States Meeting Transcript - 29th June 2011

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 29th JUNE 2011

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

1. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): eleventh amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(11)) - amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(11)Amd.) - resumption...................................4

1. Senator F.E. Cohen:......................................................................4 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : .........................................................5 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : ....................................................5

2. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): fifty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(58)) ............................................................................................6

1. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):......................6
2. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:.......................................................6
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ................................................................6
4. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ..............................................7
5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:................................................................7
6. Senator F.E. Cohen:......................................................................7

3. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011) - as amended...................................8

1. Senator A. Breckon: .....................................................................9
2. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................10
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................10
4. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................13
5. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................18
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................19
7. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:....................................................19
8. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................20
9. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ........................................................21
10. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:...................................................22
11. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:................................................23
12. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:......................................23
13. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:...................................................24
14. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................25
15. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier : ..................................................26
16. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ............................................27
17. Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John : ................................................31
18. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen : ......................................................31
19. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................32
20. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :...............................................32
21. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................32

2. North St. Helier Masterplan (P.73/2011)................................................37

1. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):.....................37

2. North St. Helier Masterplan: (P.73/2011): amendment (P.73/2011 Amd.) - paragraph 2..........................................................................................41

2.2.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................41

3. North St. Helier Masterplan (P.73/2011): third amendment (P.73/2011 Amd.(3)) - paragraph 1..............................................................................41

2.3.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................42

4. North St. Helier Masterplan (P.73/2011): third amendment (P.73/2011 Amd.(3)) - paragraph 4..............................................................................43

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................43

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................46 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................46

The Deputy of St. Mary:......................................................................47

2. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................50
3. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................51
4. The Connétable of St. Saviour:.........................................................52
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................52
6. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................53
7. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................53
8. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................54
9. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................54
10. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:..............................................................54
11. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:....................................................55
12. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................56

5. North St. Helier Masterplan (P.73/2011): second amendment (P.73/2011 Amd.(2)) - paragraph 2..............................................................................59

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................59
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................60
3. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................60
4. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................60
5. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................60
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................60
7. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................61
8. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................61
9. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................61

6. North St. Helier Masterplan (P.73/2011): third amendment (P.73/2011 Amd.(2)) - paragraph 2..............................................................................62

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................62
2. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................63
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................63
4. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................63
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................63
6. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................64
7. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................64
8. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................64

7. North St. Helier Masterplan (P.73/2011): amendment (P.73/2011 Amd.) - paragraph 1 ...........................................................................................65

2.7.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................65

8. North St. Helier Masterplan (P.73/2011): second amendment (P.73/2011 Amd.(2)) - paragraph 1..............................................................................65

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................66
2. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................66
3. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................66
4. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................67
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................67
6. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................67
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................67
8. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................67

9. North St. Helier Masterplan (P.73/2011): third amendment (P.72/3011 Amd.(3)) - paragraph 6..............................................................................68

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................69
2. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................70
3. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................70
4. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................71
5. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................71
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................71
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................71
8. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................73

10. North St. Helier Masterplan (P.73/2011): third amendment (P.72/3011 Amd.(3)) - paragraph 3..............................................................................73

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................74
2. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................75
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................76
4. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................77
5. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................78
6. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:..............................................................79
7. Deputy A.K.F. Green:...............................................................79
8. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................79
9. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................80
10. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ..........................................................80

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................82

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

[09:03]

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): eleventh amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(11)) - amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(11)Amd.) - resumption

Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence :

If I may, I need to declare an interest in the matter that we are debating at the moment, although I do believe that Deputy Gorst 's proposition is going to be withdrawn and replaced by one of the Minister. The reason for my declaration is that my house backs on to one of these fields in St. Lawrence.

The Bailiff :

Very well. You can declare it but it does not seem to me that prevents you from..

Deputy E.J. Noel:

No, and while I am on my feet, if I may, I would just like to inform Members I have to leave the Chamber now for a couple of hours. I have a prearranged meeting that was arranged over a year ago and unfortunately I have not been able to rearrange it. Participants in that meeting are coming over from South Africa so I am afraid I will have to be absent for the next couple of hours, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Very well. Thank you, Deputy Noel.

Male Speaker:

Before we move forward, Sir, I wonder if I can propose that we finish business today at 5.30 p.m. as we know there is a dinner this evening. I do not know whether you were going to mention it.

The Bailiff :

Yes, that would be helpful for the Assembly to know. Do Members agree that it would be convenient today to stop at 5.30 p.m.?

Female Speaker:

Could I make an advance on that and say 5.00 p.m. today, please?

The Bailiff :

0. p.m. Verywell. I take that the Assembly agrees to 5.00 p.m. then. We return to the debate on the Island Plan and, as Members are aware, a difficulty arose at the end in connection withthe terms of Deputy Gorst 's amendment and it transpired that Senator Le Marquand, I think, had hit the nail on the head as to the problem. Although the Greffier had given a number of rulings, which were clearly correct, it transpired that in the end there was a fundamental misapprehension in the amendment. The Minister can explain betterthanI,but a meeting was held lasteveningtotryandsort it out and my understanding is that the plan always intended and does indeed show these various fields as being in the Green Zone but it is rather misleading because they also fall within the boundary ofthe Built-Up Zone. So if they are, of course, in the Green Zone already, then Deputy Gorst 's proposition is meaningless and outof order. The Minister, as I understand it, proposes to ask permission to lodge a new amendment which is on Members' desks. Minister, perhaps you would like to explain things.
   1. Senator F.E. Cohen:

I think you have explained it very well, far better than I am able, but the amendment from Deputy Gorst yesterday mistakenly specified fields within the Built-Up Area. I am lodging this amendment to clarify the error contained within Deputy Gorst 's amendment. It is an important issue, a belt and braces issue that needs to be clarified, and therefore I ask Members to please accept this late amendment. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Do Members agree to accept this amendment? Very well. On that basis then, I think we were in the course of debating Deputy Le Claire's amendment to Deputy Gorst 's proposition. So I think, Deputy Le Claire, in those circumstances, are you content to withdraw your amendment?

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

Yes, Sir. Following our meeting yesterday evening, it is quite clear that my amendment to the amendment of Deputy Gorst is also piggybacking on a defective amendment. So the new amendment by the Minister brings clarity and I have been assured that it is within all realms of possibility in the future to bring a proposal to rezone this site for housing in the future. I am comforted by that. I thank Senator Le Marquand for pointing out the defect and also for the Greffier for his time and also the advice of Her Majesty's Attorney General, and I support the Minister and withdraw my amendment.

The Bailiff :

Very well. So you need the leave of the Assembly to withdraw your amendment. Does the Assembly agree that Deputy Le Claire may be given leave to withdraw his amendment? I take that as agreement, and then..

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

Could I just have a point of clarification from yourself? In view of what Deputy Le Claire has just said, does that mean that any Member in future can bring forward a proposition to rezone a piece of land or was it only the Minister?

The Bailiff :

No, it has to be done under the law. It has to be done by the Minister, but of course if the Minister refuses to it is perfectly in order for any Member to lodge a proposition requesting the Minister to bring forward the relevant amendment to the plan. Then we still have Deputy Gorst 's amendment. Do you similarly seek leave to withdraw it?

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

Yes, Sir, I think it is just worth elaborating that the reason this originally arose is because .. and it was both myself and Deputy Gorst came to the same conclusions independently on 2 different areas and the fact that there appeared to be a lack of clarity in that certain areas are surrounded, certain green fields are coloured green and surrounded by a blue line, delineating that separation between the Green Zone and the White Zone, and the areas that have been identified in this proposition in 4 Parishes are not. Obviously the phraseology of the amendment is purportedly incorrect but we felt it was very important that this delineation was clarified because, particularly as identified last night, the interaction with policy H6 where there is a presumption of development within the Built-Up Area boundary. If those fields are not delineated, then you will enter a conflict between 2 policies, one being H6, a presumption to build, and one being the Green Zone. So on that basis it is very important that we do get the clarification and I hope the Minister's amendment is supported. Therefore, on that basis, I will withdraw this amendment.

The Bailiff :

Do Members agree that Deputy Le Fondré may withdraw Deputy Gorst 's amendment? It is withdrawn. Very well. That completes the amendments.

2. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): fifty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(58)) The Bailiff :

No, the Greffier has reminded me that we have not debated the Minister's amendment. [Laughter] So the amendment is before Members and I invite the Minister to propose it.

[9:15]

1. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):

I would prefer to follow your previously suggested procedure. I am proposing this amendment to clarify the designation of certain fields as shown on the proposals map. I have proposed the same amendment as Deputy Gorst in order to correct his error. My amendment clarifies that these fields are not within the Built-Up Area and that they are in the Green Zone. This is a straightforward amendment but an important one which will ensure that each of these parcels of land is properly protected and designated clearly within the new plan. While these sites are coloured as Green Zone within the draft Island Plan and were always intended as Green Zone, they are currently surrounded by development on all sides and there is a small risk that they could be construed as being part of the Built-Up Area. This is because there is no blue line between the Green Zone that consists of these sites and the adjacent Built-Up Area. The blue line designates the outer edge of the Built-Up Area only but not the inner edge of the Built-Up Area showing where the Built-Up Area stops and these Green Zone sites start. This amendment proposes that the blue line should be both on the inner boundary of the Built-Up Area which is in effect the outer boundary of these patches of Green Zone. It makes it clear that these areas of land are within the Green Zone and removes any ambiguity from the draft plan. It is important for the issue to be clarified. The ability to develop within the Built-Up Area is covered by policy H6, which itself refers to the proposals map. It is crucial therefore that a proposals map is accurate and there is no doubt as to what is Green Zone and what is Built-Up Area. Under the policy H6, decisions on what is within or without the Built- Up Area will be made with reference to the boundary of the Built-Up Area. It is therefore absolutely essential to be clear about which land is in and which land is out, and that can only be put beyond doubt by clarifying the boundary line. I would like to thank Deputy Le Claire for his consideration and courtesy in withdrawing his amendment and I urge Members to support this relatively simple amendment. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

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

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

If I could just address my comments to (d), and I am very greatly relieved that this is an error. Under (d), St. Saviour fields 500, 501, 503 and 504, 508 and 623 are predominantly in the grounds of Government House. So I am greatly relieved that was an error. Also field 620, Jardin des Buttes, which is opposite St. Saviour's Parish Hall , that is administered by the Parish with volunteer jardiniers, of which I am one, also Deputy Le Hérissier. 624 is the sloping country gardens in front of the education building. So if anybody wanted to build on there, they would need the constitution of a mountain goat to get through. So I am greatly relieved it was a typo. 625, of course, is the d'Hautrée site which we spoke about the other day, but I will be supporting the Minister's amendment.

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

I would like to, at this stage, if I may, express my thanks to the Minister for his kindness - my good friend, the Minister - and also the other people who assisted last night in trying to unravel what was a complicated analysis of the situation, especially the officers. Now, after this amendment, we will be entering into the main part of the debate. I have just learnt this morning that unfortunately somebody I have known quite well has got a funeral at 11.00 a.m. so I am going to ask if you

would excuse me for a couple of hours while I attend that, but in case it is all finished before I get back, I would just like to say that it has been a difficult debate. I appreciate that sometimes I have strayed perhaps to the line if not past it in relation to my behaviour and my shouting, but I would say with the greatest of respect to everybody else, it is the concern of the children that I have been worried about and I am certainly concerned that there is going to be a large number of children that are going to be facing significant housing problems in the very near future. I congratulate the Minister, his Assistant Ministers and especially the officers that have done a sterling job of work. They have been working until 2.00 a.m., 3.00 a.m., and your good selves and the Greffier and his staff and of course the ushers. Thank you.

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

Deputy Lewis has spoken about this. Very briefly, I would just like to thank Deputy Gorst for bringing this proposition originally and the Minister for amending it. I think it now quite clearly does what it says on the tin and it provides extra protection for us and for St. Saviour that is absolutely essential. This provides a green area that reaches right down to the north of town and it provides amenity space, which I know quite a number of our primary schools use. It is absolutely essential that we protect it and I am very, very pleased that this hopefully will go through.

5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I am just really going to reiterate that this is pretty important although it is dotting i's and crossing t's. I trust the Minister will appreciate the free advice from 2 accountants coming at it from 2 different directions in terms of identifying this in the first place. Again, just to reiterate the importance. It is a little ironic. In the previous Island Plan some 10 years ago, about 10 minutes before the end of the debate, there was an adjournment to seek clarification of matters to do with a Built-Up Area. The credit to the Minister here is that he accepts and has been very amenable to moving on this because what happened in the last debate, which representatives of St. Clement may or may not recall, is that assurances were given about fields that had been put into the Built-Up Area, that they would be protected under policies. As I understand it from supplementary propositions that were brought later on, that was not the case and development was being allowed. That was slightly different because those fields had been placed into the White Zone and were coloured white. These are obviously still in the green but they are within the Built-Up Area boundary and that is the area we are clarifying. On that, thank you very much to the Minister and I really hope Members will support this.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well. I call upon the Minister to reply.

6. Senator F.E. Cohen:

I do not think any of the points raised need further clarification from me, but I would like to make the point to thank Deputy Le Fondré and Deputy Gorst as an accountant and thank them for their free advice, and we all know what to make of free advice. [Laughter] Thank you very much. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.

The Bailiff :

All those in favour of adopting the amendment, kindly show. The appel is called for. You wish to give another 15 minutes' work to the Greffier?

Male Speaker:

Yes. I am sorry, Sir. It is very important that it is recorded that these fields are in the Green Zone.

The Bailiff :

The Member is absolutely right. Very well. The appel is called for and the Greffier will open the voting.

The Bailiff :

Well, then, at the second attempt, that does bring all debate upon the amendments to an end. Members might be interested: the Greffier has just handed me a note and so far the Assembly has spent over 37 hours debating these matters. It seems longer to some Members.

Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin :

Are we able to ask how many hours Deputy Le Claire has spoken for? [Laughter]

3. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011) - as amended

The Bailiff :

We return therefore to the debate upon the Island Plan. Perhaps I can just say this to Members. To the extent that Members have already, in the course of amendments, made major speeches, raising major points, perhaps they would be kind enough not to repeat them all if they wish to speak on the Island Plan as a whole. I think Members have now got the main argument. Of course they can be referred to, but I do hope Members will be brief. Senator Breckon.

1. Senator A. Breckon:

Yes, Sir, and I will do that and I will refer to the generality if you like because, as I said a number of days ago - I am not sure how many it was - that when we went straight into amendments, a bit like the budget, we do not look at the generality of it. To that extent, although it is probably really accurate that we have spent 37 hours, the question is have we really discussed the Island Plan or have we micromanaged it to some extent. The other thing, and again I am not sure what day it was, but the Minister thanked those Members who had made amendments. I would turn that the other way and thank the Minister because I think it was his initiative that we were able to propose amendments. I am not sure - you might be able to correct me from the Chair - but previously I do not think Members could do that. They had to request the Minister to do it so it was the Minister who enabled us to spend 37 hours discussing this. So, if you like, he might have made a rod for his own back but I do not think that is the case. I think he is to be commended for allowing this to happen because it is an important debate and it is not just about the nearly 40 hours; it is about the work that has gone in over the last couple of years to get from the 2002 plan to this one and the consultation exercise, including the public, has been comprehensive. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the consultation period was extended because there were people who needed more time to get their thoughts together and I think everybody who made a submission was welcomed. The other thing does contain, without going back into the detail, lots of things in there that really unfortunately we have not touched on. It is about the Island Plan strategic policy framework, general development control policies and natural environment, historic environment built, the economy, housing we have touched on, social community and open space, travel and transport, natural resources and utilities, mineral resources, waste management. There are lots of things that lie under that, lots of objectives, indicators, proposals, and the document is very, very comprehensive. I do not propose to go into any details on that but Members may wish to use this as a reference point from this debate onwards and we might all have ideas or expectations but then, if we are going to approve this, this is the blueprint that we use and there are things in there people might have a view about, farm sheds and what happens to them; there are things in there. The only point I would like to make from that is that I hope elderly care, housing and other things that we need for the future will stand out from this because, as other Members have said during the course of the last few days, it is really an issue that we need to address, the funding, the community issues, not just the built bit but the support bit as well. So for my part I hope I have been brief enough but it is a comprehensive document and I do not mean to be disrespectful to the Minister, the department or anybody else in being as brief as that but I do not want to go on too long either and I just close by just echoing some of what Deputy Le Claire has just said. We are quick to criticise people sometimes, working in the public sector and doing things, but I think this is an example how the Planning Department and the officers, along with the Minister and a lot of support from around that, and the Greffier and the people in the Greffe have made sense out of what we have wanted to do. That is to say if somebody wanted an amendment or a change, the planning officers and the Minister gave arm's length, he gave us all access to the department and officers with him being out of it. "This is what you want to do. Okay." So the officers advised on that although their advice might have been given but they knew it would have been difficult to do but they have done that and I think that is a credit. Again, with the Greffe, they have made sense out of this not just for the Order Paper and how we do that but enabling working with the officers of Planning to make the amendments and the plan itself come together. I just close by saying that and I really mean that we should be thankful for that. We have perhaps, some might consider, made heavy weather of it, but

without that we would not have even got this far and probably could have taken a great deal longer. I would just say that I am fully supportive of this and there will be parts of it that we do not like or need changing but then we will have to live with that and, as has been mentioned earlier, there is the possibility in the future as the Island develops, the economy develops, the population grow older, that there are things that we must do and this is probably the tool that we will need to do it and I will just close by just stating that and I thank all concerned.

2. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

You will be pleased to know that I spent 6 weeks writing a speech that I am not going now to give because everything has been said. We are all worn out. But what I want to say is the following and I will be very, very brief.

[9:30]

At times I have irritated the Minister and at times the Minister has irritated me. I have worried, sweated and worked this Island Plan for the best part of the last 2 years and what we have today is a compromise and so I accept the compromise and I accept the will of this Assembly. I think we have achieved a lot. The amendments have achieved a lot. The negotiations that went on with the Minister behind the scenes have achieved things and I am happy to accept where we are today. It is not what everyone wants but that is what we are about. We do agree things and we do it within this Chamber and we do it in a civil way. The Minister has had to pick up the poison chalice, and the poison chalice in this case, for the large part, was full of hemlock, but I think his statesman-like qualities came through today and in the last 7 days, as did, I have to say, the ability of most of the officers up at the Department of the Environment that I have the most enormous respect for. Finally, Sir, without you and without the Greffe, this debate would have been absolutely impossible and I am grateful we are where we are today. Thank you, Sir.

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

I was told by Senator Le Main that I should not have apologised when I am right, and I have been told that before in my political career. Perhaps there was just an element of recognition that obviously upset Members that during some parts of the debate I was raising my voice to the point where it was shouting. The Deputy of St. Martin unfortunately made a snide remark, in my view. That we should count up how many hours it was that I had been speaking. I have been speaking for as long as I thought it was necessary and I thank the Minister for allowing us to bring amendments, but unfortunately the way the plan is structured at the moment, and the way that we have debated, it needs a serious review from Scrutiny because we have been in and out of each topic on several different occasions, when in the future what we need to do is to arrange our business on an Island Plan so that when we talk about affordable housing we talk about affordable housing and then we move forwards and we leave affordable housing behind us. At the moment, what is happening, and it is going to happen now, is that elements of the debate are consistently and continually repeated. There is also a need to review the Island Plan law, in my view, in regards to how we debate things. I also think that in the modern age of Scrutiny where we have issues in relation to assessed need and projected need and demographic need, Scrutiny needs to play a part. There was an issue about whether or not this would be referred to Scrutiny and it was juggled in the air: "Whose responsibility is it?" I was concerned about housing in the main, and those issues were touching upon immigration, economics and housing. So, having spoken to a couple of the Chairmen, they were unsure as to which Panel it should rest with. Perhaps in the future we need to think about how Scrutiny Panels are formed. I have said before, and it has been confirmed by other Members recently, in my view moving forwards - and I hope that the review body take this on board - Scrutiny needs to be structured in a ladder so that the people at the top of the ladder who have not been working are pulled into the next review and there are not necessarily Panels that are set on certain subjects. I think it is inhibiting proper scrutiny. In March we had a housing debate and in March I received very little support from the States Assembly in relation to making housing more affordable. In fact I lost a proposition asking States Members to bring forward policies to make housing more affordable in Jersey and I am constantly getting shown and told by Deputy Hilton about the availability of housing and the amount of housing around that is there for the grabs:

£350,000 to £380,000. I went for a mortgage. I am earning £42,000 or £43,000. My wife is earning, I think, £7,000 or £8,000. I could get a mortgage for £250,000. Deputy Hilton said: "Well, people on average earnings can get a mortgage for £350,000." I said: "What, so I do not count?" I look in my wife's eyes and I know that we will not be buying a house in this Island and I know that my whole life is going to be like that. I do not want my sons' lives to be like that - I have got 2 sons - and I do not want their children to have lives like that. There will be problems in the future if we do not address this. There will be no equity in their lives; so when they reach the age of retirement - if they are able to retire - or if they are just made unemployed, they will just turn up at the door and say: "Feed me. Clothe me. House me. I have no assets. Look after me." We had an admission yesterday and it is, congratulations, the Minister for Treasury and Resources in the last 48 hours has committed the money from the Sunshine Hotel to refurbishing Pomme d'Or Farm. Well, that was a promise he made in March and Pomme d'Or Farm money was meant to be set aside for new housing, not refurbishment of old housing. That is the old policy. I am significantly, and continually concerned about the lack of analysis in relation to the demand and the numbers that we have been working on. I have made it quite clear to people who have been listening, and it is on record, that this plan has been drawn up with the wrong numbers; 150 heads of household has nothing to do with reality. I would like to touch upon some hardship cases, because they come quite regularly to people like myself. They used to come at all times of day and night and I, again, commend the former Minister, Senator Le Main, who used to have his telephone on, answered and his door open, regardless of the day, regardless of the time. I could go down to him, I could phone him up, I could take distraught people with me and I could say: "Here are these people. Look at the dire situation they are in. Can you please help me?" It did not matter whether it was Monday or Saturday night, Senator Le Main held his door open.

The Bailiff :

Sorry, Deputy , we have become inquorate. Very well, Deputy , please continue.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I do believe it was right for me to apologise but I do not think it is right for us not to recognise what is being said. The Constable of St. John said that we would dismiss our business in a far more rapid way if we were to get rid of the radio. Well, I am sorry; I have not been speaking to the people at home, necessarily. I have been trying to get through to Members. Now, Members have all been in receipt of emails from me. I know I have been deluging them with emails recently, but I have been copying them into some of these hardship cases that they are aware of and I am going to share some of those now with the public. For the first time I am going to tell the public the kind of things that every single States Member knows and yet they vote against making housing more affordable and making adequate provision. Every single States Member knows these issues I am about to say. Every single Member in this Assembly has had these emails from me. This one I received in January - I shared it with States Members - in regard to a young man whose mother was in a desperate situation: "I am emailing on behalf of my mother, Mrs. X. As you are aware, my father was diagnosed with bone cancer in September 2010 and died at home this month, January 2011. My mother cannot walk up and down stairs and is currently sleeping and living in almost the exact spot where her husband, my father, died. She is under Dr. X who has written saying she cannot do stairs and needs a ground floor flat, house, et cetera. On top of this, she has severe back, knee, hip problems, which are being treated by a chiropractor, and breathing problems. My main concern at this moment is her sleeping in the room where she watched her husband die. Sadly, she has no choice in this. It is heartbreaking for her and extremely depressing. I am worried for her mental state and she believes she cannot cope with this much longer. The housing.." I apologise, Sir. I am afraid I cannot continue and I am going to.. I would like to be able to read these out but I am becoming over-emotional, Sir. Excuse me.

It is all right, Deputy . Do you want to take a minute?

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I need to finish this, Sir. I am sorry. I am not trying to be dramatic. I just did not expect that. I am sorry.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

Sir, if the Deputy would give way for one moment, this may encourage him a little. The lady in question - we do not need to mention her name - told me only 2 days ago that she was delighted that she has now been rehoused. I do not know if the Deputy knows that, but I am sure it would cheer him up a little. Thank you.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I was going to say she has just received information; she has not yet received the key. I am wondering, because I went to see her 10 minutes after I said I was going read out this hardship case, what influence that had. I cannot do anything but praise the Housing officers in the difficult position they are in, but they have no accommodation to house these people. This email continued, if you will excuse me: "My main concern at this moment is her sleeping in the room where she watched her husband die. Sadly, she has no choice in this. It is heartbreaking for her and extremely depressing. I am worried for her mental state as she believes she cannot cope with this much longer. The Housing have offered her a place opposite the Co-op when built but have retracted as over-allocated and have no room. They then offered a place at X but this is not available yet. I am asking that my mother be moved as soon as possible to ground floor accommodation. If it is a house, me and my brother will pay for the stairlift. It does not have to be renovated." They ask if they could help in some way, the 2 brothers, in providing a stairlift and the money for that because of the shortage of flats with lifts, et cetera. That was highlighted in Deputy Hilton's speech in 2008 when she spoke about the constant calls she had on housing and asked us to support the fields being built upon, the ones that still have not been built upon, and she said it is a desperate situation. The numbers on the waiting list in 2008 when the Deputy made that plea to States Members were half of what they are now, and they are going to be significantly more by the end of this plan. Deputy Hilton said, on 2nd April 2008: "I have had to make it quite clear to one of the gentlemen involved. I understand his desire to remain in St. Brelade . He is now 70 years old and all his family live in St. Brelade. He has been living in his current home for 30 years. I had to explain to him, such is the demand in the Housing Department at the moment, that obviously there are strict criteria in how we deal with the elderly on either lift served or ground floor accommodation. There simply is not enough." I think I have probably mentioned the 84 year-old lady I know who lives in St. Helier who climbs up 3 flights of stairs. I met her 5 years ago when I came into the States as a representative for No. 3 District and she said to me: "You know, I am hoping to get a ground floor flat soon." I said: "Yes, I hope you do, too." Five years later that lady, now 84 years old, is now climbing up 3 flights of stairs to get to her accommodation and she knows and she recognises realistically she is going to have to wait for somebody to die in her block before she gets accommodation that she rightly deserves. I have another one. I have just received a call for help from a young single mother who has 2 children and is expecting another one. She is currently living in the private sector and has been waiting to be rehoused for 8 months. She is on income support. Her rent is £217 a week for a 2-bedroom apartment. The money she receives in total at the moment is £417. I am told she has to meet the costs of her utilities out of that and everything else. She has a gas bill of £642 from the recent cold weather and she is desperate for help in getting rehoused anywhere within Housing that is bigger than her current flat. She also had rats running around her flat and they had to be tackled. The flat, she said, was cold and very smelly from the dampness and very expensive. She lives on top of a noisy business: "My flat was so damp that my living room ceiling even caved in on me; finally fixed now that the landlord did something about it. Dangerous gas pipes around the walls of every room which get very hot. Kids always getting sick because of the damp; cannot afford the bills and I am due to have another baby in July and I cannot afford to buy anything because of these bills. I do not ever ask for help but I need some now." Then this week, after I finished speaking for so long, I received another email, which I shared with Members, about a lady who is being told that she is going to be evicted and she does not know what to do because on Thursday when the eviction comes her child and herself are going to be out on the street. So the advice that we have been telling her is: "Sit tight. Hopefully the Royal Court will be sympathetic," if it goes to court. The Housing Department, with full admiration to the Minister for Housing, went immediately to see her and spoke to her and gave her the forms. I do not know what they have got for her but she does need to be moved. In the meantime, other Members are telling me she should sit tight. This landlady who sent her the notice lives in Australia and has a property manager, who is a friend, who has told her that if she does not want to move they can begin eviction proceedings which will cost thousands and she will be liable for costs. There are many people like this and there are many, many more that I do not know about. There are some that have not given me permission to express these issues in public.

[9:45]

I have full permission and some of them are willing to go to the media on these issues. I do not want to go running up and down the street saying that there is a housing problem to the public because they know it. The only thing that is missing in this whole equation is the public knowing that States Members know. States Members know, but they are choosing to look the other way. They are looking at their elections, in my view, and they should not be looking at their elections. They should be looking at their electorate. I apologise for shouting but there is every need for us to look very, very significantly at the housing issues in this Island and if it has upset Members, then be upset. I am sorry I have taken so long and I am sorry I have been so emotional; 3 of the sites that I brought and the weeks that I have been working have nearly worn me out. I again congratulate the Minister for allowing us to do this, but these 3 sites that I brought were the sites identified by the independent inspectors after looking at 100 different sites that were originally in the plan by the Minister as deemed necessary. Thank you for your patience.

Deputy S. Power:

Sir, before the Deputy starts, I just wish to inform you and the Assembly that I have the same funeral to go to and I will be leaving at 10.30 a.m. I am hoping we do get to a vote by 10.30 a.m. If not, I will miss voting for this Island Plan.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

Sir, I think that, with the number of Members about to leave, we are at the point of becoming inquorate permanently.

The Bailiff :

Well, there must be some other Members who are not going to this funeral who are presumably outside.

4. The Deputy of St. Mary :

In a way I am glad to come after Deputy Le Claire because that is the human side of what we are talking about; so I will get on with what I was going to say. I think the first thing that needs saying is to echo what Senator Breckon said about the Minister opening up this process. Although it still rankles that he says I criticise everything, nevertheless he is to be praised and deserves our thanks for opening this up and for making life more difficult for himself, as he undoubtedly has, and for his officers. This process: although it has been lengthy, there has been, as he says, a lot of consultation. In fact the Island Plan is a model of consultation and if Members go to the website they can see all the records of what people said going back and then comment on that and so on and so on. So it is completely transparent and it is indeed a model for other departments in their ways of working. So I think we do owe the department a big vote of thanks on that. Then, of course, it comes to the States and we have, this time, the right to amend every last bit. Now, some may say: "Well, it has taken an awfully long time. It has taken 7 days. What about the good old days when we used to whack through a complete health policy [I think someone referred to that] for the Island in 15 minutes?" The fact is that this has created engagement. It has created debate. It has created masses of column inches in the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post), which all leads to more understanding of what we are doing or not doing in the public; more discussion. It may look messy but that is democracy and if you want it another way then roll back the clock 60 years and go and live in Europe or, in fact, in Jersey. So it is a costly process in terms of night hours and candles and so on, but I think it is worth it and the Minister deserves our thanks for that. My second point is about one of the 3 pillars of the plan, which is the quality of life in St. Helier. The fact is you can look at the number of amendments that have been brought on this by various people, including myself, and the fact is that some of us do not believe it. We see these fine words in the plan, and they are remarkable words, about St. Helier being a true quality-of-life destination, almost famous throughout the world for the quality of its living. Amen to that. Why not? As I have said, I go elsewhere and I see town centres that are totally different and not dying, as some of the traders would have us believe. It does not work like that. If we had a better environment in St. Helier there would be more pedestrians, not fewer, as we see in King Street every day, and that would increase the footfall. So I really struggle with this aspect of improving the town. We saw the comments of the Minister for Treasury and Resources on the various aspects of the plan and right at the beginning - I cannot lay my hand on my copy of the comments. Maybe someone will produce them at some later point in this debate - but I remember quite clearly his words of caution; his words about using assets for their maximum value because that would impact on the capital programme if we did not. In other words, we have to sell every last square metre in the maximum possible yield so that we can afford, for instance, the new hospital or so we can afford sewerage works at £200 million or whatever it might be. I just urge caution on that whole attitude. We have in the plan an absolute commitment that the town must be made a joyous and wonderful place to live and in certain respects we have made progress, but the commitment is there and without it you cannot fight rezoning in the countryside. You just cannot. So we do owe that to our capital, all of us who live in the gorgeous, gorgeous countryside. I am cracking up now the same as Deputy Le

Claire because the next point in my speech is division. But I will finish on this aspect of this pillar of the plan. A lot what we are promised is dependent on planning gain and we will come to that in the North of Town Masterplan debate where planning gain is the golden key. We will make developers contribute X, Y, Z and that way we will pay for the things that we need: the public realm gains and so on. I just worry about that because those gains are dependent on negotiation; although I have an amendment to say they should not be dependent on negotiation, they should be fixed. We will come to that when we come to it. But just remember, when we talk about the North of Town Masterplan, this commitment in the Island Plan, this absolute commitment, to making the town a viable good-quality option to living in our countryside. My next point is division and I think we saw this in the sad vote on the Plémont amendment. Again, that makes me very, very sad because that vote was nearly won. I think the public expected us to take that opportunity. There is a massive groundswell, as Senator Le Gresley said in his speech, on these coastline amendments, to protect our coastline and yet when it came to Plémont where we are looking at a multi-millionaire - who picked up Plémont for a song as a part of a package, where he acquired property all over the U.K. (United Kingdom); all the old Pontins camps - we were not prepared to go there. If you look at the voting, a few town Members, Deputies, swung that vote, if you like. I mean obviously all the votes swung the vote. You cannot, in a sense, divide up the vote like that but certain town Deputies voted for, effectively, putting housing on Plémont. I feel that that is a pointer to the division we have in this House. We have almost a feeling that the Island is too biased towards countryside interests, or rather the States is, and so we have to vote in that way almost to spite the country lobby. That is my interpretation. People can question it. I will be glad if people do. But I sense this town/country divide, we are going to come to it in the Masterplan as well, is very, very serious

for the harmony and goodwill and well-being of the Island. Housing: the Minister referred to me and Deputy Southern as the half-empty Deputies, always seeing problems. Well, in fact any impartial observer, looking at what happened in the housing debate, would say that it was a mess. I find it pretty patronising to suggest that anyone who says otherwise is somehow deluded, prefers to see their glass half empty. I wish it was half-full so I could take a sip, but there you go. Any impartial observer, as I was saying, would say that what happened in that debate was not tidy, to put it mildly. It was a mess; amendments were popping up, policy decisions were taken 2 weeks previous in an astonishing way and so it goes. I am getting my retribution in first. The Minister has told me he is going to be nice to me in his summing up, but I just thought it should be put on..

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I said I was intending to be nice in my summing up.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Right, okay. Well, I had better get some more retribution in first then and then beg that he is nice to me. I do not always oppose things and, of course, that is easy to verify. But he tried to make out that because I had ideals it was odd to be questioning the Island Plan, or something like that. I do object when people put me in the environment corner and say: "He rides to the bus stop and then gets on a bus," and, therefore, this is some extraordinary thing. I think that other people in the Island do that as well or they go by car and then by bus. We know this is happening and growing. But the problem is that it is pigeonholing. It is trying to say that somebody does not really matter because they are an environmentalist or, even worse, because they have ideals. Well, I will tell you some ideals. One is to have fair elections. Is that an ideal? Is that one ideal too many? Or, for example, we could have a situation where, when a department is conducting an inquiry into a pollution incident, they interview the person who blew the whistle and said there was a problem. That is what I mean by having ideals; ideals of straightforward dealing and of respect.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

Would the Deputy give way for one moment? I think the Deputy clearly either did not hear what I said yesterday or misheard what I said yesterday because I made the second point that I value enormously his environmental credentials. He has a great deal to offer in that respect and I said perhaps I found him a little negative because he had been rather worn down. That was all.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Thank you for that clarification. I nearly always - I will not say always, but nearly always - give way because I think that helps the flow of debates. But, yes, I still would maintain that using words like "ideals" and "environmentalist" is, the way things are at the moment, in a funny way, a reverse compliment. It works that way. It works to say that, if you are criticising the Island Plan because that particular section of the plan was just a bit shambolic in the way it turned out, that is something to do with this idealism thing. It is not. So let us get to the substance of it. H1 has been put off to a group, H3 has been put off to a group and the rezoning has been put off. All 3 have been put off until after the election. I just leave that with Members as a thought. This has taken a long time. When it does come to the Assembly suddenly the rabbits come out of the hat and it is all too difficult and the law officers have given some advice and we have to think about it a little more. We have a policy on population, but the consequences are so bad that they have to be buried until after the election. That is my interpretation of what is going on. If you keep bringing in people, having net inward migration plus births over deaths, of course, then the housing problem can never be solved and so we have to have rezoning ad infinitum and we have to have this group working like mad to try and resolve H1 and H3. But we will leave all that until after the election and Members can draw their own conclusions or just mull over those things. In addition, of course, we know - and Deputy Le Claire has pointed out - that the policy is not kept to anyway. So next week we shall be looking at that in more detail, but I can assure Members that it is a fact that with

population it is extremely difficult, using any present mechanisms.. or maybe it is not difficult. Maybe the Council of Ministers just does not restrain the population in the way that they say they are going to.

[10:00]

The second point about the housing, particularly the H3 .. are we still quorate? Just about. The other thing about H3 is this funny fact that we consulted every step of the way with the industry and the architects and so on about, particularly, H3 and also H1, I think, and they attended the Examinations in Public and presented evidence and so on and so on. Then we were told in the debate, a couple of days ago - and I looked for my note of the actual quotation but I cannot find it, so I will just have to paraphrase - the Minister for Treasury and Resources, quite clearly in my recollection, said: "The Minister, my good friend the Minister [i.e. the Minister for Planning] went to the industry [I think it was a week ago] and made a presentation [I think they both went] and the industry had not quite understood the policy and now they understood it better and the problems will if not vanish, at least they are on the way to being resolved." Now, that is very funny because the S.P.G. (Supplementary Planning Guidance) number 9 or 10, I forget which, the Affordable Housing Supplementary Guidance, was published in August 2010. So there must have been time for the industry to read it once, shout, read it again, realise that: "Oh, it was not what we thought in the first place," be explained to by the Minister or his officers, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So there was time in between August and now and it was not necessary to pull rabbits out of the hat at the last minute and have groups and all the rest of it. Again, there is a question mark there as to how that did not happen, which brings me to the next point which is resources. I am not casting aspersions on the Planning Department. As people have said, they have been working their socks off on this and we get emails at strange hours of the day and night. They are matching my own emails. But there is a question of resources because I think the only defence, if a planning guidance which is controversial in that it sets a profit limit of 15 per cent.. so that is already controversial. It is controversial because there is a limit and it is controversial because it is transparent. We are saying to the industry: "We want to work on an open-book basis. This is how we are going to release sites." I am not surprised they got their socks in a twist, but the fact is there was time between August and now to resolve that; or maybe there was not. Maybe the resources are not there which comes back to the issue of St. Helier, and indeed the viability of the plan. Now Members will not turn to it probably but appendix A, table A1 is the list of Supplementary Planning Guidance for this plan and there are 3 pages of.. it is quite big type. There are about 24 planning guidances which will have to be developed or written over the life of this plan. I would draw Members' attention particularly to the one on housing mix and the one on affordable housing, policies H3 and H4 of which the timescale and availability is written down as "with adoption of plan". So they should be in the table here as part of the Island Plan. There are several other which are also "with adoption of plan" and I pick out residential design standards which would have helped with the amendments on noise and so on. But we have not had them. As I have said, the only defence, and it is a legitimate defence is that the resources are lacking because otherwise the Minister is in serious dereliction if he has a document where we have to have Supplementary Planning Guidance with the plan when we develop it and they are not there. So the defence must be that the resources are lacking. The alternative explanation that we had to push it off because there is an election, of course, cannot be entertained. So it is the resources and yet we look at some of the other Supplementary Planning Guidance, and I do not wish to think of these not being carried out. The public realm strategy, proposal 9, to be developed with key stakeholders over the plan period. Village plans - I think that is St. Aubin and St. Brelade among others - expected to be developed with key stakeholders over plan period. Local development plans to be developed with key stakeholders over plan period. Open place strategy, over the plan period. So will the fine words in here be translated into action? Will the Minister for Planning fight for those resources or will he go along with the 10 per cent cuts which he has told Scrutiny are relatively easy to achieve and then we end up with an Island Plan with key supplementary guidances missing. So I think the Minister has a choice, I think he certainly has to beef up the resources to get these jobs done. These jobs which we are about to vote for. They are part of the Island Plan and we will not get the results that we seek unless he does commit to those resources being available. On this issue of whether what we will probably end up voting for produces the goods, there is a further issue, of course, beyond resources and that is the credibility of the plan particularly with respect .. the most obvious example is the coastline. There has been much comment and questions asked of the Minister about the strange way that our coastline sprouts developments which seem to be contrary to the previous Island Plan and indeed are certainly contrary to this one. Yet I have a quote from the Minister, which again, I have not been able to lay my hands on specifically. There is a limit to how much one can do. But I quite clearly remember him saying there is no rule, you cannot tie me down, I can always find an exception if the community need or some other get out clause..

Senator F.E. Cohen:

Would the Deputy give way again? I am sorry, I have not said that. What I have said in the past is that where there is an existing building on the coastline there could be a reasonable expectation in some circumstances where an owner of that property would believe that they have a reasonable expectation of getting a consent for something. Furthermore, just to correct the Deputy , I did not say that I had met the construction industry, that was not the case at all.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Sorry, I did not quite catch the last sentence.

The Bailiff :

He said he had not met the construction industry.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Well, I have a clear recollection and maybe that is one for Hansard and written questions and all the palaver but I clearly remember the Minister for Treasury and Resources saying that in the recent past, I think he said last week or the week before it was definitely a recent timescale.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

That was the Minister for Treasury and Resources who had met the construction industry not the Minister for Planning and Environment.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

The Minister for Treasury and Resources met the construction industry in order to explain the policy and they now are falling over themselves to say that they are happy with it, although they were not before. Yes, well it seems slightly contradictory but that is sort of taking me, in a sense, off the point of where I am now. The credibility aspect is important to the public, they are really aghast at some of the things that are going on. I think this existing building, reasonable expectation, is a huge get out loophole thingy. I am almost minded to call for the A.G. (Attorney General) to explain it but I think that is probably for another time. But I would remind Members in this context about credibility it is probably worth just saying what NE6 says so that people are aware when we vote on this Island Plan what we are saying. "The Coastal National Park will be given the highest level of protection from development and this will be given priority over all other planning considerations. In this area there will be the strong presumption against all forms of new development for whatever purpose." Now, the issue is credibility. Whether that sticks, that is a policy, whether the Minister and his successor, whoever that might be, sticks to that. I am going to pursue this a little bit because in the E.i.P. (Examination in Public) process I think that the officers took a view on behalf of the Minister which certainly raised my eyebrows. On this policy exceptions will only be permitted where it is demonstrated that extensions to existing residential buildings will not cause serious harm, et cetera, et cetera. "The redevelopment of existing residential buildings would give rise to demonstrable gains and proposals for new or extended cultural and tourism attractions are sensitively related to the landscape character." So those are 3 exceptions, the first 2 refer to the redevelopment of existing residential and the third is about for new or extended cultural and tourism attractions, which I think we would all support. It goes on.. those are exceptions one, 2 and 3, residential, extensions, redevelopment of existing residential and new or extended cultural and tourism. Those are the first 3 exceptions. Then it goes on: "There will be a strong presumption against the use of commercial buildings [that sounds to me like Plémont] for purpose other than which permissions was originally granted." So to switch a use from commercial to another use in the Coastal National Park will not normally be granted. There will be a strong presumption against doing that. "Exceptions to this will only be permitted where the existing building can be reused for an employment related purpose in support of the agricultural industry." I am leaving out some qualifications. Exception 5 is that their demolition, that is the demolition of commercial buildings, and replacement with a new building for another use would give rise to significant demonstrable environmental gains. All that is to do with commercial buildings, so commercial can go to another employment-related purpose and I am struggling to see where this allows the redevelopment of Plémont. So maybe the Minister would like to cover that in his summing up. In sections 6 and 7 under this policy: "The conversion and reuse of other existing buildings for residential purposes will not be permitted in the Coastal National Park in accordance with the spatial strategy and reducing dependence on the car, and their conversion and reuse for uses other than residential would only be permitted where.." and a couple of qualifications. But that is quite clear: "The conversion and reuse of other existing buildings for residential purposes will not be permitted in the Coastal National Park." So I would like the Minister to comment on the credibility of, in particular, the coastline sections of this plan but also on the commitment to, in particular the St. Helier pillar of this plan or the urban areas pillar I think it is, with relation to the resources that are needed to deliver. Resources both within his department to write the planning guidances that he says we need and that we are about to vote for as proposals and also with respect

to resources to deliver the gains on the ground. Thank you. [10:15]

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

Much of what I could say I will keep to the North of St. Helier Masterplan but I did want to bring up a couple of things. I have had the privilege, I suppose, of being in the States for 2 sets of Island Plans, the 2002 and this one. Both have been fraught with anxiety, difficulties, promises, et cetera, probably because they both occurred just before an election and people naturally are very conscious of retaining their seat if they so wish and trying to please all sides of the electorate, which is an impossibility. The thing that I would like to say is that there were promises made in the 2002 plan when individuals were approached, property owners, et cetera, requesting were they willing to have their land, their area, considered for inclusion in the Island Plan and some said yes and some said no, and then it is a question of the amount of money that these particular owners could gain if they said yes or when they said yes and of course the part thereafter of how much they would gain and should they have a windfall tax, et cetera. Now all these things are important. The trouble is that this has been going on for 10 years and we still do not have a resolution to it. We have people that are still being made promises. Most Deputies, and probably other Members of this Assembly constantly have communication from many parents and young people wanting to have their own home, all of them in the main wanting a 3-bedroom house to cater for their future needs as opposed to flats in blocks of flats. Most of these people will not be able to afford to buy them.

The Bailiff :

Usher, please call Members in.

Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier :

The Deputy of St. Mary just left the Chamber. We have sat here this morning and listened to about 30 minutes of him discussing.. and then he leaves the Chamber.

The Bailiff :

Very well, we are now quorate again.

Deputy J.B. Fox:

Thank you. The reason I am standing up is that we have by necessity set aside the determination of certain principles and amendments that have been brought to this Assembly and rightly the Minister for Planning and Environment and his officers have done a sterling job in trying to steer us into a forward direction for the future of the Island. This will be my last Island Plan and so I hope you will bear with me just for a minute or so and hope that we do have satisfactory resolutions for the future of our people. All I can say to you is that when I have travelled either on holiday or through the Parliamentary Commonwealth Association, we are in a very, very lucky position. A lot of people complain about Jersey - mostly the people who live in it as opposed to the people who visit it - but the quality of life here, generally speaking is very good. The opportunities for the quality of health, education and the quality of life where we live is good but we have to remember this does not happen by accident. It happens by determination, co-operation and support. I do get very frustrated when people say: "I do not want anything in my back garden", commonly known as nimbyism, because in most cases where they live was in someone else's back garden somewhere in the past. In my particular case it was 200 years ago but nevertheless it was still in someone else's back garden. We have to, if we are going to encourage our young people to come back and fulfil the quality of life and work and the stimulation in this Island for encouraging our people to come back to fulfil the jobs, we need to support them and their families. We also have to recognise that if a Parish is being offered 10 free standalone houses that at least we should ask the parishioners about it and not just say: "Oh, that is bribery" or whatever. Likewise, if propositions like that are brought to the States I think that we should give it due hearing without criticising the people that are bringing it forward. I am not going to say any more at this present time. I am conscious that we have had a very long time. It is interesting, being vice president of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) that the question of numbers of States Members comes up periodically. I notice it in the last week with the amount of people.. or sorry this last week with the amount of people out of the Island or out the Chamber, we seem to be surviving on 36 with one or 2

inquorates. Bear that one in mind when people say that we have got too many States Members. Thank you to the Minister for Planning, thank you to the officers, thank you to the Greffe, the Bailiff , to all the staff and to all of us, let us hope we can move things forward in the foreseeable future and hope that the next States will implement a lot of the good things that are contained in this, much of which has not been discussed in detail. Thank you.

6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I will just put my 15 sheets down. With regard to Deputy Le Claire's comment about ground floor flats and so on, I have just sent a message to the Minister for Housing that he should look at all Housing flats above 2 storeys or new ones should be fitted with lifts and old ones he should look at retrofitting, which would provide very much more flexibility in the accommodation that can be offered. But in the Old Testament, arguably the most important part is the Ten Commandments, which is effectively one paragraph in the whole. The Island Plan is rapidly approaching the size of the Old Testament. Does it really need to be quite so enormous? I recognise we need rules for a small community but do we really need so many? Might I suggest to the Minister that in 10 years' time, whoever he or she may be, that they should perhaps review whether we need to destroy quite so many trees in producing such an all encompassing document.

7. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen :

I rise because I refuse to be led to a state of depression by the Deputy of St. Mary. I am afraid I cannot see life as black as he does. This plan, it was never going to be perfect but the Deputy of St. Mary himself would be the first to say that consultation is important. This plan has had an enormous amount of consultation. In fact it has been consulted upon more than any other document which has been presented to this House, and yet Members still see that there are faults in it. Yes, of course there will be faults in it, there were faults in the previous Island Plan but the previous Island Plan did last the 10 years and we did still use it right towards the end. Certainly I recall using it when I opposed the Plémont headland development. I do not believe that this plan is cast in aspic, I think it is a working document. It is something which can be altered if circumstances in the Island change then we can refer to this plan and say: "Look, what we had here was fine 5 years ago but does not fit today, we need a new proposition to amend that particular part of it, but not the whole plan." I think that the whole plan must be recommended to the Assembly. Yes, there will be elements of it which people are unsure of, but I still say it is a working document, it is something which must guide this Assembly and future Assemblies over the next 10-year period and, like Senator Breckon, I recommend it to the Assembly and I congratulate the Minister and his officers for all the work they have undertaken.