but the Deputy of St. Mary has brought me up to date and our Constable has secured monies for the next year. But £400,000, we need a 3-year rolling programme to be put into place to even halfway touch some of the areas in St. Helier, St. Saviour and St. Clement, possibly St. Brelade. But town, I really cannot have the same debate 3 months down the line when I am told we must put at least another 2,000, 3,000 people in town, and it is in town, it is not the other parishes, but we can only plan for urban renewal for one year. It is ridiculous. You want to go out to tender .. as you say now, we are in recession, we want to go out to tender. We have got them where we want them but we have not got the money for the next 3 years for the developers and we need to spend that money now. I agree with the Minister for Treasury and Resources; it is a fantastic plan for the North of Town, even with or without the houses on the park. That  is another debate. But the actual improvements of the roads and everything around there, and that is one small part of St. Helier and, as the Deputy has said, there are other places, but please do not come to me and tell my heart to bleed for all your people who live in the country with lovely clean air. Yes, there are improvements to be made, when you have got kids and families squeezed into bedsit land, and when they come out there is nowhere, nothing for them to see except more and more traffic. All the traffic, by the way, is coming in probably from St. John and [Laughter] the outlying villages running round the town. I would like some consistency in this House for once. If you really want, and my Constable and me we do not even agree on this, but if that is going to be the place that people are going to live and it is going to be a place, in my Constable's words, that where they are queuing up to live, we need the money now and we need a 3-year plan. I think it is just sensible to do it.

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

I think the States haves too narrow a focus in relation to tax and spend. The possibilities of raising revenue from other sources was mentioned by the Chief Minister although he did not mention what they could be, he did say that this is not the right time to support this because there are other ways of doing it and they can be funded in a different way, so I presume then, as he and the Minister for Treasury Ministerand Resources spoke in favour of urban regeneration, that they are all for it except they do not have the cash. We Back-Bench Members have been sitting here for years now asking them to look at other ways of investing and diversifying in this economy of ours, some of which are outlined within the Island Plan, and it is available in Members' pigeon holes today, the new draft Island Plan. We see the issues in relation to tidal energy and offshore wind generation, which can provide millions of pounds of new revenue sources, yet we see very little in relation to the investment that is required and the encouragement of that industry to Jersey. I have recently sent an email around talking about a very large company coming to Jersey to discuss these issues and circulated that to the Members with Mministerial responsibility, have not even had a reply in some cases. This is one of the largest multinational companies in the world in this area. It is shocking. Managing change in the Island Plan under section 4.5.0 says this: " St. Helier urban character appraisal identified some of the challenges facing St. Helier in 2005 by stating that St. Helier is in many ways a remarkable place with many of the assets and attributes of a much larger city but at the same time the urban experience is disappointing and in some respects the town is dull and old-fashioned." It also went on to identify some of the drivers of change and opportunity that would help shape the future of St. Helier. Some of those things that it goes on to talk about are the opportunities in the future for us all to avoid having more properties in St. John that have not got septic tanks that need to be driven down to Bellozanne, tipped into the slurry there. They talk about putting more houses in St. Helier, and that is basically the ethos of this new Island Plan, is build it all in town. St. Helier, from my experience, has always been a bit of the poor relation at the table,

yet it has the most wealthy representation. It has got a Constable. It has got its Deputies and, yes, it has got 12 Senators. But rarely do we see support for the Constable of St. Helier and the regeneration of St. Helier and, I am sorry, as nice as Broad Street is, in the whole scheme of things, in a scale perspective, it is pitiful. It is absolutely pitiful. The use that this parish sees in terms of

daily wear and tear from the whole of the Island, those residents that come in from St. John , who do not have mains drains, that work here, that make money, that can afford big houses and go out and live in St. John, where there are no mains drains, come here everyday and enjoy, along with us, the advantages of having a modern thriving financial centre. But that modern financial thriving centre is woeful and pitiful in many areas where lots of people, who live in Jersey, who work and support that industry, not necessarily in it, are forced to live because of economic factors. Now there are opportunities here that I hope the Island Plan will address, and I have said this before to the Minister for Planning Ministerand Environment, who I do believe is a breath of fresh air in this regard, we do not really necessarily need to start building new houses, we just need to start providing the office space, and that is why I voted in favour of the Masterplan for the waterfront and why I am quite keen in seeing the development of the North of Town Masterplan in 90 per cent of what it is putting forward. That is because it talks about the reallocation of office work into office space. If you look around town, most of the properties that are operating as shops or businesses are operating out of townhouses. So we do not necessarily need to build new houses, we just need to start allocating houses that are already built to people who would like to live in them. In 4.6.4 it goes on in this Island Plan to say: "There was a strong likelihood that a significant number of commercial occupants of the new financial and business centre to be created in the Esplanade Quarter will have relocated from other premises in central St. Helier. Potentially this creates the spectre of long-term property voids as secondary office accommodation becomes difficult to re-let or sell. This could have a damaging effect on the appearance and the vitality of the town as has been seen to some extent in Hill Street. Inevitably property owners will hold out for a certain time in an attempt to secure new office tenants and eventually the market will adjust, but this may take some time. Many of the properties vacated may never find new commercial tenants." I think that that is a factor when we have got new people coming into Jersey to look at new opportunities within our finance industry and they walk up and down our shops and our streets and they look at the spaces that surround them. One of the drivers for knowing whether or not the place is thriving or not thriving are the number of tower cranes that you see. I certainly, while not a fan of tower cranes, do not want to see them removed altogether from town because that will mean that the economy has ground to a halt. So I think there is an opportunity for us to ask the Senators who are elected in the main by a lot of St. Helier residents, who have become totally disengaged with the political process in many respects because of the fact that living in town and being in town .. I was chastised last week by Senator Routier for saying it was not the greatest place to be. It is one of the greatest places to be. For certain. But there certainly are better places in Jersey to be and there are certainly better places in St. Helier to be than there are others. In St. Helier No. 1 district there are certainly some areas which need, and have needed for many, many, many years, some urban regeneration. Look at the properties, look at the tenants, look at the areas within town, start to think about the issues and the places where people live in those areas: La Collette, Havre des Pas, you have got the Howard Davis Park starting to be run down, lacking in funds. You walk through ColombiéreColomberie, shopkeepers going out of business. You walk down Hill Street;

more shops available. You walk through a pedestrianised area into West Centre, and that is fine. But you go on up into where the North of Town Masterplan is calling for change and you start to see the things that are needed. I have said this before, I live in the heart of town, and certainly there are many, many, many instances where you look around and you think: "It is just one big concrete dog toilet." The residents of St. John complain they have not got mains drains, where are the dog toilets? Where are the places for the children to play? Where are the comfortable well-lit and well- maintained areas for people to enjoy their lunch and discuss matters in a feeling of harmony, an environment of harmony. We have got £4 billion in this economy of ours and we are talking one of our greatest achievements is Broad Street. It is pathetic. We need much more. No one-year plan will be sustainable, we all know that, having been in business, for the most part many Members know that, but also having been in the States, most Members know, there is no chance on God's earth that you can deliver something if you just throw one year's funding at it. What you are basically saying is tick the box now, let us get on with it and appease that concern for now and

dismiss it later. We have to get the waterfront moving. We have to get it moving and we have to get it delivered. When is the abattoir site going to be finished? When is that going to be delivered? We saw the wonderful opening up of the Weighbridge and yet all we have seen since then is it covered pretty much with concrete and some different bits and pieces. Hardly anything for the residents and yet it speaks about what we are as a community to those individuals that are coming in to invest in Jersey, if they look around, having come from the places where they live, and they look at our town they must see in the future a much better provided for living space, and with more buildings coming online and with more people being involved with immigration, the Council of Ministers has everything at its disposal to make it pay for itself and to find the funding. It has got control of immigration. It has got control of the budget. It has got control of the department. It has got control of planning. It can impose financial structures in terms of development that require that money to be put to urban regeneration, but the reality is they do not want to because they want to continue to milk the financial system for as much as it has got until it is milked dry. Let us just focus on that one animal. The reality is, is that one animal will not last for ever and we need to diversify, so we need to invest in a vibrant community and while that animal is still the only animal on the block, we need to tell the rest of the world that comes here to look at its money that Jersey is a thriving, healthy, well-run, well-regulated community that cares for its less fortunate and cares for the way it represents itself, not only on the international stage but on the home front, and as already been said, I will not go over it, these are other areas, what about the tourist? Tourists coming into the harbour on an average daily spend, it was calculated 10 years ago, into the marina was spending £75 a day. We have got a wonderful marina, we can do more in that area but what is the point in giving them a wonderful berthing opportunity when they walk across the road into a rundown, dilapidated town? It cannot continue. We need to invest in St. Helier , not because I am a St. Helier Deputy but because it is the Island town. It is the Island town. If Members want to come back and represent their district and say: "You have got to stick up for Gorey, it is a lovely place, and this has fallen down, and you have got to stick up for St. Aubin because we do not want any more cars here, and it is already too busy." Then get on board with St. Helier. It is not about the fact we do not have the money this year for next year or the next year, it is about the fact that the Council of Ministers are not applying their minds outside of the box, and they are not looking for new ways of creating income as much as some of us would like them to in these opportunities of renewable

energies, et ceteraet cetera, and diversifying the economy.

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

If I could just correct a couple of important comments in the last speech, which was touched on. I believe Deputy Le Claire described the Constable of St. Helier as wealthy, which I have to assure him is completely untrue. I think what he meant was that the representatives of St. Helier have a good proportion of the seats in the House, but maybe I misheard him. Perhaps he said I was healthy, I do not know. He also implied that it was St. Helier that stood to gain from this and as a previous speaker said, this is not just about St. Helier , it is about all urban areas and I think Deputy Maçon rightly raised the condition of Georgetown, Longueville, other Deputies might refer to Les Quennevais. There are urban areas around the Island which really need the kind of investment that we are talking about today. A final correction: Deputy De Sousa, who spoke first, said that I had succeeded in my amendment to get the funding reinstated for next year, of course what actually happened was that on a promise from the Minister for Treasury Ministerand Resources, that the major projects being worked on for next year would not remain unfunded, I withdrew the amendment; so that is just to clarify that point. I am very grateful to the Deputy of St. Mary and his opening speech, which I thought was really a model of economy and strategic thinking. I almost had to do a double take because to hear a St. Mary Deputy talking the way he was, I have certainly not heard that before in 12 years in the States, and it was truly an excellent speech. I was disappointed to hear the Chief Minister followed by the Minister for Treasury and ResourcesMinister not being able to support this. The Chief Minister was not specific about the alternative funding that he was looking for, and I would remind him that this is but 10 per cent of the £4 million a year that is being inscribed for essential maintenance and compliance with health and safety, and so on, for our rolling programme of property. If it is important to have a rolling programme for States property, is it not equally important at 10 per cent of that value, to have a rolling programme for investment in the infrastructure of our Island and the public realm. I was just reminded when the Chief  Minister was speaking, that his predecessor  championed urban regeneration and I think it is a shame that Senator Le Sueur is not willing to be a champion and to assure the urban areas of the Island that they will not be starved of that essential public sector contribution to the public realm, because that is all we are talking about. Equally the Minister for Treasury Ministerand Resources said he found it difficult to speak against it, and I thought: "Well, why not be bold like Senator Maclean was last time" and vote against the Council of Ministers. He said we need something which is affordable and that works. I can assure the Minister, and he knows this is true because he has seen it happen, that this very small amount of money we are talking about, £400,000 a year invested into the public realm, repays dividends. It is stimulus money. It is seed corn money. It is like the talent in the parable, it is not left in the ground in a napkin, but is invested and returned to the master many fold. I think it is just a shame the Council of Ministers cannot see this. I just draw to their attention the fact that last week the St. Helier Parish Assembly voted up to £400,000, the same amount, to invest in a single property in town to provide new public toilet facilities, which many ratepayers pointed out is not the job of the parish to do, but somebody has to do it. Somebody has to make sure that the remaining eyesore in Conway Street, that the States and the parish have worked together on, is not left there for another decade and that proper disabled facilities .. the best disabled toilets in the Island somebody was calling for at that meeting, and the parish is going to put that money in. I must say, I felt bad about it. I felt bad about asking parishioners of St. Helier to once again dig into their pockets to pay for something which really should be the States responsibility. Are the Council of Ministers now saying: "Well, we cannot guarantee that we will spend £400,000 over the next few years, per year, on all of the urban areas in Jersey." I think that is a very poor show and I would urge them to reconsider. What message does this send out today if the Senators vote and the Council of Ministers vote against this? The message they send out is that all of the investment in the public realm must come from the private sector, it must come from planning agreements and planning obligations. I do not know about you, I mean developers are not the most favourite people in the Island but how are they going to feel being told that the States of Jersey simply expect them to do all the work and to spend all the

money. It is a partnership between the private and the public sector. We have seen that in the past. We have seen how the private sector will work with us to invest in the public realm and, as I say, that is important. I say this finally for the Council of Ministers, you cannot have it both ways, as Deputy Martin said very persuasively. You cannot expect the urban areas to bear the brunt, if that is what you think it is, I do not, but you cannot expect the urban areas to take all the housing, to take the concentration of development and yet deny the urban areas the essential investment in things like pavements, benches, trees, fountains, all the things that you expect to see in an attractive urban area. Possibly, if they continue to pursue this line, I accept that we have some funding for next year, but if this is the way the Council of Ministers are going to go, I can see I will be joining Deputy Martin's camp and starting to talk about St. Helier has had enough. Let us send the housing somewhere else. Let us send the housing to St. Mary or St. John. I urge the Council of Ministers to think about this. It is not a large sum of money. It sends out the message that they are serious about developing and continuing to work in partnership with the private sector in the urban areas to make those areas fit for purpose, both as housing areas and areas in which businesses and tourists will thrive. I will obviously be supporting the proposition.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Just to correct a comment from the Constable. Alternative sources of funding were issued in my comments to the amendment, so I did not bother to repeat them today.

10. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :

I thank the Chief Minister for his intervention. Like Deputy Fox, I was really interested to hear the Chief Minister talk of alternative means by which urban renewal can be ensured. Like Deputy Fox, I also have to say that I am afraid I am yet to be convinced that they presently exist, but I am always willing to be persuaded. Listening to the Minister for Treasury Ministerand Resources, I fully recognise his concerns and the looming dangers of structural deficit. I also hear the Deputy of St. John's heartfelt plea for improvement in main drains. He has certainly made it enough times that I do not think any one of us could forget the reality of the situation. However, I am afraid I have to support the words of my fellow St. Helier No. 1 Deputy , Deputy Martin. In St. Helier we essentially often have to run just to stand still when it comes to the issue of urban renewal. Other urban areas, likewise I am sure, are just the same. As anyone who has lived outside of the Island for any length of time can confirm, failing to support urban renewal, take it seriously, even in details that might seem almost trivial at first glance, quickly lead to highly damaging social issues. That, I think is a reality that cannot be ignored, whether worsening, existing problems or even creating new ones. Our Constable of St. Helier with the support of all 10 Deputies has shown both vision and commitment to this area. I believe the Assembly should follow that lead and support the Deputy of St. Mary's amendment. I would urge the Assembly to forget all the fine words of support from the Executive in this instance and consider what I have to say is often a grim reality of pouring ever more people into one area, in this case St. Helier. Often facts are just buried beneath the lovely glossy graphics of masterplans. Perhaps I am a little more sceptical than my Constable but there we go. I think there areis a lot of people in the parish who feel the same way as I do. However, in returning to the very real concerns of the Minister for Treasury Ministerand Resources, I would also seek to help him with his dilemma by suggesting as a key priority that he convinces his colleagues to set about raising money, such as those needed by drawing up and committing to a system of genuine progressive taxation where, instead of middle Jersey carrying the can, those who are fortunate enough to have significant wealth finally do pay their way, because that certainly is not the case all too often right now. Surely that should be a key priority for the Minister for Treasury Ministerand Resources. To close, I would echo the words of the Constable of St. Helier and call on the Chief Minister to be the champion of urban renewal that he surely should be. That he surely must be. It is not, as has just been said, a huge amount of money when you look at the bigger picture, and I think if we rejected the Deputy of St. Mary's amendment once again we will be missing that bigger picture. I think Deputy Hilton put it very well in the last session when she said often the Council of Ministers know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Well,

I think here we run the risk of seeing that repeated again. Please do support the amendment.

11. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier :

Much what I wanted to say has been said, so I will not repeat it, except that I would just like to put it all into perspective. Do you really mean that we cannot afford this urban renewal when it is not even the price of a modest semi-detached house? [Approbation] Jersey cannot afford to look after its town. I want a town, I am sure we all want a town, that we can be proud of. Not just for the residents, although I think they deserve it, the residents of St. Helier who put up with the noise at night, the traffic and the air pollution, but I think everyone that works in St. Helier deserves to sit in a comfortable nice environment and for the price of a modest .. actually I would like to find a semi-detached house for that price - probably a 3-bedroomed flat these days, we cannot afford it. I will be supporting the amendment.

12. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I think when we talk about urban renewal we tend to fixate on St. Helier. I think what has been said about the town area and urban regeneration is very valid in St. Helier, whether we live in St. Brelade, St. John or even in St. Helier. But of course we must not forget, it is not limited to those areas. We are also talking about St. John village, we are talking about outlying villages, we are talking about St. Helier , Les Quennevais, Maufant. I think all those are included in this. What fascinates me about these debates, not just this one but in general, the politics, the use of language

and how, depending which side you are on, sometimes something is called a waste of money, and other times is called an investment. The same thing is used for this whole idea of revolution not evolution, which is obviously viewed by one side as an excuse for inaction, they do not want to do anything. Other times we are told we cannot do anything piecemeal, it has to be done wholesale. But I think really the issue here is that, it is about investment. This £400,000 was already allocated. It is not £400,000 that we are asking for in addition. It was already allocated to urban regeneration and as the previous speaker, Deputy Green, mentioned, it is equal to the price of a 3-bedroomed family home, or maybe it is just about the price of an average home these days, so that is the figure we are talking about, and if we cannot afford that in the States then there is something very wrong there. Really, in terms of business, I did mention not so long ago I went to a business conference about the importance of keeping up investment during a recession. They could not highlight enough how important it is to invest during times of recession. The basic principle in layman's terms is a stitch in time saves nine9'. If you let things go to rack and ruin during tight times then you are storing up trouble for yourself further down the line. These things will need to be paid for and it is best to put the funding back now rather than to save up a damnation for us later on, so to speak. We are basically saving money in the future by spending what we should have been spending now. I think what the Deputy of St. Mary is saying, contrary to the Council of Ministers who say we cannot afford to do this at the moment, is that we cannot afford not to do it. Simply we have to put this investment in otherwise we will be paying for it in the future. When I first looked at this amendment I thought we need a bit more information, what is this £400,000 going to achieve? But looking further at it, as I mentioned, this is only £400,000 which was removed from the fund in the first place, which brings me to the logical conclusion that if, in fact, the Council of Ministers had just left this money in the pot I do not think anyone here today would be making a fuss about it. No one would be saying: "Hang on a minute, we really cannot afford to spend this £400,000." We would have just gone along in good faith with the Council of Ministers thinking presumably that money is well spent there, and I do not think anybody would have voted against it.

So, logically, the only conclusion one can draw from that is that people who are voting against this amendment are people who just go along with the Council of Ministers unthinkingly. If you are not in the Council of Ministers themselves itself then if the only reason that you are supporting this is because the Council of Ministers are is supporting it, then that is not really a logical argument. Hopefully I have succeeded in provoking at least one of the Connétable s to speak, so I have achieved something. Just to sum up really; this money should have been made available anyway. I simply do not think it is a real use of money. It is not a real saving. This is an investment that needs to be done. It is not one of the corners that we can afford to cut. I would also challenge the Deputy of St. John by saying .. I found his argument slightly spurious saying: "I cannot support this amendment from the Deputy of St. Mary because it is not to do with mains drains." I know he is not here to defend himself, but that seemed to be the crux of it saying: "Well, as long as there are people in Jersey who are not connected to mains drains then I cannot support urban regeneration." That does not seem like the way to a valid argument. In fact, it is not an either/or. I am sure that the Deputy of St. John could support the amendment for the Deputy of St. Mary and then later on when he comes with his own amendment, which is conspicuously lacking - I do not think the Deputy of St. John has brought any amendments to the Business Plan in relation to bringing money forward for mains drains - so I do not believe he is really one to criticise but perhaps I have gone off on a tangent. So the point here; this money is needed. It was allocated. It was then withdrawn by the Council of Ministers. We are simply asking for the money to be put back. This is not an area that we can afford to cut spending in. It is a good investment. It is not just about St. Helier . It is also about urban areas in the whole of the Island. If we really are in favour of urban regeneration and not just paying lip service to it, then I believe we need to accept this amendment. I think the Council of Ministers should also change their minds.