States Meeting Transcript - 25/09/2009

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

FRIDAY, 25th SEPTEMBER 2009

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................4

1. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009): amendment (continued) ..............4

1. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity :..................................................4
2. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:...........................................................5
3. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:....................................................5
4. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : .........................................................6
5. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:.......................................................7
6. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:..................................................7
7. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................17
8. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................20
9. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................20
10. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence:......................................................22
11. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................23
12. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................26
13. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................28
14. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................29
15. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................30
16. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................33
17. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................34

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................35 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................35

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption..............................................................35

18. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................35
19. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................36
20. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.......................................................38
21. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................38

2. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009): fifth amendment (P.117/2009 Amd.(5)) (paragraph 2) ............................................................................40

2.1 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................41

1. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................41
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................41
3. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................41

3. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009): ninth amendment (P.117/2009 Amd.(9))..................................................................................42

3.1 Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................42

1. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................43

2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................44
3. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................44
4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................45
5. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................46
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................47
7. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................47
8. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................48
9. Deputy A.T. Dupré:....................................................................48
10. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:.......................................................48
11. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................49
12. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................50
13. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : .................................................50
14. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................51
15. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................53
16. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................54
17. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................54
18. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:...................................................54
19. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................54

4. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) sixteenth amendment (P.117/2009 Amd.(16)) (paragraph 6)................................................................56

4.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour (Chairman, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):........................................................................56

1. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................58
2. Deputy A.T. Dupré:....................................................................59
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................59
4. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................61
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................61
6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................62
7. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................63
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................63
9. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................64
10. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................64 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:....................................................................66

5. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) - paragraph (d) - as amended........66

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................66
2. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................66
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................66
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................67
   5. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................67
5. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................67
6. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................68
7. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................68
8. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................68
9. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................68
10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................69

6. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) - paragraph (e)........................71

6.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):......................72

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................72
2. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................72

3. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................72
4. Deputy D.J. de Sousa:..................................................................72
5. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................72

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................75

7. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................75

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009): amendment (continued)

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The debate continues on the Amendment of Deputy Southern concerning the £10 million for the town park. The Constable of St. Saviour .

Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour :

Excuse me, Sir, I believe I am conflicted on this as I own a property that borders the park and will be affected.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

So you wish to declare that interest. The Constable of Trinity , I had your name yesterday.

1. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity :

I do have concerns with this because basically I think we need more green places and lungs in St. Helier. The problem at the present time that I see is there is a masterplan for the north of St. Helier and, for those who may not realise it, the next Island Plan will be building most of the properties that we wish to build in the next 10 years in St. Helier. Now, this is quite a problem when you see how St. Helier is already built up. I am all in favour of having fine townhouses but if one drives down, say, Queen's Road and you see the fine houses on your right-hand side, unfortunately at the moment these fine townhouses have been turned into 4 or 5 flats. To make a house for a family in St. Helier somehow or other we have to build other properties for these people to have decent accommodation and somewhere pleasant to live. But also we need to have places where, if you are building denser properties in St. Helier, somewhere for people to have recreation, somewhere they can go and sit and enjoy pleasant green lungs. My only concern with the proposition of Deputy Southern is - at the moment we do not really have a plan. We have the North of Town which has not been consulted on yet, and I personally think if this goes through, and it sounds as if it is a possibility, it will not happen as quickly as everyone thinks. This is because we have to have plans in place where housing of good quality accommodation, where you can have families not in little boxes, but in decent houses or flats, where the whole family can enjoy the improvements in town. Ideally I am sure we have all seen the masterplan. We have 53 planning people in the House now, no one will agree on something that is perfect, but there may be items in there which can be brought forward into a plan at the end which is formulated which will improve the quality of those people living in town. Now, I support absolutely the idea of a town park. The only problem with it is, it was proposed for the millennium and now we are in 2009. I am pretty sure I see where the Deputy is coming from on being targeted. Unfortunately I do not think it will be targeted that quickly. If we do pass this today, by the time that all the plans have been arranged for housing and different things through there, it will be 2 or 3 years away anyway. So for those reasons I fully support in fact, I support more parks in town, there should be more. I think there are a lot of good things in this North of St. Helier plan and I am sure we all have to consult about it and then decide what we prefer and take the bits we like. I think David Place is wonderful one way. The trouble is do you want to kill town?  This is the other thing; you have to be very, very, careful as far as roads that go one way. But some way or other the cars have got to come in on another road to come in to go out, and if you do not have parking for people to come and do their shopping, as people tend to come to town now, you will find more development of more shops out in the countryside. Now, do we want that? We certainly do not want, as we know from the Members in this House, any more green fields taken for building. Well, that causes a problem, if we do not take green fields then we have to come into St. Helier for the regeneration of St. Helier which we all support, but it has to be done in a structured and planned manner. It is just very, very hard to come in and just say well, we will put 10 houses there, 5 houses, there another 5 there and then you find you have a mishmash of properties which do not blend in with a final plan. I support the idea but unfortunately I will not be supporting Deputy Southern 's site.

2. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen :

I am pleased to follow the Constable of Trinity . I can understand the frustration of the Constable of St. Helier and other States Members over the delays in delivering the town park. However, what is currently being proposed in the North of St. Helier Masterplan is, in many ways, far more than originally planned. Do those advocating the development of the town park really want to revert to the original bland proposals and miss the opportunity to be able to consider plans way beyond those originally intended? It seems to me that this is what is being implied if Members accept this amendment. St. Helier residents have been given the chance to determine how they want the whole of this area of town developed, including the town park. So why at this stage in the process consider the park in isolation from the remainder of the plan? Commitments have been made by the Minister for Planning and Environment and, indeed, demonstrated by the development of the Masterplan and the consultation process that follows. The Council of Ministers also have stated that this Assembly will be able to consider the final plan and that the necessary resources will be allocated to enable the development to proceed. I accept that there may be a further delay, but I believe that the benefits far outweigh the current proposal being debated today. As I have already said, the current draft plan is bound to change as residents' views are taken into account. States Members will also have ample opportunity to make their views known during the consultation period. Do Members really want to tie the hands of the Council of Ministers by demanding a town park to be delivered for a set amount without fully considering the bigger picture? I believe we only have one chance to get this right, please let us not waste it.

3. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin :

I have been considering the Island Plan Review with considerable optimism for the last year since the Green Paper was issued about this time last year, I took part in the questionnaire, and I have considered the Island Plan Review in relation to the primary St. Martin's Parish - the St. Martin's Parish within the Island Plan Review. We have had the Island Plan Review in draft form delivered last week. I have not finished reading it yet but I believe that at the end of the 3-month period, which will be in January 2010, we will have a different situation to consider because that is the end of the consultation period for the Island Plan Review. I have also been most optimistic and have studied (- is it P.79?) - the proposition for the Jersey Development Company Limited which could be the vehicle to deliver development cash. This is coming up in the end of October, I believe. I am very optimistic that this would be considered by the Members of this Assembly and hoping that they will recognise this as a positive method of pushing the infrastructure of the Island forward on improvement for the community of this Island. I believe that this proposition at the present moment is too early. I believe wholeheartedly that St. Helier needs a town park and maybe several town parks. I perhaps believe that by the end of January that this North of St. Helier Masterplan may be reconsidered and it might be delivered in a slightly different way. I feel that we have the opportunity to create green areas for the residents of St. Helier. Having just visited - through the Housing Department - lodging houses in that area and seeing the number of pokey little one- bedroom flats, 2-bedroom flats, with children under 5, I absolutely concur that recreation areas within the middle of St. Helier are absolutely essential. I believe that at the end of January 2010 the picture will be different. It rather depends on whether members of this Assembly grasp hold of the 2 items coming up. The first one would be the means of delivery of development cash and the second one is the Masterplan, the overall plan for the next 10 years of the Island Plan for this Island because I think at the present moment I cannot support this.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The défauts on the Deputy of St. Mary and on Senator Maclean to be raised. All those in favour? The défauts are raised. Deputy Power.

4. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

The first thing I would like to say is that I am an enthusiastic supporter of the town park project and have been since I first heard of it. I want to comment in some detail on this amendment and the first thing I would like to say is that this amendment looks very simple and appears to be a quick fix, in fact, it is almost seductive. But I would like to remind Members roughly where we are with regard to the town park project. In my view, Deputy Southern 's amendment to this part of the Business Plan would appear to be an attempt to almost stop - indeed, I would go so far as to use "wreck" - the process of consultation on the North of St. Helier Masterplan. I think that if this amendment is approved it will deprive States Members of receiving the full facts on the town park, the issues which have prevented its construction to date, the true costs of delivering the park and the benefit of feedback from public consultation. I would say that this amendment is an attempt to essentially hijack the process of the masterplan in this Assembly this morning by stating that the park can be delivered next year by the States agreeing an allocation of £10 million and by stating that the underground car park required for the original scheme would only cost £5 million to £6 million and that it could be funded from the Car Park Trading Account. None of this is true and I am not prepared to give way. The reason that the town park has not been delivered for the last 10 years is that what was proposed could not be afforded. If this amendment is agreed this morning or today the town park project will be stored again for another additional reason, that is my strong view. This whole subject has become now emotionally charged due to unacceptable delays, and I accept that there have been unacceptable delays, but the simple logic is as follows: the original scheme required no development on Gas Place or Talman and that was as Senator Syvret and Deputy Hilton and others wanted, a flat park with underground car parking for 390 cars. This was estimated at the time to cost £33 million. At today's prices that would be somewhere between £35 and £40 million. A full underground car park would also have been extremely difficult to construct and would have affected the water table in the surrounding area, hence the engineering problems and the possible adverse effects on the foundations of surrounding properties. The £5 to £6 million of Deputy Southern 's estimate in this amendment would provide less than 100 underground car parking spaces at Gas Place and not the 390 or the 400 that are displaced. I am not giving way to anyone. The Car Park Trading Fund can only contribute if either Minden Street or Green Street replacements form part of the project, otherwise car parking charges across the Island would have to be raised to contribute to the costs of this project. The proposal to develop a multi-storey car park at Ann Court would have, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many, created a 6-storey monster which would have been impossible to stitch on to the back of a row of B.L.I.s (buildings of local interest) and would have been totally unacceptable in planning terms. Any architect that could have designed a multi-storey car park on Ann Court on that Island site the way it was posed, in my view, was a mission impossible. In addition, this scheme could only be afforded if car park

charges were raised to meet a funding shortfall of another £20 million and this is unaffordable from a planning perspective. In order to build a town park on Gas Place you must find a home for 390 to 400 cars, that is an indisputable fact and that must be a permanent home. The £10 million talked about here to remediate the ground and build the park can only be spent by first moving the cars off Gas Place. The cost of finding a future home for these cars cannot be divorced from the equation, putting them all under the park is prohibitive and expensive, that is why a solution is being attempted which distributes the parking requirements to partly Ann Court and perhaps another suggestion in Green Street and perhaps some underground car parking on Gas Place. The development of additional housing in St. Helier is vital and I support wholeheartedly the redevelopment of housing on Ann Court, as does the department. The Housing Department is not minded to give up that site. This is not a monolithic project like the Esplanade. It can be separated into 4 separate phases; it can be phased and the town park can be delivered first. If the concern is that housing around the park would dictate the park's use this can be dealt with at the design stage, which is what has not happened yet, and by placing positive obligations on any construction or any developer, and I believe that. I would hate to think that what has been achieved in the draft Island Plan, what have been some of the aspirations of the North of St. Helier Masterplan, would be hijacked or stalled this morning and for my part I cannot support this amendment.

5. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour :

I think that everyone in this Assembly today would agree that every single one of us wants a town park. I do not know anyone that does not. It is the route we go to the town park that is the question. This town park has been promised for many years and a few months ago the Minister for Planning and Environment commissioned architects to draw up a blueprint for the regeneration of the North of St. Helier. This blueprint is now out to consultation and Members will know that that does not just include the town park itself but includes rebuilding apartments, et cetera, and the whole of Ann Court and Bath Street all the way up David Place. Although I disagree with a few points on the Masterplan there was some wishful thinking regarding the demolition of Minden Place which I would not approve at all because I think that would jeopardise the Central Market and the Fish Market and I think that the car park is crucial to be left where it is. Also the architects' idea of pulling down De Quetteville Court was just an idea to improve the views up to Victoria College. It was just that, an idea. But for the residents of these apartments to learn this in the media was unforgivable. I have spoken to the Minister for Housing this morning and he assures me there are no plans whatsoever to touch that building and if, in 20 or 30 years there was, the residents would be the first to know. Deputy Duhamel spoke yesterday on the town park and spoke very wisely. Likewise, Deputy Fox an ex policeman, who knows that the park must be overlooked. If the park is not overlooked it is just asking for trouble. Deputy Le Claire mentioned recently that he had to take his son down to the General Hospital - I am very glad his son recovered well - but complained heavily about the unruly behaviour in the park opposite the hospital, in the Parade. If we are not careful the town park will be just that. Millennium Park will go the same way as Millennium Dome, a well intentioned disaster if we follow this proposition and will be a monument to the States inefficiency. If you were to go down to what is going to be the town park today and stand at the end of Bath Street and look east, instead of seeing some limited housing built at the far end you will see a huge turquoise gasometer, which is absolutely hideous to look at, and if you would like to go down there tonight and I recommend anyone listening at home does it, say about 9.30 p.m., stand in the middle of what is going to be the town park with nothing overlooking it whatsoever and just to look around in the dark and say: "Do I feel safe here?" and the answer will be: "No." It will be like Central Park in America, it will be a complete no-go area in the evening. I would like to see a town park; I would also love to see an Ann Court Park, Bath Street and David Place and the whole of the north of St. Helier to be regenerated. Please do not follow this line today and vote against this proposition.

Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

Can I firstly inform the Chamber that in fact I have property, commercial and residential, adjacent in the road just off the site and, therefore, I will not be partaking in the debate as such and I will not vote.

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

I had better put this away. Yesterday, in the closing speech of the day from Deputy Duhamel, the Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment, and I am grateful to him for speaking early because I think this is something that the relevant Minister should always do in a debate, which is speak early, so that the cards are on the table. He made what appeared to me, what I rather felt was a pre-emptive strike going back into history and I rather feel that the good Deputy was looking down at my wad of papers and thinking Deputy Wimberley has done his research. Now, this is true and he talked about ancient documents and he said: "How far back do you go?" Well, not into the Neolithic but we do have to go back and that is the question, is it not? It is not my fault that some of these documents are almost in the category of ancient history. We have here documents going back to 1997 but that is when this was thought of. That is where the consultation took place. That is where the energy was generated and that was what was happening at the time. So that is where we must look. We all know that this is the big debate. It is fundamentally about a choice and on the one hand we have Millennium Town Park, voted for and planned for and budgeted for over years. We have heard from one speaker just now that the proposition was seductive and it was going to wreck the process. But I would like to turn that on its head, perhaps we could look at the Hopkins Masterplan as seductive and turning the process on its head. This beautiful glossy document would be very hard to manage because it is A3 instead of - well it is more than A3 so you have to sort of read it it is very difficult on the bus, I can assure Members. I do not try to read it on my bike. This Hopkins Masterplan has included within it proposals for this area as well, of course, as for the wider St. Helier and I do think we have to make the distinction, we have to focus in this debate on what Hopkins says about this area. Hopkins has been parachuted in at the last minute, as the Minister for Home Affairs pointed out yesterday, and it is only now going out to consultation. I think the Minister was absolutely right when he drew the attention of Members to the fact that Hopkins had arrived late in the day and was an exercise in producing more options so that this other option, which is the Millennium Town Park, which has been on the table for years, somehow gets muddied and runs into yet another sandbank. I had to smile when the Minister for Treasury and Resources yesterday, talking to this amendment, talked about that Deputy Southern was attempting to fast-track the Millennium Town Park and how the Millennium Town Park must be shunted up a siding while the brand new shiny Masterplan goes out to consultation. It is the Masterplan which is being fast tracked. It is the Masterplan by Hopkins which is the new arrival, it is the upstart, it is the cuckoo in the nest. I will show in this speech that the Hopkins Masterplan is highly selective in its use of information and I ask Members to think why would that be when, after all, they are consultants and presumably their job is to present the options in an unbiased way if it is a planning document as well as being creative and forward thinking. I believe that this debate, this choice that we are facing between the Millennium Town Park on the one hand and the Hopkins Masterplan consultation delay sandbank is a decision we have to take between honour and cynicism. Now, why do I say that, honour and cynicism? I mentioned yesterday the figures in connection with another debate about satisfaction with this government. We know from those

figures in 2006, taken by MORI in a correctly done poll, stratified properly, that 45 per cent of our citizens are either fairly or very dissatisfied with the way that we govern the Island. I do submit to Members that that is a serious situation. To put a personal face on that figure, yesterday evening having missed the last bus out to St. Mary I got a taxi well that is an interesting reaction but anyway [Laughter]

Male Speaker:

No lunch next week?

The Deputy of St. Mary :

No lunch next week. I got talking, as one does, we got talking and we looked at the beautiful sunset, it was absolutely gorgeous and we talked about the way he goes golfing in between taxi driving. Then I happened to mention - in between, not at the same time - it is the big one tomorrow, we are talking about the town park and he said well he became more attentive, it was not chat any more. He said: "I live in Stopford Road." So I thought: "Crumbs." He said: "We have waited so long." That is what he said: "We have waited so long." Then he went on, he got into freewheel mode, he said: "The whole area would be regenerated [and he used the word "regenerated"]. It would be so good to see this park." Then we got talking about the new plans. I said what did he think about the new plans and he said he had heard about them but what exactly were they? This, of course, is the way things are when people read the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) when they are waiting for a fare and then they have to put it down. So: "What are the new plans exactly?" he said, and then I explained housing along the north side of Talman, reducing that to half its width. I explained about the oblong crescent round the other side going all the way round from Oxford Road all the way round the other side enclosing that other space. I cannot say that he was

angry because he was not. I thought: "What was the feeling that this man had when I told him about that?" and I came up with I think that what I sensed from his was a resigned shrug. I have to ask this Assembly, is that the best we can do for our people?

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : Sorry, I did not quite a resigned shrug?

The Deputy of St. Mary :

A resigned shrug. Those are the 2 words that I choose to summarise his state of feeling when he heard what the new revised plans were and I really do ask Members to consider whether the best we can do for our people, for the people

Senator T.J. Le Main:

On a point of order, could I have a clarification? The issue is it, is not a plan it is a consultation document and the public will have an input into the final one.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

I thank the Senator for his point of order but I was relaying the reactions of one person but in support of a perfectly valid statistic that 45 per cent of the people out there are fairly or very dissatisfied with us. His reaction was exactly typical. It was not anger, there are not thousands of people in the Royal Square  baying for this because they have been worn down to a state of resignation and it is not good enough. Now, let us be positive after that miserable bit of what we do to the public. Yesterday we voted and the Deputy of Grouville should pay attention, almost all of us it is all right, just having a little chat but I am going to sing her praises, you see. Yesterday we voted almost all of us almost all of us for the eastern cycle route and what a good day, what a good feeling there was in the House. I got the impression that it was one of those moments where we all knew we had done the right thing. This was a "right thing" proposition and it went through very, very easily and the reason it was a "right thing" proposition was that it was positive, it was open to the future and it was community-based. That is something that did not come out too much in the debate, and I had made a note, but I did not say what was in my little note but although it was not mentioned in the debate the emphasis on the community was in the Deputy 's comments. She described working with the community to bring this to the point where she had got it to and, if you remember the photo in the paper, it was just so nice with the Deputy of Grouville followed by lots of young people riding along this lane and that symbolises her approach to that proposition. She has been talking to people all the way along to get their agreement and support. She proposed innovative ways of getting it done using the T.A. (Territorial Army), using the business community support, whatever, and that was just such a good moment. Leading on from that, the question is do we back our community? Do we back our community, or do we turn our backs on our community because that is, once again, the choice - honour or cynicism, backing our community or turning our backs on the community? The Minister for Home Affairs in his excellent speech yesterday asked whether we could wonder why there was cynicism about government and he put his finger on why he said we do not keep our promises. That is a very, very fundamental question about the style of government. Beyond a certain point, people just give up and they live their lives isolated from the politics box because the politics box is irrelevant and that is not how it should be. I do love the laidback style of the Minister for Home Affairs, he does not wave his arms around, which I tend to do, but, my goodness, he said the right thing and this is about keeping faith with our public. So, I come to Hopkins. Now, we need to look closely at this. When I got this document, because I am on Environment Scrutiny we have had a briefing and, as is my want, I read it. My remarks will be

about the Hopkins Masterplan as they apply to the town park. So before I go into that I would want to echo the words of Deputy Green yesterday and say there is much that is good in this plan in this overall view. There is a focus on the quality of public realm in our urban area in our capital. There are descriptions of pleasant pedestrian routes and of an understanding that people walk through a town, they do not necessarily just stand there. He talks little details about shifting deliveries away from the peak hour. It is obvious stuff but there it is in black and white and moving parking to the perimeter to free up valuable space for other uses. All well and good, and I have no quarrel with that, it has all gone out to consultation and I have no quarrel with that either. But when Hopkins writes about this plan, this area, this Gas Place car park, or what was the Millennium Town Park there is a strange set of information that has gone missing. It is selective and I have to ask Members why that would be. If you are doing a Masterplan you start with existing physical reality, which they do, they describe it, including the history, for the sake of the Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment. They should start with the background information so that they are up to speed with people's ideas and surveys and studies before, and they should start with a blank sheet of paper as, I believe, someone has said. So I just take 4 areas where Hopkins, in my view, has failed to be inclusive in their information. The first issue is land contamination and on page 6 of the Hopkins North St. Helier Masterplan they list how they went about the brief. They have "givens" and then they have "possibilities" and they have the sentence here: "The development of the brief during the initial stages, March and April 2009, of developing the Masterplan involved reviewing existing reports, planning guidance and consultation with stakeholders." Now, I mention that because they set out and they say: "We have reviewed the existing documents." Well, in my view, their review was partial and I do not think that is appropriate when we are talking about something so important. On page 8 when they are discussing PwC, they do a very brief outline of what they have taken from the PwC report as part of their review of all the documents and under Price waterhouseCoopers, in the second paragraph on page 8 they say: "An emphasis is made regarding the moral obligation from the States to fully decontaminate the site rather than more limited measures of sealing and capping after treating soft spots." "The emphasis is made regarding moral obligation of the States to fully decontaminate the site", that is what they say Price waterhouseCooper said. On page 14, where they write in detail about contamination, they write 2 pages on contamination and on the second page they say in their note at the foot of that page: "T.T.S.'s (Transport and Technical Services) response has focused upon the technical issues but there remains the question of moral responsibility as to whether the States as the owner of the site should be fully remediating the land or whether capping of the site for a surface path is an acceptable solution." Now, they have left something out sorry, I am just finding my place. I want to compare for Members what Hopkins says about contamination with the document entitled the Millennium Town Park, a Report for the States of Jersey, March 2000 emanating from the Planning and Environment Committee. This is the summary report of all the consultations; it is basically the pitch for the park. It has a foreword by the then President, Nigel Quérée. I am just

comparing for Members the approach of Hopkins with regard to contamination, what Hopkins tells you about contamination, with what this little slim document tells you about contamination: "Site investigations in the area have found that ground water is contaminated. Although there is currently no danger to public health it is something that must be dealt with. Earth on both the sites is known to be severely contaminated as a result of the former gas works and there is a risk that this may result, if it has not already resulted, in off site contamination. The Solicitor General has advised that " why is the advice of the Solicitor General not in Hopkins? "The Solicitor General has advised that If contamination is caused to adjoining properties at any stage after the public acquire the ownership of the land by contamination on the land, even though that contamination was caused before the land was acquired [which, of course, it was] the public will be liable in damages if the States are or ought to be aware of the potential risk, could reasonably remove it and do not do so. It is, therefore, in the financial interests of the States to remove the contaminated earth at the earliest possible opportunity'." I am aware that this is a legal opinion which are always open to challenge but it was the official opinion of the then Solicitor General. The issue is migration of contamination. Nobody contests that there is contamination on the site and it sits there. But if it migrates out of the site and affects other people's lives then we may be legally, and we certainly are morally, liable. The point is that whatever solution we adopt, whether it is Hopkins 1, 2, 3, 4, or whether it is the Millennium Town Park, we will have to deal with that

contamination and so it is not relevant to this debate. If anyone drags it up and says this that and the other about it, the point is that it is the same issue. We either deal with it,, or we do not. There is a risk in not dealing with it both financial and legal and moral and if we do deal with it then there is a cost. It is not particularly relevant to the debate but it is relevant to Hopkins' approach, why was it not in the document? That may seem a little technical point so I come on to consultation which, of course, is much more important. Members will have had Mike Felton's letter by email where he says: "Where is the consultation on Hopkins?" when the previous plan that we were being asked to choose between has conducted masses of consultation. Hopkins on page 9 lists a large number of stakeholders that they did talk to and consult with. I accept that and it was a creditable attempt by Hopkins in a limited timeframe to talk to the main stakeholders, both official and some few unofficial. But, as Mike Felton points out correctly, where are the original consultees? Where is the public at large? You can say: "Well, they did not have time." But the point is they could have looked at the original consultation and they could have told us what people had said. At the workshop in 1998, I think it was, there were stakeholders and interested parties, over 200 we are told in the EDAW documents, to shape up some ideas and to define the issues, which they did. Then there was consultation in the form of 25,000 inserts in the J.E.P., and intranet and internet consultation as well and we are told by EDAW in their document (just for the record, Phase 2 Concept Design Options Public Consultation, April 1999) that there were 605 questionnaires returned plus a further 260 via the internet and the intranet. That is a formidable body of knowledge and opinion and where is it in the Hopkins masterplan? It has been airbrushed out. I go to page 7, the relevant documents of Hopkins. These are the documents that they looked at and took into consideration. I leave out the T.T.S. generated documents which are largely technical but I will, for the benefit of Members and the record, say what documents Hopkins read and looked at: Tibbalds: the Gas Works Area 1991 Townscape Analysis; ARA: Proposed Public open Space and Underground Car Park, 1997 (which I have here, it is a heavyweight engineering document); EDAW: Proposed Public Open Space Major Public Consultation Exercise with Ideas from the Public Culminating a Design Solution for the Park. So it has mentioned Price waterhouseCoopers and so it goes on. It is mentioned; it is in the list of the documents that they read. They must have collective amnesia in the offices of Hopkins because after reading it they forgot all about it. There is not a word in this huge document about what the public said about the Millennium Town Park.

Is that not strange? Because when we come to Ann Court and what the public think about the Ann Court car park we read on page 49 of Hopkins: "There has been intense opposition from local residents to the recent proposals from the States of Jersey Planning and Environment for a multi- storey car park on the Ann Court site " and in the second paragraph on page 49: "The residents' arguments against the location of a multi-story car park on Ann Court focused upon the detrimental impact of the sheer numbers of cars which will pass through the area, the antisocial behaviour, noise, nuisance and air quality issues all associated with large car parks." The point is not what the residents around Ann Court feel about having a big car park on Ann Court, the point is that when public opinion, when consultation, supports the view of the Hopkins masterplan team then it goes into the document, then we can read about it, then we know. But when the public consultation, the public opinion is expressed in the direction in which Hopkins does not wish to go then it is airbrushed out. I am sorry, Members, this is not adequate in a major planning document. [Approbation] If they had reviewed seriously and remembered what they had read then they would have seen in the EDAW Phase 2 Concept Options public consultation document, a chart on page 7, a bar chart which summarises what the public's main issues around the park were. Consultation, synthesis of replies, ranking of park content from questionnaire replies. There you see a summary of the public's desires for the park. It is not stratified, it is not scientific, but 605 plus over 200 replies went into this. The top one is trees. The second one is seating. The third one is toilets, interestingly, and then open grass and so on, but the point is where is this in Hopkins' masterplan? Airbrushed out. It is a selective document. That is how Hopkins treat consultation. They treat it selectively. No wonder the public are disillusioned. Third, a small point but a significant one. There is a map within Hopkins of existing parks. I am sorry; I have not got the page number. It shows them in green. It is on the right-hand side, if I remember, and it is very useful. Down the left-hand side of this map of St. Helier with all the parks shown in green, they list the areas of the different parks. That is quite useful. How does the Gas Place site compare to Howard Davis Park, Coronation Park? We would like to know, to have a rough idea how it compares because we know in our heads what Howard Davis Park looks like and we know in our heads what Coronation Park looks like, and People's Park. So how big is this park? What are we talking about? Would it not have been useful to have had the area usefully listed on that page with all the others? But they did not. I had to extract the figures, which is 13,000 square metres, by the way, from a great long list of car parks, and I went down and gave myself eyestrain to find the 2 figures, add them together: 13,000 square metres. 13,000 square metres, that is useful. How big is that? So you look up the list. Howard Davis Park is almost exactly double the size. Almost exactly. So what we are talking about is an area half as big as Howard Davis. Now, I am sure that I have read somewhere, but I do not have the reference, that this park is really rather small. So it is not really big enough to be a real town park, so let us make it smaller. I am sure I have read that somewhere.  [Approbation] But if you look at the figures, it is half the size of Howard Davis. Even if you just put a fence down the middle of Howard Davis, it is a big park with lots of space and trees and grass, which is what people said they wanted. It has even got a toilet.  That is, in a way, a small point, but in a way it is not because you are kind of not telling people in an easy way how they could compare and match up what they need to know. My fourth point about Hopkins is the money. Now, this is, of course, exercising the minds of Members. What would you expect in a serious document which costs, no doubt, an arm and a leg, for a project of this size in terms of costs? Well, I submit you would expect a statement of the costs but also of the benefits. How else can we, the States, how else can the public assess whether this is a good thing to do or a bad thing to do? You need to look not only at the costs but also at Hopkins' cost sheets, Hopkins have given them out to Members who attended the presentation. I am not sure that everyone has them, which again is odd, but there you go. If we look at that, they list the financial costs and the financial yields of their options and they list them under development value and development costs. They give, quite correctly, a range of best and worst. They are narrow ranges, which is a little bit worrying but they do give ranges and they say We have listed the development value and the development costs on an indicative basis. They estimate quite crudely, if you like, the value of the residential on a gross to net ratio, 80 per cent, bang. That is the likely development value. I have

no quarrel with that. It is a feasibility study, but what of the other benefits?

The Deputy of St. Mary :

What of the benefits to the surrounding area? What of this word "regeneration"? Is it possible to estimate the value of regeneration? Would it help Members to know what that value might be? I had distributed to Members yesterday an extract from Price waterhouseCoopers' report of 1999 entitled  Millennium Town Park St. Helier Development Options Socio-economic and Environmental Impact Appraisal. Hopkins have reviewed this document; they have written 2 paragraphs summarising the main points to be taken from this document, but they curiously omitted to mention the socio-economic impact, the financial benefits of the Millennium Town Park. Why would Hopkins want to leave that out? If I can refer Members to the document I had distributed yesterday, I find it, I must say, very astonishing that this is not part of the Hopkins document. On page 17 of Price waterhouseCoopers, they do an estimate of the uplift in housing value to the surrounding area. You can talk about regeneration. You can say this will have a positive impact on people around about, but Price waterhouseCoopers put a financial figure on it. I will not quote their technical bit about how they come to the figures, because Members have that and it might be boring, but I just draw Members' attention to, if you like, the bottom line. They say that there are 5,140 local-area households in the area that would be affected by the park, of which 1,400 belong to the States. They list the current average local house price. They say what the additional price rise would be in those values over 20 years and the total. The total is £102 million. The total uplift in the value of the housing directly affected by this park is £102 million. Why have we not got that figure in the official report? The uplift to States own properties is £28 million and the good Deputy Southern is asking for £10 million. The uplift in States properties, I repeat, is estimated at £28 million, and that is, by the way, for a park with parking underneath. I have to make that quite clear. £102 million, £28 million. For the more technically minded, if you discount that to present values, which people will do, and accountants in the House will surely pull me up if I do not, the net present value of the uplift for all the properties is £70 million and the net present value of the uplift of States-owned properties is £19 million. Still way over the £10 million that this proposition asks for. Then I would take Members to that same document I issued to Members yesterday - it just says page 20 at the bottom - which is the figures for the park without car parking underneath, just to give an idea what happens when you take out the car parking. It is somewhat surprising that so many people do not want to hear the evidence, but anyway, there you go. The uplift in local values, £62 million of a park on its own with no car parking. The uplift to States-owned properties £17 million. Again, the discounted figures of net present value are somewhat less. £62 million, £17 million. Not in Hopkins. How can we evaluate? How can we know what the value of this project is if the only attempt to capture the increase in value has been ignored? So, to summarise Hopkins, the legal aspects of contamination, the consultation which does not fit is nowhere to be found. The consultation which does fit is in the document and the financial uplift benefits to our community are airbrushed out. I ask Members to consider how this can be. How can consultants employed by the States fix the facts like this? I am sorry; it is unacceptable and it should put a question mark in the minds of Members about the whole document. You have to think why you would take such a selective view of the key information consultation, financial appraisal. Why would you take such a selective view if you did not have a predetermined conclusion? So I am sorry; we do have to discount the Hopkins document. I hope I have done enough to demolish its credibility because I really do think it is not a good piece of work insofar as it is focused on this particular proposal, but maybe that was why it was commissioned. It is sad. It is horrible. I do not want to say that. Why do we not just get on with what we said we were going to do? A few points on specific matters because Members have raised them or they no doubt will raise them, just to make sure that we are

talking in the right way. The first is area. I have covered that. It is half the area of Howard Davis. It is a big area and we should not forget just how big it is. Timescale is a red herring. It really is. All this talk about delays and complications and we might have to do a little bit more research. There is going to be more research, but we want to get on with it. It is like the adult respite care. It is like the commitment to the eastern cycle route. We have to commit this money if we are going to get anywhere. Fiscal stimulus package: that is a red herring if ever there was one. There are people who are saying: "Well, it is not 3Ts-compliant. It does not quite do this. It does not quite do that." The fact is, if we need to do this, we need to do this. I would refer Members to some of the things that have got through the fiscal stimulus package so far. I would just like to remind Members of the Victoria Avenue resurfacing: £5 million of capital-intensive work. Compare that to the £10 million that is being asked for

Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

If the Deputy would just give way, it is £3 million.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

The figure I wrote down on the front page of my copy of the proposition for the eastern cycle route was £4.775 million, if I remember correctly, but maybe that is not right. If it is £3 million, it is £3 million. The point is it is capital-intensive. We have heard from the Minister for Treasury and Resources that

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Sorry to stop you, Deputy , but the States are inquorate. There are 27 people in the Chamber but only 26 present. We have to summon other Members.

Male Speaker:

May I raise the défaut on Deputy Le Fondré?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

You now can. Do Members agree to raise the défaut? The Assembly is again quorate. Please continue, Deputy .

The Deputy of St. Mary :

I do hope that Members are also listening out in the tearoom or wherever because that would bump up the numbers to comfort the public. Yes, I was mentioning about the fiscal stimulus package and about Victoria Avenue which is capital-intensive. We do not have, we are told, a strict measure of how many jobs you get per £100,000 on the fiscal stimulus package and it does seem to me slightly odd that that bailout of T.T.S.'s (Transport and Technical Services') budget can get into that. I make that point just to say the fiscal stimulus package is a flexible animal. Let us use it to do something valuable and creative for the community. A further point is somebody mentioned - I think it was Deputy Fox - about London, and he quite correctly pointed out there are lots of pictures in this Hopkins document about London squares. This is not London. [Approbation] Pretty Berkeley Square is not the same as Oxford Road. It just is not. We have some other strange comparisons in this debate. We have heard in connection with surveillance and footfall and safety. We have heard some very strange comments in this area, but it is an important point because Hopkins makes a lot about surveillance and about the need for the park to be safe and to have surveillance, and that is why you need to build houses all around it, thus making it rather less of a park. This is a red herring. It really, really is. Again, you can compare the Hopkins approach to the approach of the original 2000 document, which I will do in a minute, but just to go back to what Deputy Fox was saying yesterday, he cited parks in Europe. He said how dangerous they were. There are even, I might suggest, some commons in London that are dangerous. We had from Deputy Lewis that Central Park in New York is dangerous. Well, I am sorry. I know that Jersey is trying to promote its international personality, but to compare Jersey to New York is pushing it a bit far. We were told by the same Deputy , and I just have to say this, that this might be because of the lack of houses surrounding and surveilling the park might become a monument to States inefficiency. I would say that if we do not get on and build a proper park for the residents of St. Helier and for the whole Island, it will be a monument to States procrastination. [Approbation] Having looked a little bit at what Hopkins say, they make this big deal about surveillance. Going back to that previous point of what we should compare to, not Central Park, not these dangerous parks in Europe that apparently are everywhere, although I did not see them in Stockholm, but what about our own Howard Davis Park? What about our own Coronation Park? Are they safe places to be? Judging from the number of people who use them, they are. Let us compare to Hopkins' approach to surveillance, the approach of the Planning and Environment Committee's document in 2000. It is so instructive to compare the approaches of these 2 documents, is it not? What the Millennium Town Park Report for the States of Jersey, March 2000, says about this issue is, and I am taking this from page 7: "A public park of this size (1 hectare or 3.2 acres) would encourage a critical mass of people in this area. Such people movement would create a self-policing environment that would discourage the antisocial behaviour which has occurred in some municipal parks in the U.K. (United Kingdom) where the park has become isolated from the surrounding area." So that is a very different approach, and they go on to emphasise the importance of having the park open to the surrounding area so that it is transparent and so the people can go through it. In planning jargon, it is permeable. It has to have routes going through it, and of course it would do. So much for surveillance. It is made a lot of in Hopkins and so I dwelt on it a fair bit. Car parking. We are told, and correctly, that the petitioners petitioned for a car park underneath the park. Somebody pointed out to me yesterday evening really the thrust of the petition was: "Do you want a park?" but the underground car park was included and perhaps rightly so. So where is

sufficient car parking going to come from? That takes us, of course, to the whole Ann Court saga. If you believe that we need hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of car parking spaces, then of course you do have a little problem. I believe that yesterday we put this into context when talking about the eastern cycle route, when I mentioned that the number of people cycling into town has gone up from 2 per cent to 8 per cent in the last decade. The statistics show the population is rising but traffic is staying more or less constant. That shows that people are using their cars less. Bus usage is rising. We know this. The facts are on the website, if you can find them. It is quite difficult, but you can find them. Ridership goes up 4 per cent or 7 per cent each year. The position in 1995, 1996 when those signatures were gathered is not the same as the position now. The world has moved on. One benefit from the delay of 12 years is that we can at least take advantage of the fact that the amount of parking we need in town has gone down. This may be a bit startling for some Members to take in, but it is true. The number of cyclists has gone up, so they are not bringing in their cars and that is why you can normally find a space in Pier Road. No problem. Always space in Pier Road. Now, residents' parking is another issue and we are assured that the Hopkins solution I think it is option 2; I am not sure which option it is. The option which includes a car park underground at the gas works end, the larger part of the site, would yield 220 car parking spaces, and they put a price on that of around £6 million: 220 car parking spaces. The original ARA document back in 1997 on that same site, 247.  So they must have lost some parking spaces to those houses that they are thinking of building around and to their foundations, but never mind: 220. I believe that that is enough for the residents and for the white vans, and they also make the point in Hopkins that there can be double use of many spaces so that when the residents have taken their cars away some commuters can use those same spaces. Now, I personally feel that the question of car parking is a hostage to the future. I personally believe, as Members well know, that this is an unnecessary cost, but I do accept that it may be needed now and that the perception is that it is needed now: a modicum of parking for residents. The thing about some underground parking is that it deals with the remediation issue at the same time because to make a car park, you have to make a hole, and to make the hole you dig out soil, and if it is contaminated you deal with it. The cost of the car park is an add-on and we must look at it as that. It is a plus or not, £6 million. Now a few words about Ann Court and Minden Place, just to kick them into touch. It is a separate issue. I hope that nobody talks about them. The good Constable spotted it, but I am pre-empting anyone

going that way, Constable. There is talk in Hopkins of the benefits.

Connétable L Norman of St. Clement :

I wonder if I could ask the Deputy a question of clarification. I wonder does he still believe that we can finish this debate today. [Approbation]

The Deputy of St. Mary :

I do. [Laughter] I may yet be proved wrong, but I do believe that many of the other matters are ones that Members have made up their minds and they are not strategically as important as this, but there you go. That is a separate debate: the question whether to knock down a swimming pool this year or next. Whoa, that was

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Let us get on with it.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Let us get on, yes. There is a question of whether to build underground at Ann Court and knock down Minden Place: yes or no. There are sums in Hopkins' financial calculations. I just think that is a separate issue and as long as we keep to the debate, that is fine, but I just hope nobody raises it later because I think it is not relevant. Now, the cost. The cost. This plan is better. We were told that was the opening line in the presentation of this masterplan to the Environment Scrutiny Panel. We had the Minister. We had his top people, officers, and his opening line was: "This plan is better. I am putting it to you because it is better." The second line was: "It will not cost you

anything." Funny way around, that: "It is better and it will not cost you anything." Well, I do not know about how other Members felt and I do not know if that is how they presented it to States Members, but something for nothing and that way around: "It is going to be better and it will not cost you anything." I just want to ask Members to consider who gains and who loses in this choice that we have to make. I referred to the community. Do we back the community or do we turn our backs on the community? We are getting something for nothing, but I think, as Deputy Tadier pointed out, what is this something? Is it what we want? Is it what the public have told us repeatedly that they want, even though they are getting a bit tired of us? So, on costs, there are some observations that need to be made. We have heard it said: "This is a lot of money. How can we vote it now? These millions have been set aside for years. The proposal that this amendment is putting right is to take the money out." Well, simply, this amendment is putting that right. This money has been set aside for years. That is the first point about the cost. When Deputy Reed says: "Oh, well, it would be cheaper if we do it the other way", I know he is trying to hold on to his budget and I can respect that, and Ministers are all under pressure, but I do hope that they will see this as a big-picture matter. Millions. It is indeed millions. Capital projects cost millions. If you look at the list of projects which we are shortly going to probably nod through, there is £4.5 million for a new radio system for our emergency services. There is £5 million, I think, or £4 million for I.C.T. (information and communication technologies) and so it goes on. These are big-ticket items, and this park is no exception. It is an investment, and investments yield their benefits over many, many years. Then we come to the benefits which I have covered, but there is a matter which needs to be addressed about benefits, and I had a discussion with Deputy Le Fondré last night about this. The question is whether it is right for the government to invest to the benefit of some and not to others. The uplift in property values will affect 5,000-odd householders, so what about everybody else and is there a way of somehow getting some revenue back out of that capital gain? That is a question the House has not addressed, capital gain and how we could somehow recover that, but the point is that by spending this £10 million, we will generate a benefit of £100 million. By spending money on the hospital, that means that any of us, any of the public can be mended when they have an accident. That is how it works, and if you do not have any accidents in your life or you do not need to use the hospital in an expensive way, then you have been subsidised by everybody else. That is how it works. If someone has no children, then they do not benefit from the education system. They still pay for it. That is just part of the rough and tumble. It is part of the way that it works. So here we are deciding whether to do something which will not only benefit the whole Island but which will bring a specific benefit, a huge benefit, to a large number of people. The proposer showed that the cost for the park and remediation would be £7 million. I would suggest to Members again remediation is something we have to do anyway. How we take that moral issue is one thing, but whatever the cost we are either going to encourage or not, so it is not going to make a difference to the debate. Now, drawing to a close, I am going to take Members back to the original process that led up to the Millennium Town Park. When I read the ancient documents of EDAW and the summary of the Millennium Town Park, the feelings of happiness and drive and positively jumps off the page. Yes, this wonderful thing is going to happen. I just quote from the foreword and it is like from a different era. We have to recapture that when we are deciding, when we are voting on this. This is from the foreword: "Two years ago, the Planning and Environment Committee was asked to identify the best use for the gas works site." It is ancient history: "The public of Jersey wanted a town park worthy of marking the dawn of the new millennium in the Island. The States had agreed in the 1987 Island Plan to provide a car park on the site. The Planning and Environment Committee has fully researched and identified the most cost-effective option available for this land and has painstakingly consulted both the public and many technical experts." Without a doubt, it is, in short, a scheme of vision for future generations of Islanders to enjoy. There was a kind of positive oomph there, and if you read the EDAW documents of the

public consultation, they are just buzzing with energy and hope. So I do say that this debate is about whether we commit to that pledge given so many years ago. We should get on with it. Members should remember that the new proposals of Hopkins are the upstart. This is the old

proposal. This is the one that we need to get on with. It is about keeping faith with the public. Finally, I want to say some words briefly about why I, as a country Deputy , should bother to make a big speech about the Millennium Park. It is so, so important for people in the countryside, for my constituents, that this park happens. It is so important. The Constable of Trinity has spoken about the need to protect our green fields, and amen to that. The corollary of that is that we have to invest in our town, and the Constable is nodding. We have to provide that same greenery and all its benefits. Why do people yearn to live in the countryside? Why do most of us  live in the countryside? Because there is a benefit of green surroundings. I urge all the country Constables and Deputies to search their consciences when they come to vote on this. Every day when I go home, I just give thanks when I am going through the last few hundred yards up to my house in the north of St. Mary's. It is so beautiful. I urge all the country Constables and Deputies to get behind this for the sake of a united Island. I want also people to put their views on the line in this debate. I want to know why anyone could want to vote against. We have heard it 3 times already: "I support the idea, but " I almost would like a ruling from the Chair that that repetition of the word "but" be banned [Approbation] from this debate because I have heard it too many times. I remind us all here of the people who will benefit from this: the local people who live near, the local people who will go to work through the park, the elderly sitting in the sun, the children playing. Why do Members think that this has such massive public support? The feel-good of doing this thing would ripple through the whole Island. I was really moved yesterday by the speech of the Constable of St. John which was much, much shorter than mine. [Approbation] He said: "I used to live in town. I now live in the country. I am voting for this." I do say that my role in the House is somewhat to bring the facts, to bring the evidence. I do have slightly less constituency work than my fellow Deputies in town. I do have constituency work but not as much, and I am able to research things in depth and I do. I hope that I have laid some gremlins to rest. I hope I have deconstructed the Hopkins masterplan and shown that it is a partial selective document in which we should place very little faith. Ultimately, we have to decide whether this is one Island or whether it is divided

between the lucky ones and the ones who live in town. Please, please vote for this.

7. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence :

I think I had better follow up on some of the points that have been raised in the debate since yesterday. It feels a very long time. I have to say I do admire the Deputy of St. Mary's passion on some of these things. On the face of it, this is the point: it is a fantastic proposition. What deserves more support than the town park project that has been delayed for 9 years? Why has it taken so long? There are 2 very simple factors. One is parking and the other one is cost. Sorry, that is what it is coming down to. The relevance of the parking, the town park site is a large car park in the north-east of town. We should know that. But it needs to be replaced. That is why there have been talks of underground parking or aboveground parking or wherever, at Ann Court, for example. The problem every time has been cost. The cost of most of the schemes that we have had thus far would make the cavern pale into insignificance. Depending how you count it, the price tag thus far could be as much as £40 million to £50 million. It is certainly between £30 million and £40 million. That is after the remediation, the alternative options for parking, the opportunity costs for lost income, the ongoing maintenance costs and obviously replacement land value issues on housing and sites if you have to replace, for example, the Ann Court housing site elsewhere. That is a lot of money, and that is an understatement. The Minister for Planning and Environment in conjunction with both T.T.S. and Property Holdings has produced an alternative. Thus far, the indications are they could produce either at very little cost or possibly even make a return. Deputy Duhamel made some observations on that. That could impact on the level, if we go that way, of housing around the sites. What do you want to get out of it? That is the present choice: schemes that could potentially cost very little or could cost up to £40 million to £50 million. Where does that leave us today? I have to say, in my view, today is not the day to vote on the funding because we need to decide what scheme we want. You either have the expensive scheme or a revised scheme or variations thereof. Now, the masterplan has gone out for consultation and the Minister

for Planning and Environment has confirmed it is going to come back to this Assembly for debate. So there may well be other options that come out of that consultation, but that is the purpose of it and that consultation, in my view, does need to take account of the costs. I am sorry to keep coming back to costs all the time, but we are in different times at the moment. To me, that is when you make the decision when that masterplan comes back in an amended form. You decide the scheme, and then part of that debate is how you are going to fund it, but it is completely disingenuous to say we can do this now. I do have to say I was quite disappointed with the Minister for Home Affairs. I agree with him he wants to get on with it. We all do. But there is of course and there have to be other priorities or there appear to be other priorities, and that is the choice or dilemma we make. That, in theory, is what we are about. Do I keep pushing down a road that I know at the end is a great black hole of unaffordable project there? For example - and I am going to put the Minister for Home Affairs on the spot, to an extent - given his enthusiasm for the scheme, would he be prepared, for example, to give up any hope for the new police station and more on top because those are the types of numbers we are talking and that is the choice of priorities. I can see him shaking his head. He thinks that is the reality, folks. I am going to come back to Deputy Southern in a minute on a couple of numbers, but that is the consequence; we have to talk. Bang on cue. I am glad the Deputy just waved that piece of paper at me because I went and dug out a copy of that earlier this morning. The Deputy , for example, has referred to £5 million to £6 million being the cost for the parking, which is option 4, page 1, Gas Place car park, yes, between £5.5 million to £6.5 million. Quite a number of debates ago, I think the Deputy called me a fishmonger or something. It was along the lines of being able to slice elements out of propositions and match them to make my argument. I cannot remember the phraseology, but I shall return the compliment to the Deputy today. What that line says is Gas Place, 220 spaces, and it is, worst-case scenario, £6 million, okay? Now, the number of spaces we need to replace the parking at Gas Place car park, just Gas Place car park, not Talman, is 390 spaces. So, secondly, this is for

semi-basement parking, and it says that on the sheet. This is not for underground car parking. The inference from the proposition that we are talking today is to do, I think it is the full town park scheme. The inference is the original

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

On a point of order Hopkins did not say anything about. We have got a plan in front of us, the Hopkins plan, and they can do it on the ..

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

If I can read from page 4 of his report, he says: "And the full town park agreed by the States over a decade ago will not have been completed."