States Meeting Transcript - 09/06/2009

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 9th JUNE 2009

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

1. States Strategic Plan 2009–2014 (P.52/2009): eleventh amendment Paragraphs 1(d), 8 and 9 (P.52/2009 Amd.(11)) (continued)..................................................5

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................5
2. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:........................................................6
3. Senator P.F. Routier: ....................................................................9
4. The Deputy of St. Mary:.................................................................9
5. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................12
6. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................12

2. States Strategic Plan 2009–2014 (P.52/2009): sixth amendment Paragraph 3 (P.52/2009 Amd.(6)) .....................................................................19

2.1 Senator T.A. Sueur (The Chief Minister):..............................................20

1. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ........................................................20
2. Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): ...........................20
3. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................21
4. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:....................................................21
5. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................21

3. States Strategic Plan 2009–2014 (P.52/2009): eleventh amendment Paragraphs 10(a) and 10(b) (P.52/2009 Amd.(11)).........................................................23

3.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................24

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................25
2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................25
3. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................26
4. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................26
5. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................27
6. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................27
7. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................27
8. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ............................................28
9. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ...................................................28
10. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................29
11. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier : ......................................................29
12. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:..................................................30
13. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier : ..................................................30
14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):...................30
15. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................31
16. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................32
17. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:.......................................................32
18. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................33

4. States Strategic Plan 2009–2014 (P.52/2009): fourth amendment Paragraphs 1-5 (P.52/2009 Amd.(4)) .....................................................................37

4.1 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................37

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................37
2. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................37
3. The Connétable of St. Ouen:............................................................38
4. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................38

5. States Strategic Plan 2009–2014 (P.52/2009): amendment Paragraphs 1 and 2 (P.52/2009 Amd.)........................................................................40

5.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................40

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................40
2. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):...........41
3. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................41
4. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................41
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................41

6. States Strategic Plan 2009–2014 (P.52/2009): seventh amendment Paragraph 1 (P.52/2009 Amd.(7)) .....................................................................43

6.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................43

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................49

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................49

7. States Strategic Plan 2009–2014 (P.52/2009): seventh amendment Paragraph 1 amendment (P.52/2009 Amd.(7)) - amendment ........................................49

7.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................50

7.1.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................50

8. States Strategic Plan 2009–2014 (P.52/2009): seventh amendment Paragraph 1 (P.52/2009 Amd.(7)) - as amended......................................................50

1. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................50
2. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................51
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................52
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................52
5. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................52
6. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................53
7. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................53
8. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................53
9. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................54

9. States Strategic Plan 2009–2014 (P.52/2009): seventh amendment Paragraph 2 (P.52/2009 Amd.(7)) and eighth amendment (P.52/2009 Amd.(8)).....................57

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................58
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................59

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................60
2. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................62
3. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................64
4. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................65
5. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................66
6. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................67

7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................67
8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................68
9. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................69
10. Deputy D.J. De Sousa: ..............................................................70
11. The Deputy of Trinity : ..............................................................70
12. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................71
13. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):.....72
14. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ..................................................72
15. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................72
16. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................73
17. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................73
18. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................73
19. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................74
20. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................75

10. States Strategic Plan 2009-2014 (P.52/2009): Fifth Amendment (P.52/2009 (Amd.(5)) ...........................................................................................78

10.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................79

1. The Deputy of Trinity : ..............................................................79
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................79
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................80

11. States Strategic Plan 2009-2014 (P.52/2009): amendment Paragraph 3 (P.52/2009 Amd.)....................................................................................80

11.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................80

1. The Deputy of Trinity : ..............................................................81
2. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................81
3. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier : .......................................................81
4. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................81
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................81

12. States Strategic Plan 2009-2014 (P.52/2009): third amendment (P.52/2009 Amd.(3)) 82

12.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:...................................................................82

1. Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement:..................................................82
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................83
3. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................83
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................83
5. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................83
6. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................83
7. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................84
8. Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................84
9. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................84
10. Deputy T.M.Pitman:..............................................................84

13. States Strategic Plan 2009-2014 (P.52/2009): second amendment Paragraph 1 (P.52/2009 Amd.(2)) .....................................................................85

13.1 Deputy S. Pitman:......................................................................85

1. The Connétable of St. Peter:.........................................................86
2. Deputy A.K.F. Green:...............................................................86
3. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................87
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................88

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................89

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. States Strategic Plan 2009–2014 (P.52/2009): eleventh amendment Paragraphs 1(d), 8 and 9 (P.52/2009 Amd.(11)) (continued)

The Deputy Bailiff :

We return to the debate on the Strategic Plan and the Assembly was in the course of discussing amendments lodged by Deputy Southern . I understand all Members have a very useful crib sheet prepared by the Greffier and, using that numbering, the Assembly is discussing amendments 31 to 39, that being the amendments on the left-hand column of the sheet. Now, does any other Member wish to speak on those amendments?

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

We made a number of criticisms and recommendations in our Scrutiny Report. With the original pressure being on the migration policy, we concentrated on net population immigration. Sadly, we were limited by time as we wanted to get the report in before this debate and, ideally, we should have given more time to the other factors; the demographic, the economic, the effect on the infrastructure and Keep Jersey Special. Limiting or not of migration affects all of these other factors. However, we did point out areas of weakness, some of which were covered by the circulation of a report by the Statistics Unit on 29th May. I regret that it did not come out sooner. As to the amendments, the Deputy wants a full discussion on population in order to create a more equal society. Given that his ideas and mine are somewhat different, it is unsurprising that I cannot take this as a reason to follow his lead. His first amendment is somewhat ephemeral. What level of population is sustainable? I think it is fairly clear what the population want. It is to maintain, or even improve living standards while retaining what is left of the specialness of Jersey. As we found during the hearings during the preparation of the report, we all have significantly different ideas of sustainability. The Chief Minister talks of living within our resources with the implication that we live within our means, have a sound economy and a way of life to pass on to the next generation. Others want to pull up the drawbridge and return to a more self-sufficient economy, perhaps, I might say, more agrarian. The public do not want us to build on green fields but acknowledge that we have an inevitable change in demographic structure looming. Our report notes that the States have a number of conflicting issues to cope with. The trade-off for Jersey is deciding what level of population growth is acceptable to ensure the Island retains its special identity while providing the support for economic development that will meet the challenges posed by its ageing demographic structure. In fact, for the 53 Members in this Assembly, I suspect there will be 53 different versions of sustainability, so perhaps we should just park this. Working through the amendments: "11(9)(a) Ensure that a clear approach is brought within 6 months." I think this should have better been applied to item 6 in the Strategic Plan dealing with the demographic changes. In fact, perhaps items 5 and 6 should have been combined and entitled "Dealing with the Demographic Changes." Still, we are where we are. The rest of the amendments are concerned with delaying implementation of the limits set out in the plan. One of the problems we had in Scrutiny was that the model was based on the 2005 figures and there has been substantial immigration since then. In fact, the recent report on the population states that the population has increased by 3,400 since 2005 with a total net immigration of about 2,600. At the briefing on population which was held recently I asked why there were no more recent figures taking into account the effects of certain policy options such as increasing the statutory retirement age. Quick as lightning - very slow lightning - but, sadly, after we had issued our report on 29th May, the Statistics Unit issued an update on population. I am extremely sorry about that because the information would have been very welcome earlier. This particular report included an indication of the effect of increasing the pensionable age. This resulted in a working age population, which is about the same level as it is currently, taken forward. They have not yet supplied the amended dependency ratio but I would surmise that it is not so reduced as in the 2035 forecast and it might even correlate with that of today. If that is so, and when the full results are published, I will resist saying: "I told you so." Also tucked away at the end of the report on the population model was a paragraph on the scale to year end 2007. The original graphs we had are not scaled up by the immigration for 2006 and 2007. If you add 2008, as I have said, we are talking about 2,600. However, I played around with the figures in the appendices to the reports. I made some basic assumptions and I re-based the totals to the 2009 of 91,800 people in the Island. It was interesting. I worked on totals, I did not make any allowances for other options and I did not adjust the number in each age range. It was, I suppose, the equivalent of the back of a fag packet calculation. I would agree with the Council of Ministers that the net inward migration figure and the maximum of 100,000 are relatively optimum maximum allowable figures. Obviously, the Council of Ministers' fag packet agrees with mine. Out of interest, I also re-examined the net nil immigration policy suggested by the Deputy of St. Mary. Either way, the population is forecast to fall to around 72,000 to 74,000 by 2065 which are roughly the 1976 levels.

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

On a point of clarification or even order, I have been misrepresented. I have never ever advocated nil net migration.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I apologise. The limited immigration policy. All right, I will say: "The net nil immigration policy" and eliminate the reference to the Deputy of St. Mary. I apologise for that to the Deputy . The net nil immigration policy gives a forecast for the population to fall to around 1976 levels. It seems to me that the impetus should not be so much on delaying the population policy; it should be speeding up the introduction of the migration control mechanisms and the demographic policies outlined in part 6 of the plan. If there is anything which should be brought to the House within the next 6 months, it is the demographic policies. There should re-basing of the datum line and updating of the graphs to show the effect of the options for a more meaningful debate and, as we have all noted, the 2011 census will be vital to confirm the accurate estimates of the population. In short, the numbers quoted in the Strategic Plan are not ideal but they set a limit on inward migration. I would suggest that in this particular economic situation, it is likely they will not be reached but they should definitely not be allowed to exceed these figures. There is also the question of what could happen if we do not accept the limits. I have been ploughing back through the various policies and the previous Strategic Plan. The only references I can find are: "Limit job growth to 1 per cent and allow 200 heads of household a year" which was in 2002. Without the limits in this Strategic Plan, we shall presumably be reverting to the older, looser policies. For these reasons, I will not be supporting the Deputy 's amendments.

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

I am glad you called me after the Senator because this is where I find a great, great difficulty with this population debate being tagged into the Strategic Plan. Her last comment was, presumably, if we do not adopt this new figure we will go back to the loose numbers that were put in P.25/2005 which was 1 per cent of the working population or 500 people a year. Now, I have asked questions of the new Chief Minister and the old Chief Minister: "Will this policy be dropped when a new figure is set?" I have never had a definite answer. In fact, the last answer from the last Chief Minister Senator Walker said: "They will probably run concurrently." Now, listen to that: ".. run concurrently." So you have 2 mechanisms already to increase population. I thought the last speaker was the chair of the Population Policy Sub-Panel in a previous life before the Statistics Unit came out with a different figure. I do not know but the reason that they state at 1.5: "Questions of limited net migration and the size of the Island's population raised the issue of how limits will be met. The Strategic Plan states that mechanism for population control will be introduced in due course and detailed provisions remain to be finalised. We have found that the

question of population control is in fact paramount to any discussion on population size and net inward migration, notwithstanding the argument that the population policy and the migration policy should be treated separately. It would therefore be more appropriate for a debate on population control to take place before any debate on the size and the makeup of Jersey's population." Now, as I have already told you, we do not know. It is very, very scary to me that we have not had a proper population debate. You will hear, if Ministers have not spoken, that we had this debate in 2005 on P.25 but do any of the new Members know what this is? Do they understand "Entitled, Licensed, Regulated People?" I doubt it but it goes further. It says: "It is an in principle debate we had" and it says: "To task Policy and Resources Committee in consultation with Economic Development, Housing, Home Affairs and Social Security to bring forward [we have had none of it] the necessary legal and other measures to give effect to the above for consideration by the States." It does not say: "Tag it on to the next" This goes on to say that this is for the Strategic Plan 2005-10. That is not the last one; this is the new one that we are now debating. So this is 3 Strategic Plans and not a population debate and it somewhere fits in. Again, in the same debate, it says: "Charge of the Policy and Resources Committee in consultation with Economic Development, Housing, and all the others, to bring forward the necessary legal and other measures to give effect to the above for consideration by the States" and it goes on. It goes on for benefits, a population register, a single point of contact and a simple process for maintaining evidence of residency in Jersey. Senator Ferguson seems to think that we are waiting for a census. We already know we have found another 2,000 people. We have got a population of 91,800 give or take. I will be a bit scandalous and say: "Let us say we have got 92,000 people here." It also said: "While policy proposals outline an overall approach for monitoring and regulating the factors that govern migration, further detailed operation arrangements will need to be determined and, most importantly, the decisions processed by which the policy will be implemented. The economic environment and social criteria will be applied in relation to allocation of employment licences." It goes on and on. I remember, as I say, many questions and many debates in this House and I did have to laugh out loud sitting in the coffee room as I printed this off and Senator Routier said to

me: "No doubt, Deputy , we will find out what you are laughing at." Well, I have to quote this. This is Hansard December 2006. Senator Ozouf said: "In the spirit of Christmas, I would like to invite Deputy Martin to come and have a glass of mulled wine." I think I was getting a bit irate again over population. "I would like to explain to her and get some of our officers to come and explain to her exactly what we do at the Regulation of Undertakings and how it works and how we apply it because, clearly, from her remarks that she has made in the Assembly this morning, she does not know. She also needs, if I may say, to be educated in terms of the numbers issue. To stand in this Assembly and speculate with wild abandonment that our population figures may be 100,000 is, frankly, to those people listening in this Assembly, a concerning issue." Well, it was then and it is still with me today. [Approbation] Wild abandonment. I have been accused of wild abandonment. [Laughter]

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Sir, she never came for her mulled wine! Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

My reputation obviously precedes me. There we go. [Laughter] It is there for people in black and white to see and then again, I went through Hansard and it was the Constable of St. Lawrence asking again, I think, a question and the answer is .. I cannot remember if the Constable was in the States when we debated the migration policy. It could not have been the Constable as I do not know if she was in. It was brought by the President of Policy and Resources. Now, please listen: "Our migration policy is a monitoring device. It will not be introduced until at least June of July next year" and this is 2006, so we are well behind "and we could already have another 2,000 or 3,000 immigrants." Well, that fact is right. "This is an important policy area in securing migration and population objectives and the fullest possible public understanding of the debate is vital. I can

give a categoric assurance to this Assembly that the Migration Policy and the Reg. of Uns. is an absolute tool and I am now convinced more than ever that to control .. the Minister for Economic Development is very well aware that Deputy Martin undertook an extensive investigation of the migration policy within the last 2 years and knows fully well how Reg. of Uns. works and how the migration policy is set out to regulate and monitor and not to control. That was stated in this House by, I think, the Committee President of Economic Development but it was called something else then. So please do not think we have some secret weapon up our backs we cannot control. Have we set  a  limit?  Well,  obviously,  100,000  is  now the target  proposed,  wild abandonment or whatever, but it is a target. Senator Ferguson confuses "nil" with "limits" because Deputy Southern does use the word "limits", and the Deputy of St. Mary's proposition was to keep the population around the same and I suppose he got a shock because I think when he was researching it, he still thought we were around about 89,000 to 91,000. We are not. He found another 3,000 or 4,000 people. In finishing, I have respect for people in this House. A lot of them are new Members but what I do not have respect for - and I cannot respect - is like a glib tying on a massive .. and this has been going on well before I came into the States. We had lots of words from the then Senator Horsfall and this is why we eventually had a so-called debate. We have not got the facts. I, as the Deputy said, had 2 big files of A4 and, again, last year when I was on the population, 2 big files which backs up supposedly these figures of plus 100, 320, 540 people. Masses and masses of papers that have never, ever been scrutinised down to: "Do we need more schools and will we be shutting schools?" It does say we will need £20 million on liquid waste. That is if we get to a population of 99,000. That is 250 heads of households or 540 people a year. Are you listening? 540 people a year. We are already, in the Minister's own reports, at least 1,000 units of qualified accommodation short, so where, again, I emphasise, is all that going to go? But what I really cannot understand on such a massive debate that this House has never had, why would the Council of Ministers want to tag it on to 3 or 4 pages in the Strategic Plan debate? A high level debate, we are told and, again, not accept Deputy Southern 's amendment because nobody wants to stand up, know all this information and then go back to their constituents or their Parishes and say: "Yes, my love, I agreed to 100,000. Have you got a problem with that?" Well, they probably would not get as far as the end of the drive when they are knocking on the door at election time because there is not anybody out there who conceivably understands. I understand when they say: "We need economic growth" which means grow in people but we have wild promises in here. This is the debate that we had. "We are going to limit the low productive workers" it says. We do not know how because we are already told we have no control. So what is Deputy Southern asking? What is he asking us to do? I think he is asking us all to tell the Council of Ministers to go away and come up with some backup papers for all this that can be scrutinised. Yes, it will take 6 months maybe to bring it back to the States but this is not a decision that is going to be taken lightly. Deputy Southern , myself and others will probably be accused of putting off the inevitable day but, as Senator Ferguson so rightly points out and I will not emphasise this enough, 1 per cent of the working population now that we already have is 500 workers plus their families. So we have a very, very high ratio. For anybody who thinks, if we accept this amendment to look at the problem, that we are going to say: "Sorry, Jersey is shut for business", oh, no, we are not. We are quite open. We are already letting in .. and it was never made clear in this debate that it was secular cycles. We thought it was 500 people a year. As it happens, the 3 years all went over the 500 if you added them up but, apparently, if you then add them up, you must not do it secularly. It has got to be done yearly. None of it makes sense. It says: "Impact on Education. Implementations for Health and Social Services. Transport. Further requirements for homes. Town capacity study. The environmental prospect." None of this is in here. We know nothing. We are taking something on faith in a few pages of a high-level document but I will emphasise the migration policy, and monitoring and regulation has no controls on it. It is in black and white. I have not changed my stance. I still say a 100,000 population is probably not right for Jersey but at least I am willing to have the debate but I am not and cannot support what the Council are proposing and I think the Deputy 's amendments are sensible [Approbation], they are needed and everybody really needs to

know what they are signing up to. I want to know today from one of the Ministers that if we do sign up to the end of this Strategic Plan at the end of this debate, if the Deputy 's amendments are not taken as read, are we going to abandon the 500 jobs or the 1 per cent and just go for 150 people plus? If I hear that, I may have some reassurance but I can tell you now no one is going to stand up and give you that reassurance because it does not suit. You can pick from whichever debate you like. It is either 500 plus or 150 plus and do not forget we already have 3,000 more than we were planning for. So I can only support this amendment because I want more information. For anybody here who is representing the people of Jersey, you should be wanting that information [Approbation] and you should be wanting this very, very debate. Stand up and be counted and vote on the exact words of the population debate and the mechanisms if they are around when the debate comes; not a few pages shoved into the Strategic Plan. Thank you.

3. Senator P.F. Routier:

This debate has sort of swung between talking about the mechanisms which people are waiting for. We are all waiting for those to come into place and the numbers. Members will be aware that I took over the position of chairing the Migration Advisory Policy Group only at the beginning of this year and it is a piece of work which has been a very detailed piece of work to be getting on with and I think, as Deputy Martin in an earlier debate spoke about, she felt that in the previous work that was carried out, she thought that there were things that needed to be looked at again. I do agree with her. Certainly, there were certain parts of the original propositions which we needed to have a fresh look at, and that is what we have been doing. That is what we have been doing for the last few months and Members will have seen from the answers given by the Chief Minister to questions from Deputy Le Claire at the beginning of this sitting that, although I understand he is frustrated that these things have not been coming forward fast enough, the work has been going on and there has to be a detailed look at all of the propositions; the name and address register, the new legislation which is going to replace the Regulation of Undertakings and the new legislation which is going to replace the Housing Regulations. This is a big piece of work which we also need to incorporate and to ensure that the law officers are satisfied with what we are bringing forward. That work is going on and we are, on Friday, going to the Council of Minister to, hopefully, get the backing to then be able to take it one step forward. I am not going to repeat the answer that was given to Members by the Chief Minister. It outlines the progress and the timescale of what needs to happen. During that time of process, we need to allow time for Scrutiny to have a good understanding and a good opportunity to look at what is being proposed and we cannot rush that, unfortunately. As much as we would love to and we all want to have this in place and to have a new mechanism in place but we cannot rush that, unfortunately. We have to ensure that what is coming forward is Human Rights compliant. I am not sure what the Deputy is laughing about but when any legislation comes forward, we have to ensure that that is the case because, otherwise, the States are not going to approve it. So we have to ensure that that is happening. I think it was Deputy Le Claire who mentioned last week that he did not think the Council of Ministers has an appetite to bring forward this new legislation. Well, I can assure him I certainly have an appetite and the Migration Advisory Group have an appetite, and I am sure the Council of Ministers do as well, but we want to get it right. We want to ensure that what comes forward is appropriate for modern day living within Jersey, so I want to give Members that reassurance. I am not going to focus on discussing the population number because that has always been a little bit of a misunderstanding about what the Migration Advisory Policy Group does. It is not the job of the Migration Advisory Group to discuss the number. What our piece of work is, we are focusing on the mechanisms and that piece of work, as I say, is coming to a conclusion to go out to further consultation and, in the answers which the Chief Minister gave, there is a timetable for that. I just

really wanted to give that assurance to Members that work is progressing.

4. The Deputy of St. Mary :

Just to start, I would like to pick up on something that Senator Ferguson said. She wanted to speed up the control mechanism which Senator Routier has just been talking about and she also said that we needed updated figures and that we have not really got the latest figures. In fact, far from it and then drew the peculiar conclusion that we should reject this amendment, and I do not quite know how all that follows because, surely, what the amendment is saying is that the Council of Ministers needs to come back within 6 months having worked out the figures correctly and with different scenarios for, for instance, something dear, I know, to the chairman of the Scrutiny Panel's heart is the notion that if you raise the retirement age, you have quite dramatic impacts on the support ratios and there are no figures. We are not told anything about that in what the Council of Ministers have presented to us. The worked out policy covering all aspects of the ageing population is really, in a major way, what this proposed increase in the population is about. It is about coping with the ageing population but when we look at what the Scrutiny Sub-Panel said on population, one of their key findings was the other aspects of the policy package: ".. mentioned by the Council of Ministers to address the effects of an ageing society" have not, to date, been sufficiently researched, analysed or documented and if you go through the various other Scrutiny Panel Reports, as I have, and the I.S.A.S. ( Island-wide Strategy for an Ageing Society) and so on, you know that that is true that we are faced with one strand of how to deal successfully with the ageing population and all the other strands have sort of run into the sand in one way or another or not been worked on sufficiently. This is our Scrutiny Panel and really one wonders what we work for if the House really takes little notice. The recommendation following from that key finding is: "The other parts of the policy package need to be clearly researched and analysed by the Council of Ministers. The population policy should not be debated until a clearer picture of the entire package is provided." Now, that seems to me to be quite a solid recommendation and it is in line with that recommendation that this set of amendments is being brought, so we have very flawed data, we have a lot of work that has not been done, even on the basis of: "What would happen if? What would happen if?" Also, we have whole elements of a policy about the ageing population which simply are not there and the 6 months would give the Council of Ministers time to do this work or to pull together work that has been done behind the scenes. I know the Minister for Social Security is going to bring something quite shortly on, I think, one of the insurance schemes that we need, so there is work going on but it is not in front of us. We just do not have an overall picture. Now, Deputy Pitman, when he was speaking last week, used the phrase: "How serious this issue is", and I notice the Chief Minister nodding his head in assent to that notion that this is really the big issue and I think the States have a golden opportunity. We can get this right and would it not be wonderful if we did. What that would do for the attitude of people out there to us lot in here would change dramatically if we went and really honestly consulted with them. I think it would be a real milestone and one of the recommendations of the Scrutiny Panel is that we do in fact just that and I want to compare and contrast, as they say in the exam papers, 2 examples of consultation that have happened in Jersey just to show how it can go wrong and how it can go right because this is absolutely fundamental to this amendment. The first one is the waterfront which has been consulted on and consulted on but never quite right. It has never been done, as far as I can see, in a real fundamental way. You start off with a blank sheet of paper because that is what we had. We had a huge, blank, unbuilt on, virgin area of rubble and the question was what do we do with it? A slightly odd phrase there but, anyway, the question was what shall we do with it? The result is the Multiplex and the AquaSplash and the Radisson. Well, I am sorry, if that was the result of thorough consultation, then surely we can do better than that and, in fact, of course we can do better than that. I went to the St. Aubin Community Forum because I owned a business in St. Aubin and that was an example of how it should be done. It was absolutely first class and the people who were drawn together in proportions roughly to the different groups and stakeholders in St. Aubin as a whole were facilitated through 2 days going right back to what does St. Aubin mean for us, what is the history of St. Aubin, what is the current situation and what are the threats and opportunities? All the usual stuff, you might say, but because it was handled in the right way, that event had a power in it that was really remarkable and what we ended up with after 2 days was a real living consensus. We had

a feeling within St. Aubin: "Now we know roughly the way forward" ad, as a result, out of that community forum - and there was 90-odd people there for a weekend - there were various working groups set up and some of them, for all I know, are still working on different aspects of improving St. Aubin and that is how it can be done if you are honest and open, as indeed that consultation was. The problem with population and this whole issue of population is the public do not believe in what we are doing. They just do not believe it and I have people coming up to me, as I seem to be the sort of figurehead for this, and they say: "Well done." It cannot go on. We must draw the line at some time, so why not now or why not in the terms of this amendment, why do we not ask people? Why do we not really have a popular debate about this? They know the results. The young woman who talked to me yesterday said it took her 3 months to find somewhere to live. Well, I do not know. That seems to me to indicate a problem. They know out there that housing inflation is linked to the continuing growth in demand. They know out there that there are other inflations that are linked to that inflation and that we are running a pressure cooker society, although that is my phrase, but I still feel it sums up what we are doing. There is also a widespread belief out there that the figures may not be as good as we think they are. Now, I defend the position that the stats unit have got it more or less right but what people are saying out there is: "No, we do not know the amount of immigration there is under the radar." We know, politically, the problems that leads to. Look at what is happened in the Euro elections last week but the count was on Sunday. The B.N.P. (British National Party) got 2 seats and mainly on this feeling that we do not quite know what is happening with immigration, and there are a lot more people coming in than we think and I am afraid that feeling is current out there. So there are even doubts about the validity of the census. I have tried to stand up for the census in these forums but the fact is that people doubt it and then they say: "You do not know how many people are coming in under the radar" and that that goes some way to explaining the difficulty in getting jobs and low wages and there are various issues around that which, again, we need to take onboard as an Assembly and not pretend they are not there, because they really are. Finally, the most important effect I think that people out there are well aware of is this effect on all our lives and this creeping sense that we are losing something. I want to quote from a letter that the Scrutiny Panel received on population as I think it is really apt, it is to the point and it comes from middle Jersey. Reading between the lines when you look at the comments he makes, for instance, about this Assembly and how we should behave in a reasonably concordant manner and suggests that we do not, and the way he talks about the difficulties that people will face. We are going to go through a very tough time without really knowing how we

will come out of this in a positive manner. Those are the sort of things that middle Jersey says. This is not a Greenie or a Leftie writing. He has been on holiday since he retired 3 years ago and he has been globetrotting, but what does he say about Jersey? He says: "When we return to our Island, it sometimes can be a very depressing time due to the fact for many years now - and I say this as a proud Islander - there does not appear to me to be any corporate feeling in Jersey any more." By the way, he is not referring to flying bananas. He is referring to that feeling that we all have about this place we live in. "When you walk around the town in shops, pubs et cetera, the feeling that Jersey is a special place to live is not as vibrant as it used to be." Now that worries me and it should worry all of us. One of the most important and critical areas we need to sustain in our very small Island is - capital letters - space. What are we about to do if we do not accept this amendment? Pull back and look at all these issues in a way that brings the public in. Space. Enough space in order to breathe and enjoy what is left of our beautiful Island. Notice that phrase: ".. what is left." He is really anxious, retired, 65-ish; that sort of area we are in. Without space, people become to feel that there is nowhere for them to go, especially those who cannot afford to continually leave the Island for holidays or even business. "People who have visited Jersey after only a 5 to 10-year absence cannot believe how much new development has sprung up during this time." Just imagine, as Deputy Martin has pointed out to us, the effect of another 6,000 dwellings in our urban areas, and here is a gentleman saying that people cannot believe how much new development has sprung up already during this time in the last 5 to 10 years. Those of us who live here see this happening in a gradual process and do not fully appreciate the impact of the buildings that are going up. Then he says: "Buildings do cram people in and those living in St. Helier must feel trapped at times" which goes to the beginning of this letter concerning people being happy. What are we about if we are not about creating a society where people can be happy and, by the way, that has direct implications on health, we now know. "There are not many large areas of space left in Jersey so we must be very careful to sustain what we have." Well, amen to that and the reason I read quite a bit of that out was I feel that those feelings are quite widespread out there. In fact, they are widespread out there. It is the sense of loss. I am not going to mix my metaphors, am I, but, anyway, we are on a tiger and it is out of control? The whole point of this amendment is to say: "Wait a minute. What are we really after?" I just want to go back to what the Scrutiny Report said and what the prize is in terms of consultation. A key finding was: "The consultation and work undertaken to date by the Council of Ministers has not provided sufficient opportunity for a debate on the various principles and philosophies that inform population policy." So that is the area around happiness. Space. How do I feel? Do I feel proud to be in Jersey or do I feel that it is time to leave? The recommendation was further work should be undertaken by the Council of Ministers to stimulate debate on the principles underlying population policy in order that a starting point and direction for population policy can be agreed. So I do suggest to Members that the figures are suspect and out of date, we need a debate, we need above all to listen to the public concern to hear what they are telling us and to take the public with us, and I do urge Members to vote for this short delay so that we can try to re-engage and genuinely be in partnership with the public that we represent.

5. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade :

I do not know what makes the proposer of this amendment think that this Assembly can ensure a population level when all other levels agreed in previous Assemblies, and probably before the Deputy came to the Island, have so far failed. The Council of Ministers, Senator Routier on behalf of the Migration Advisory Group and Senator Ferguson as head of Scrutiny on this matter tell us that they are on the case. I do not think it is necessary to make these proposed amendments to the Strategic Plan but we do need to ensure that the assurances we have are realised. That is what the people of Jersey and Jersey people outside of the Island currently expect of us.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well, I call upon Deputy Southern to reply.

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

Oh, I am tempted. I am tempted. After we got a majority, can we make the Senators race back into the Chamber? But, no, let us treat this to date with the seriousness it deserves because if you ask anyone in this Island what is the single most important factor in deciding their level of comfort and their ease with living in Jersey, they will give you, I believe, one answer by and large and they will say: "The population of the Island." Pure and simple. The single most important factor dictating the way in which and the quality of life that we live and that we have on this Island. The Council of Ministers effectively does not wish to have a full informed debate on the population policy that we are to set. Instead, it has shoehorned population policy into its Strategic Plan in order that, as we go through the coming years, Members of this House will be told that we have a policy. It was debated and accepted by this House in the Strategic Plan debate. I have seen it done before and I will see it done again. I am witnessing a strategy being performed on this Chamber now. That is what is happening. It is political manoeuvring. Pure and simple. I mentioned the word "expediency" when referring to this particular policy in my introduction. I believe that is still the sole convenience on which this population policy may or may not be accepted today. It says: "We shall limit inward migration to 150 heads of household." On fairly loose grounds that ask us to accept that the numbers have moved since we last had any consultation on numbers in Imagine Jersey 2035 at the beginning of last year, the central figure there was 250 heads of household or 540 total immigrants including families and that has shifted right down. One has to ask why and

where has that number come from and has it been consulted on and agreed and accepted by members of the population outside and residents in Jersey? It has not. We are told instead that the arguments that were used and debated quite widely around Imagine Jersey 2035 were fixated on dependency ratios. Well, that argument has gone. Now, what we are talking about is this single task of maintaining the working population. A different shift, a different emphasis and new material. When did we first meet 150 because all last year we were talking 250? Then, at one stage, we were talking 200 and now we are talking 150. When did we see it? We saw it when we first started debating the Strategic Plan. Plucked out of the air with a few pages around it to say: "The numbers are here." When did we see a population figure of 100,000? Again, it is here. This is the new population policy. Note my use of the word "new" because it is and we are told that this is perfectly acceptable. It is perfectly acceptable to the Council of Ministers because what it means is we do not have to have a Population Policy; we can just gradually creep up towards the 100,000 mark. We have got some figures that say: "That will be okay." People out there who vote will not be frightened. It is happening in the future. Somebody else's future. It does not sound too bad; 90,000 going to 100,000. We should surely cope with that. It is a comfortable number. It is an expedient, convenient, political number. That is what it is. It is a non-policy and what it means is that we are committed to population growth despite accepting my amendment that what we should be doing is limiting population growth. So this Council of Ministers who can apparently hold 2 opposing views at the same time and then do not lose any sleep over the fact can say: "Well, we are growing the population towards 100,000 some time in the future. It is all right. It will be comfortable. We have got plenty of time to do that. We do not have to make any hard decisions today because that would be us doing our job" and even: "We do not want to bring to this House a fully informed debate on what the figures should be and where we should be going." That is what we are witnessing today. So when the population policy talks  about a complete package of measures it is not just about migration. It is not just about population growth, it contains a mixture of measures which I thought I had marked in my text and I will find. It contains a whole package of things. It contains increasing the pension age and working longer and the difference that will make to dependency ratios and the need for a working population. Do we have that information in front of us? Do you have during this debate or any time in the past, details if we increase the working age by one year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years? What happens to dependency ratios? How much of a contribution does that make? Do we have that informed capacity? No, we have not today. Increasing workforce participation and productivity. Again, do we have any detailed breakdown about participation? Remember the last time we started talking about migration policy and population and we were told these jobs were for local people. That we are going to fill them by working mothers, by encouraging the disabled back to work, by having people do jobs when they retired, alongside of their pension. All of those sources of the workforce, despite the fact that we have the highest ratio for working mothers, for working parents in Europe, if not the world, we are going to increase those numbers. Do we know how that is going to work? Do we know how it can be made effective? No, we do not. Has the Council of Ministers tried to convince us that they can

make this work by producing some figures? No, they have not. So, today we do not know that. Productivity, again, I mentioned this in debate and the Scrutiny Panel. What is the easiest way to increase productivity? You take a manager in the civil service and you offer him an extra £20,000 to go and work in the finance sector and he immediately makes more money, about £150,000 per year for his employers, which does not happen in civil service management. So, you increase your productivity. It is a recipe for sucking in more people when the finance sector takes up, and we hope it does, sucking in more of our manpower into that area. Then, finally, new forms of public contributions to care. Have we seen any hint of any progress on any new contributions or means, changes in taxation in order to cater better for our ageing population? No, we have not. So, is this an informed debate? Is this about inclusivity? Do residents in this Island have that information? Do we have that information today? We do not. On the back of a few pages in the Strategic Plan we are asked to adopt a so-called population policy. My amendments say simply that is not good enough for this House. This House has to retain that control and cannot let this through on the nod

without the information it needs to say whether the whole package that is being proposed and being brought forward does make sense. That is the thrust of this amendment, but it is worse than that because these amendments are a reflection of a Scrutiny Report that we have just produced and worked hard on to prepare for this debate. So, it is not just my amendments in that sense. It is amendments which flow fairly accurately from the key findings and recommendations produced by a 5-member sub-panel of Corporate Services: Senator Ferguson, Deputy Southern , Deputy Labey , Deputy Wimberley and Deputy Vallois. Members will know that I am a great one for sticking things through, bouncing back and coming back and that I do not give up easily on anything, but it is with regret, even though we are only half way through a debate on population and migration, that I have to announce my resignation from that sub-panel. I believe our efforts in producing this work have been betrayed by the lukewarm presentation of that report given by the chairman of the Scrutiny Sub-Panel, Senator Ferguson. We have wasted our time, I believe, and not been supported by our chair. The efforts of Deputy Vallois, Deputy Labey , Deputy Wimberley and myself have been wasted because we have been let down by our chairman, who has not given this amendment any proper support at all. So, I hereby resign from that panel and I hereby state that I will not, in future, join any panel in which Senator Ferguson is the chair because I feel I would be wasting my time. It is even worse than that because we are told we can control population at this number 150 plus, and gradually build to 100,000 and we are told we can do that on the back of an in principle decision some time ago which said we will have a migration policy which will look something like what was passed a couple of years ago. It will introduce 3 categories of residential status for individuals entitled, licensed and registered. Have we seen that detail yet? We have not. Indeed, in the introduction to that migration policy it says: "To maintain the provision of services at current levels [which we have abandoned by the way, the previous amendment went down and bit the dust] Jersey needs to maintain its healthy economy. This means it must maintain a resident population with enough people of the right age and the right skills to drive its key industries." So, there in the statement of migration: Managing Migration: New Mechanisms policy is a clear statement about what this population and migration policy is about. At the same time the States has to control population changes. Note the use of that word "control". We have heard from Deputy Martin, clearly a statement from the ex-Minister for Economic Development which said clearly that while we can monitor and we can regulate we cannot control population. How will this happen? We are going to have a names and address register and we are informed by the person in charge of the Migration Advisory Group that as yet they have not even checked the serious implications of whether what is proposed will be human rights compliant yet. I would have thought that what was being brought forward in a names and address register, which is fundamental to our individual rights, that should have been checked first. Why has it not been checked? Because they still do not know what they are going to do. Until last month they did not know whether they were going to have a photograph on it or not. They still are proceeding with the registration process, which will not be complete until 2014. So, let us not pretend that a population and migration policy, which we may pass today, will be capable of being monitored by a names and address register because it will not be completed until 2014. We will be well down the track there. So, it says those already resident in the Island would be registered automatically. Will they? Using what? Using the Social Security register? Well, we know how easy it is to get on that and how safe and secure that information is, do we not? That is accurate. I think we will use the basis as the Social Security register. That will be our starting point. We have had a big debate about whether you use clean data or what I call dirty data to base your names and address register on and they still have not

solved it. We have told them time and time again over the past 3 years: "Do not use dirty data". Do not start with a loose, uncontrolled register and say: "This is the starting point. We will clean it up" because you will be there for ever. Cannot make it work: "Residents will not need to do anything until they need a new combined card to move house or change job. If they have not done this by 2014 only then will they be asked to register in person and be issued with a combined card. This will ensure that the registering and issuing of cards to 70,000 existing adult residents can be achieved smoothly" and completely inaccurately. A useless register. But, it says later: "It will be

necessary for individuals to register in person to obtain a registration card because it is important that people verify their identity to a high standard." Using the Social Security database as a starting point? Pull the other one. There is no high standard involved there. Why do we need a high standard for this mechanism, which we are told is going to control migration? Because the issue of identity  fraud and identity theft must be addressed. "To do this successfully it must involve verification of identity to a high level and minimise the fraudulent assumption of an individual's identity." So, what are we going to get? Something that has holes in it like a colander. It will be useless. The function and the purpose of migration policy is already behind schedule. We have not seen the detail. There is no proof that we can control population at any numbers whatsoever and consultation on the serious issues around identity cards still have to be thrashed out. We have not received the data which completes the package which states that we can cope with an ageing population. One of the ways of doing it is through migration. We have a convenient set of numbers to hang a so-called policy of growth on despite calling it a limit to population growth. My amendment says that this House must have a fully-informed debate on these issues and it must be this House which has the confidence to set figures based on convincing arguments, but brought forward by the Council of Ministers and that it is this House that must set that in confidence. A vote for these amendments does not say to the Council of Ministers: "You are wrong" it merely says: "We are not convinced, at this stage, that you are completely right. Take 6 months, and only 6 months, on a policy which is supposed to last until 2035 to further convince us that what you have is the right policy and then we will back you to the hilt." That will be inclusive government. I urge Members to support these amendments in their entirety.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , can I just clarify with you how you would like the vote taken? Do you wish to take them all as a package? Clearly I would think all of those in paragraph 9 rather stand or fall together, do they not?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Indeed they do, Sir, but there is amendment 11, 1(d), I think, which is separate and it is accepted, so I presume they will want to vote on that. I think the general statement in the paragraph 11, 8 also needs to be taken separately and then the package of measures taken.

The Deputy Bailiff :

So, 3 votes, in other words. Deputy G.P. Southern : Yes, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well. I invite Members to return to their designated seats for the appel. The first vote before Members therefore is amendment 1(d) which says: "For Priority 5 substitute the wording limit population growth' for that which is already in there and make consequential changes'."

The Deputy Bailiff :

While the Greffier re-sets the machine the second vote is amendment paragraph 8 which reads: "Except that in Priority 5 on page 17 in the first introductory paragraph after the words, Form part of  this  Strategic  Plan'  insert  the  words  however  there  is  no  agreement  over  what  level  of population is sustainable and little consensus even over what this means'." So, it is pour or contre that amendment.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well. While the Greffier re-sets the machine the third amendments will all be taken together. These are in paragraph 9. I will not read them all out but they are amendments to the section entitled: "What we will do" on page 17 and there are sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). So, the vote is pour or contre those amendments and the Greffier will open the voting.