States Meeting Transcript - 13th December 2012

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

THURSDAY, 13th DECEMBER 2012

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

1. Plémont Holiday Village - acquisition by the public and sale to the National Trust for Jersey (P.90/2012) - resumption..........................................................3

1.1 Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:...........................................................3

1. Deputy J.M. Le Bailly of St. Mary:......................................................5
2. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity :..................................................5
3. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:....................................................6
4. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................10
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................11
6. Connétable S.W. Rennard of St. Saviour : ..............................................16 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour : .....................................................18 Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:..................................................18

7. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade:......................................................18
8. Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade:.................................................21
9. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................24
10. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................26
11. Connétable M.J. Paddock of St. Ouen : ..............................................28
12. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey: ............................29
13. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement:............................................29
14. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :....................................................31
15. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................32
16. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................36

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................38 Senator I.J. Gorst :............................................................................39

17. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................40
18. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter:.....................................................41
19. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:..........................................42
20. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:..................................................48
21. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................50
22. Senator P.M. Bailhache :.............................................................52 The Solicitor General:........................................................................52

2. Draft Fire Precautions (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 2012 (Appointed Day) Act 201- (P.114/2012)........................................................................59

2.1 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): ...........................59

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................59
2. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................59

3. Draft Fire Precautions (Designated Premises) (Jersey) Regulation 201- (P.115/2012)60

1. Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): ...........................60

1. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................60
2. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................60 Deputy J.M. Maçon (Chairman, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):...............62

2. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................62

4. Draft Repatriation of Prisoners (Jersey) Law 2012 (Appointed Day) Act 201- (P.121/2012)..............................................................................62

4.1 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): ...........................62

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................63
2. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................64
3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................64

5. Draft Health Insurance (Amendment No. 14) (Jersey) Law 2012 (Appointed Day) Act 201- (P.122/2012)........................................................................65

5.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ........................65

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................66
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................66
3. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................66

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................66

6. The Connétable of St. Helier (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):......67

CHRISTMAS GREETINGS....................................................................67 Senator P.F. Routier:..........................................................................67 The Connétable of St. Helier:.................................................................69 Deputy R.C. Duhamel:........................................................................70 The Dean of Jersey:..........................................................................71 The Bailiff :...................................................................................71

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................73

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

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

Sir, before we start, could I just check that I am on your list to speak?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Not yet Deputy but you are now. Deputy Power, do you wish to

Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

Yes, I just wanted to clarify for Members that the photo montage on their desks this morning is as a direct result of a request to the Minister for Planning and Environment and the department to provide what can only be called a before and possibly after photo montage. It is just to help Members to understand what is involved.

1. Plémont Holiday Village - acquisition by the public and sale to the National Trust for Jersey (P.90/2012) - resumption

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Thank you, Deputy , for explaining where that paper had come from. [Aside] Very well. The debate resumes on the proposition of the Chief Minister in relation to Plémont and the next Member on the Bailiff 's list was Senator Ozouf .

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Can I grab my breath and I will forgo my chance for the moment. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well, I will call the Deputy of St. Ouen .

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

I stand to congratulate the Chief Minister and the Assistant to the Chief Minister for bringing this proposition to the Assembly. I will not be joining the many Members who have acknowledged the efforts made by the National Trust for Jersey and others to protect our natural environment and then found many reasons why we should not support them. It is worth remembering that an agreement has been reached with the National Trust for them to fund roughly half of the purchase cost and cover the full cost of returning the site to nature by public subscription. In addition, the ongoing maintenance of the land will also become the responsibility of the Trust. This is truly a remarkable offer and one that should not be turned down. Let us also not lose sight of the fact that although the National Trust for Jersey provides substantial benefit to this Island, it is not funded by the taxpayer. Regarding the cost, let us look at the evidence. We have been provided with an expert independent valuation commissioned by Property Holdings which has valued the site at £4 million. We have a Minister for Treasury and Resources that has challenged the valuation and believes it to be robust while accepting that some flexibility needs to be allowed to reach agreement with the owner over the purchase of the land. Surprisingly, his Assistant Minister appears to have little confidence in the independent valuation commissioned by the department that he is responsible for. This is in itself confusing as it is normally the case that valuations similar to that provided to support this proposition are used regularly by Property Holdings when undertaking normal business. I say to Deputy Noel, have faith in your Minister for Treasury and Resources and those who work for you. We have also heard from the Minister for Planning and Environment who seems to have forgotten the commitments made in the last 2 Strategic Plans and the many policies contained within the

Island Plan designed to protect the natural environment. I am equally confused by the comments received from the Minister for Economic Development and that of his Assistant Minister declaring their views against this proposition as no mention has been made of the benefits which can be gained from enhancing the tourism brand which they are tasked to promote. To address this omission, I would like to refer Members to the foreword of the Minister for Economic Development in a report recently issued entitled Jersey Tourism: A Year in Review 2011 where he states: "Jersey continues to provide many leisure activities and entertainments for visitors and local residents which are much appreciated as they increase the level of enjoyment and enhance the visitor's stay and create reasons for them to come in the first place. These all help to supplement the natural attractions of our beautiful Island." He goes on to say: "The industry in Jersey is diverse and interrelated and no one sector would survive without the others. It is therefore vital that we continue to work in partnership to build on our many strengths which are enhanced by the quality and beauty of the Island." This, I believe, offers the Minister the opportunity to put those words into action and capitalise on the quality of publicity that this decision will create. Economic growth and development of the finance industry are important but it cannot and should not be the only matters to be considered. We should not ignore the significant and ongoing contribution made by the National Trust for Jersey, the Société Jersiaise and the Jersey Heritage Trust to the Island's tourism industry. Many reports have been written supporting the need to protect our natural environment and in a report entitled Keep Jersey Special, we were told it is only by maintaining a balance between economic, social and environmental policies that Jersey can remain a successful and wonderful place to live. This remains true today. A 3-legged stool is used to represent the 3 pillars of policy, namely social, economic and environmental. A warning is given that if we do not keep the 3 pillars in balance, then like a 3-legged stool, one leg becomes weaker than the others and the whole structure becomes unstable. The message is clear. If we want to keep Jersey special for future generations, we must not place too much emphasis on the economy and financial matters or we run the risk of not moving forward to a successful and sustainable future. The biodiversity in the Island can and will be damaged by inappropriate land use and more fundamentally by development. Important sites must be safeguarded, especially if demands for development continue to increase, a fact that has been acknowledged by the Constable of St. Helier. Jersey's natural environment is an integral part of our Island heritage. In 2009, the Statistics Unit conducted

a survey on heritage in Jersey and using their own words: ".. received an excellent response rate of 52 per cent." That survey identified that 92 per cent of Jersey residents thought that the natural environment gave Jersey its own identity and 67 per cent felt that the natural environment was the most important factor. Furthermore, 64 per cent considered that our natural environment was the most important factor to protect. I do not believe that those views have changed. If Members need reminding why we should rise to the challenge presented to us today, one needs to look no further than page 6 of the Strategic Plan that states: "We need to be a community that constantly looks forward and is prepared to identify both the opportunities and threats that affect our way of life." This, I believe, is one opportunity to do just that.  We have a moral responsibility for our culture and natural heritage. Our role as guardians of the environment is to ensure that others may enjoy the benefits that we take for granted. Some suggest that this land has already been despoiled by previous planning decisions which allowed building on this headland and that the removal of the old holiday camp and the replacement with 28 up-market homes should be considered a substantial improvement. I say to what? The Plémont Headland and the north coast is an area of historic landscape and part of our national heritage. We have a unique opportunity to protect this landscape for future generations. In recent years, we have been reminded of our responsibility by very public demonstrations involving many thousands of people who have voiced their support for the need to protect our coastline.

This has now been backed up by individuals offering to make personal contributions to help with the purchase of the site. Furthermore, over the last couple of months, I have personally received numerous letters, emails and phone calls in support of this proposition. A Parish meeting was also held where a large majority of those attending supported the purchase of the old holiday campsite. In fairness, I have also had some parishioners and friends expressing concern over the use of public funds for this purpose. However, many expressed the view that ideally no development should take place on the site. I ask Members, what value do we place on protecting our coastline and this unique natural landscape? I am not against development. However, I cannot be convinced that building a village on this wild, secluded and environmentally sensitive site will offer the lasting benefit that some may suggest. Money should not be allowed to become the overriding factor in determining whether this extremely important coastal area should be protected from any further development. Let us not forget that the States has in the past agreed it would be in the public interest for the site and the surrounding land to be preserved as an open space. If we are serious about securing this site for the public and returning it to its natural state, we must support the proposition as this is our last and only chance. Yes, we need to address the many spending pressures identified by States Members. However, I would say to them we are; £2 billion has been allocated to deliver a wide range of improved services over the next 3 years. Significant funds have been allocated to health, the construction and finance industries as well as support for those who find themselves looking for work. I ask, what money has been allocated to protect our natural environment? There is more to be done and we will need to continue to provide for our community. However today, we are faced with making one decision. Do we help the public and the National Trust acquire the land at Plémont and return it to its natural state? I say let us accept the generous offer made by members of the public and the National Trust and protect this unique area from further development. Be under no illusion. This opportunity will not be repeated.

[Approbation]

1. Deputy J.M. Le Bailly of St. Mary :

We are all elected to make tough decisions. This is certainly one of them. We need to be positive. Procrastination loses opportunity. This proposed development has one purpose only: profit. I do not believe that someone who has no association with the Island other than a perceived profit should have preference when there is an opportunity for all Islanders to benefit by obtaining this site and returning it to nature. I will not contemplate analysing the costs. Negotiation is the only answer and I am thankful to our Minister for Treasury and Resources and his team in their reassurance that we can fund a sensible offer along with the efforts of the National Trust. Should this fail, the Solicitor General's advice, I am sure, is far more reliable than the self-proclaimed experts of pessimism among us are. With regard to proceeding if necessary with compulsory purchase, we should grasp this opportunity now. If we do not, we will look back at this with regret. Unlike my Constable, I do not believe that this decision will jeopardise future projects. St. Mary lacks main drainage and we will need to spend in the region of £80 million to put that right. These people have been waiting for more than 20 years for this and yet they tell me: "Please purchase Plémont. We are prepared to wait a little longer." Hopefully they will not be waiting longer because that is one of my next missions. I am proud to say that I am trying to prevent yet another mistake by supporting this proposition. Please be part of that investment for the benefit of our Island for now and for the future.  [Approbation]

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

Is it not an interesting debate? When you are on the Planning Panel I was Chairman at the time, and it was with trepidation when we saw Plémont come on the agenda. We thought we were in for a tough time again and, to be fair, it always was a hard decision for the panel to come to some sort of agreement on what should go forward. I think, to be fair, we have exactly the same people in our public gallery today who were supporting voting against a decision to be made on Plémont holiday camp area. I think we all knew that one day, I think even the former Connétable of St. Ouen agreed, there always would be a possibility that to get rid of the Plémont holiday camp, there would be some sort of building there to negate that eyesore but I am not going to go into all the details. We now know what is going to be planned there and please do not start going to Portelet. That is not a fair way to look at this development. It is a completely different design and a different sort of outlook on this area. All I want to bring to the general public as well is that I am fortunate. I live in the Parish of Trinity . Now, I understand that there is great concern to keep the natural beauty of our northern coast. Right, let us start at White Rock. You can walk from White Rock through Jardin D'Olivet through to Bouley Bay. From there, you can walk from Bouley Bay through Egypt, through the beautiful coastal countryside into Bonne Nuit Bay. There are hundreds and hundreds of vergées of unspoiled countryside. From Bonne Nuit, we move on to Sorel. You must not look right at Ronez because if we have to start buying Ronez, we will be in trouble. We walk on then down to Devil's Hole, right through to Crabbé. Really speaking, we are talking about a minute area, which I agree there are people who are really in favour of trying to save it. All I am trying to bring to the general public's view and I am sure there would be more people walking the Parish of Trinity today than there will be walking at Plémont because it is far easier access from St. Helier and there is no restriction. All this land is free to walk on at any time. If we had not had the cliff paths constructed in the last downturn when we had Back to Work and some of the prisoners developing these paths, then that would be a great loss. Through those paths, many many thousands of tourists, holidaymakers, but in general locals, love walking these areas. We have to be realistic. Go past Plémont; go to the Racecourse; go to Grosnez; unspoiled areas, massive unspoiled areas. They will not change. There will not be development on these areas in the future. They will be protected. Unfortunately, we have a tough decision here. We have to make up our mind whether this is correct or not. Well, as being on the Planning Committee and the Panel, we knew that one day someone would come. My view is that we have many, many miles and many, many hundreds of vergées which are safe. It is there forever. Do not say it is going to change, it will not, because we all know that anything that comes to Planning now, if it is in the Coastal

National Park on the north coast it is very, very difficult to get a new-build. There will be no new- build there. You may have alterations, you may have an adjustment if there is a property there already which is a fair comment but in general, this area is protected and it will be protected for years and years to come. Unfortunately I am just looking at this in financial terms as well a little bit for the amount of area we are going to purchase here and I must say it has taken years for the developer, let us be fair. Everyone in this Island is entitled to put an application in to Planning. A lot of people never get what they want but they will always get a result at the end of the day with negotiations sometimes that is either improvement and in real terms, one is expected to get a fair result on an application. I think this is a fair result on what was required in the first place and unfortunately I will not be supporting the acquisition of Plémont.

3. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter :

I think I would like to start with modifying a saying from a well-known U.K. (United Kingdom) politician: "Never in the history of Jersey politics have so few been lobbied by so many on both sides of the argument." You can be pleased to know that I have deleted sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 from my speech because it has already been said and I will move on to number 10. Over the past 2 weeks in my role as Connétable , I have been compiling a list of parishioners of all ages who are struggling financially at the moment and would benefit from receiving a Christmas hamper. I have been assisted in this by 2 senior citizens' clubs and our local schools and our knowledge of need in the Parish Hall . I also think about the G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) that these low income and out of work families pay on their everyday food and necessities and how much they must be contributing to the National Trust for Jersey Plémont parts. In approaching today's debate,

I have been lobbied by email, letter and postcards by supporters of the proposition before us and I have, at every opportunity, spoken to large numbers of parishioners and Islanders on their views on Plémont and by far the spoken view has been "not with my money". It is this point that I cannot resolve because it is not States money. It is not States Members' money. It is taxpayers' money, money aggregated from all sources of States income from impôt duties, G.S.T., income tax, road tax component and motor fuel,  et cetera, and entrusted to us as States Members to allocate responsibly and appropriately. Let us be clear what this debate is not about. It is not whether we should allow the owner to develop the land that he owns. He has a live planning permission. That decision has been made for us. Neither is it about the homes that are proposed to be built there and their affordability and marketability. What it is about is spending taxpayers' money, money that would be better used to upgrade our social rental housing stock, providing discounts to low income families who cannot afford to go to their G.P.s (General Practitioners) and improving the many services to the people that pay for them. I will miss out sections 16 and 17 and move to 18. But then I further reviewed P.144 of 2009, comments of the Chief Minister on a proposition brought by the then Connétable of St. Ouen entitled: "Plémont Holiday Village: acquisition by the public." The Chief Minister's comments have 8 main points and I shall read those points out for the benefit of Members. "The Chief Minister opposes this proposition on the basis that the proposition will place an unreasonable condition of uncertainty upon the property, as, if approved, it would invoke the compulsory powers of the Minister for Planning and Environment. Acquisition of any property by compulsory purchase should be the procedure of last resort and only invoked if a negotiated settlement cannot be agreed. The States has yet to decide if it is prepared to acquire by negotiation and at what price. The process of compulsory purchase would commit the public to acquiring the property at a price which would be determined by an independent board of arbitrators. In addition, the public would be obliged to pay the fees of its professional advisers and could be liable for the fees of the vendor. The public would not be able to withdraw from acquiring the property for any reason once the compulsory purchase process had been instigated. While the public considers the value of the land for its current use to be less than £3 million, the owners have a view that the value is £14.7 million. The costs of disputed arbitration based on previous experience could be in excess of £3 million." I will stop there at the moment because I know the rapporteur did make the comment that, in his view, it would be less than £200,000 now because of the extended and, in his view, I believe, it is based on the Lesquende experience which took, I think, 11 to 12 years to resolve and did cost more than £3 million and I think that if we are going to tell an owner in this circumstance: "You are not going to get the extra £10 million you want" I do not think he is going

to roll over and go away. [10:00]

Senator P.M. Bailhache :

Yes, just on this point of the compulsory purchase costs in Lesquende, I wonder if the Constable would be good enough to identify his source because I think that the figure was very much less.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

He is reading the comments of the Chief Minister in 2009. Senator P.M. Bailhache :

Oh, I see, that is the source of the information, right, thank you. The Connétable of St. Peter :

Yes, just to emphasise that the source is P.144, comments by the Chief Minister lodged in 2009, although I do have to admit that Lesquende is my addition to these comments, so the Senator is right to intervene on that point. Carrying on with the last 2 points: "A realistic allocation to cover

the likely acquisition costs must be voted by the States before compulsory purchase can proceed. The States would need to review its allocation of funds for current and future capital projects in order to fund this proposal" and I believe that the Minister for Treasury and Resources made a similar sort of comment yesterday about how he would have to do that. If I can go back now to the rapporteur who said in his opening comments: "This might look back to the past." That is what I am going to do and give Members some facts from the past and those are facts which I have gleaned from the independent inspector's report and these are the facts about Plémont. Point 15 in the independent inspector's report: "In 1874, the Plémont Hotel opened in the immediate vicinity. In 1935, the Jubilee Holiday Camp, a wooden accommodation, was built at the location of the existing buildings. It was rebuilt again in 1946 following the Occupation as the Parkin's Holiday Camp which was then acquired by Pontins in 1961. The present complex of buildings was permitted in 1967 and 1968 under the Island Planning (Jersey) Law 1964. The more recent planning history can be briefly summarised" and I will miss some of it out but I will just give you the highlights. "December 1998, application by Dandara Homes Limited for permission in

principle to demolish and erect 117 dwellings was refused. January 2001, application by Scott ish and Newcastle plc for permission in principle to change the use to residential of equivalent floor space was withdrawn in January 2004. Application to demolish and replace with 36 dwellings refused against officer advice in 2008." Interesting how that was refused against officer advice, therefore conformed with policy. "Outline application to demolish with 46 2-bedroom and 27 3- bedroom self-catering units and a one-bedroom staff unit and associated facilities was again refused against officer advice in November 2009. November 2009, the detailed application by Plémont Estates to demolish and erect 30 houses later amended to admit part of the defined site. Subject of dispute with Jersey Property Holdings and separately to reduce the houses to 28 together with land donation and other matters." This application in the report remains pending and we now know it has now been approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment. Moving on, I would also like to review the issue of Noirmont, which has been raised. There is a belief among some people that Noirmont was bought by the States to protect it from buildings and it was acquired by the States to preserve it if I can just read the actual note here: "Brief historical update to demonstrate that Noirmont was not a precedent, as some may suggest. The States agreed to buy the Noirmont Headland as a memorial to Islanders who lost their lives during World War II. On 26th September 1946, a committee was set up to consider that approval. The site was to cost £8,800 with the proviso that if funds were not forthcoming from Islanders, the States would make up the shortfall. As it happened, the public only raised around £2,000 and the balance was paid by the States. However, 2 years later in 1950, the public had acquired 230 vergées or thereabouts of land at Warr en Farm and Noirmont Headland from Mrs. Hope May Dixon. Mrs. Dixon sold the whole 238 vergées on condition that: "It shall be preserved in perpetuity as a memorial to the men and women of Jersey who perished in the Second World War. The public also paid the cost of extinguishing the seignorial rights to which the land was subject." Plémont was bought - I am returning now to Plémont - that was bought in 2006 by Scott ish and Newcastle for £4.85 million and that was a price which we knew what it was going to cost at that time. I have to ask myself, if Plémont was so important to preserve, why was it not bought if we knew what it is was going to cost rather than now 6 years later when we have no idea what the cost is going to be? I share my fellow Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources', as I was in the last House, view on the valuation because if it was worth £4.85 million 6 years ago without planning permission, yes the market has decreased, let us say by 10 per cent, that brings us back to the value that we have got now that is being forward now around about £4 million. But it has got planning permission now. Planning permission historically increases the value of properties considerably. Some Members have mentioned the R.I.C.S., the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, Red Book. Here is a copy of it and in here is a section called "worth" which they have to take notice of when valuing a property and worth is what a property is worth over and above market value to the seller. Now when a property has planning permission, it is worth more than a property at market value without planning permission. Therefore, as I say in my argument, I do not agree with the valuation. Coming back to part 20 now of my speech, we are still in a recession with less confidence of an upturn of any significance in the short to medium term; the imposition of pay restraint on our States employees; Comprehensive Spending Reviews; the depression in the construction industry; increasing numbers of people losing their jobs; increasing numbers of people applying for income support, et cetera. What has really stimulated me to look at this in far more detail is why has the Chief Minister's opinion changed from 2009? What has been the difference? [Aside] [Laughter]  And there was me thinking he just had some surgery to improve his looks. What I mean by that is why are the arguments of the Chief Minister that we supported in 2009, that we debated it in January 2010 those arguments were given to him by, one must assume, the same advisers that are advising this Chief Minister. So why is the argument so different? What is the difference? I am afraid I have difficulty in resolving why the States machine supported one argument just over 2 years ago and now supports an entirely different argument 2 years later, and I am not going to make any comment about the proposers and the rapporteur and whether they are involved with the National Trust. I will leave others to make those comments.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I think they have made their position very clear. It is a serious point which The Connétable of St. Peter :

Thank you, Sir, I will move on. I do also have to consider, just coming back to the point, is it the role of Government to align itself against another party in their action to impose aims and objectives on another party? I do not believe that it is. I know there are all the emotive arguments and I have to say some emotional blackmail. I have had emails telling me that I am not a true Jerseyman because I do not support returning Plémont back and I have taken quite an offence at some of those comments because I stood for this role as Constable because I am a true Jerseyman. I love my Island, I love my people and I love my culture. That is what I am standing for. I am not standing for a piece of ground which has been built on since 1874. I shall move on. Very quickly, some news has come out overnight about some more job losses and unfortunately I think we have lost something like 100 jobs in the last month or so. Condor Logistics says 50 people have lost their jobs in the last couple of months, plus 20 from Deerglen, plus 12 from Picot and Rouille; that is just in the last week. This is a continuing saga and there are many more and I did not bother going back to look at the whole list of people who have lost their jobs and will not probably find another job for some time to come. This is not my comment but it is a comment I received by an email from somebody early this morning that said to me: "Go ahead, buy Plémont. At least they will have somewhere to go and sit on some benches we will provide them to look out to sea while they have got nothing to do and no job and no money to spend in their pockets." The last point, again another email this morning, it was pointed out to me that in the Chamber of Commerce Business Confidence Survey, 82 per cent of their members did not feel the States should be buying Plémont. A further 68.7 per cent felt that the money should be better spent on further economic stimulus. I do not necessarily agree with that argument because we have not got the money in the first place but I think what we must recognise is that in 2012 on this cusp of going into 2013, we are now looking at not a recession. We are now not looking at a double-dip recession. We are now potentially looking at a triple recession. We know the U.K. Government is not our friend. They have demolished our low value consignment rate industry overnight. That has virtually disappeared. There are one or 2 stalwarts surviving on. We have got the pressures coming out from the American Government with the F.A.T.C.A. (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) regulations and also the U.K. Government. Our principal industries and money generators are

under threat and our people are having to make do with less. I cannot and I will not spend their money on Plémont and the very last point, the Jersey Consumer Council letter that came out in the last couple of days arrived at my home on Monday and I picked up on the back the Jersey Citizens Advice Bureau and I am just going to read a very short piece from that and then I will sit down, I promise you. "Our debt advice service continued to be placed in high demand. The real cost to the community of people who are experiencing high levels of debt is not to be underestimated. The associated effects of stress and ill health have a traumatic impact on the immediate family of people who are suffering debt problems" and that is from the Chief Executive of the Citizens Advice Bureau. For all those reasons, as much as I would like to save Plémont, I cannot.  [Approbation]

4. Deputy A.K.F. Green:

What a depressing but at the same time quite interesting debate and I am pleased to hear that the Constable of St. Peter agrees with me that we should not be charging G.S.T. on food. I look forward to seeing how he votes when we debate that one next time. I am not going to take very long but I am very disappointed about some of the comments that have been made and I need to correct some of them. I will start by correcting some of the things that my good friend and fellow Deputy Martin has said about apparently what I think, but I am going to tell you what I think rather than allow other people to do that. It is a shame really because in some ways I think we are turning this into a town versus country debate and I think that is regrettable. Deputy Martin said yesterday, I think quite illogically, that because we have the Energy from Waste debacle, you know, that horrible building there, then we should not improve something in St. Ouen. That is more or less what she implied. I opposed that Energy from Waste project at the time, too big, too expensive, in the wrong place but 2 wrongs do not make a right. We have got an opportunity here to do something right, to do something to correct an error from the past. The National Trust and I will not go into how good they are, we all know how good they are, and I will not go on about that but the National Trust is the National Trust for Jersey, not the Jersey Trust of St. Ouen. It is looking after the whole Island. [Approbation] I have to correct another thing that my good friend, the Deputy , said: "I want to buy Plémont at any price." I do not want to buy Plémont at any price. It is not what I have said. It is never what I have thought. I want to buy Plémont at a fair price and we know what the price is, give or take a small percentage, and I could go on about how it was valued. My good friend, the Constable of St. Peter , was holding up the Red Book.

[10:15]

The Red Book is the basis on which this has been valued so again some agreement. Deputy Martin also said, I think I quote correctly, that these homes would be suitable for my beloved 1(1)(k)s when they were built. I do not believe that a 1(1)(k) that would want to live there. They would not want to live in an estate with common land in between for Deputy Tadier , and I will join him, to hold his picnics and what have you and we had the identical debate when we were talking about the Town Park when the former Minister for Planning and Environment wanted to line the Town Park with houses to pay for the park. The 9 Deputies and the Constable could see at the time that what we were talking about is a strip of land, a strip of grass, that would become "keep off, not welcome". That applied to the Town Park and that applies to here now. I have to say I am sorry, I am on a roll, but one of the most disappointing speeches I heard was from my good friend, the Minister for Health and Social Services. I am sorry that she is not here. No Minister for Health and Social Services has had more support from the Council of Ministers and from this Assembly, every reasonable request that she has made has been granted - not once - to the detriment sometimes of some of the other things we want to do. No request has been denied and to imply that if she had this £4 million or £5 million, whatever it is, she could do more. Of course she could do more but no request has been refused and if we do not get Plémont, will she get that extra money? No, the wallet will be closed. There is another thing I would say to the Minister for Health and Social Services. Health is about prevention, not just about curing problems and in this very stressful life that we all lead, you need space to go and sit and look out over the sea. You need space to get on your own. You need space to relax. If we take away and allow all these spaces to disappear, then we will need more psychologists, we will need more psychiatrists, and we will need to treat more mental health. Prevention is better than cure. Senator Farnham mentioned yesterday about red herrings and oh, we have had some, have we not? There are some that suggest, including the current Minister for Planning and Environment, that if we were to spend £12 million, buying Plémont would prevent us from spending this £12 million. We are not talking about spending £12 million, we are talking about spending £4 million, possibly £5 million, and the Trust providing £3 million of that, but if we were to spend £12 million, we could buy 233 vergées of agricultural land. Fantastic. Presumably these are willing sellers and we have got £12 million. Are they? I will not bother to say too much about buying up half of St. Clement because I want to do that but that is another story. The purchase of Plémont is not a once in a lifetime opportunity as stated. It is a once and for all opportunity. This is the last chance saloon. There is no second opportunity. This is an opportunity to leave a lasting legacy for our children, for my grandchildren, your grandchildren, and their grandchildren. Many of us need to have the courage to put our commitment in the things that we say. Many of us, a couple of years ago, the Constable will correct me if I cannot remember the date, joined them with a line in the sand and yet we are saying different things today. We will go there for the big show, have our photo taken on the line in the sand. We will not have the courage to support something that is right when it comes forward. [Approbation] I think it was Einstein who put it probably much more eloquently than I can do it when he stated that: "If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always got." In other words, if you behave in the same way, the outcome is predictable and I want us to be different to that. I want us to have courage and you do need to have courage. I have had emails just the same as everybody else, about 50 in favour, 50 against, some not very pleasant emails. But have courage. Do what is right. Let us do it differently today and let us return

Plémont to the public of Jersey.

5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I would like, if I may, to ask the Usher to distribute 2 pictures that I am going to refer to. Like, I am sure, all Members of this Assembly, I have worried, I have wavered and dare I say it, I have even wobbled about certain decisions and I have really struggled with my responsibilities as Minister for Treasury and Resources. I have been petitioned really strongly from people on either side of this debate and Members have quite rightly asked whether or not this issue should have been included in the Medium-Term Financial Plan. I have to say to Members there is quite a simple, straightforward explanation for that and that is that no application could have been made in the Medium-Term Financial Plan for one-off funding without a reasonable certainty of how much it would have cost. There is, I am afraid, as I look to the Connétable of St. Martin, no way that a St. Martin's School could have been put into a Medium-Term Financial Plan or a capital programme with a range of £7 million to £18 million. It was the truth of the costings of it and the financial implications of it is that we only knew what the costings of Plémont were going to be in November, way after we sorted out the Medium-Term Financial Plan, when we knew the outcome of the planning application. That is the reason why in truth it is not in the M.T.F.P. (Medium-Term Financial Plan) and could not have been put through. In the M.T.F.P. debate, I did speak about flexibility. I did speak about the need of some things that do need to be taken outside of what should be a rigid process and I spoke of the flexibility that the plan did have and also I have been questioned quite rightly as to the situation with contingencies. The process for contingencies which now that I am reasonably certain of the cost of Plémont, if the Assembly goes ahead with this, contingencies is realistically a way of funding this issue and I can inform Members that not only do we have a process but we have been through an abridged process in order to confirm that contingencies should be made and can be made. I want to correct the fact that there is availability

of money in contingencies. I can advise the Assembly that as far as the end position of this year is concerned, there is going to be £28.8 million worth of contingencies that are going to be available over the next year. I can inform Members that there is earmarked against those contingencies, as Members will understand, a contingency for A.M.E. (Annually Managed Expenditure) which is the uncertainty of Social Security of £6 million. There are the Historic Child Abuse Investigation claims which are I am not sure whether the amount is in the public domain but it is certainly in the millions and it is part of that £28 million. There is an additional provision made for restructuring. There is the provision for the salary increase of £2.5 million, the non-consolidated figure, and there is the provision for court and case costs which has commanded this Assembly's time in the past, which we have now solved in terms of having a smoothing reserve. That does mean that there is a contingency available which has not been allocated of not only the £6 million, which we want to keep so that I do not have to come forward to the Assembly and ask for I hope we do not have to do it, for volcanic ash or pandemic flu. We have £6 million worth of real contingencies and we have allocated according to these numbers the contingencies that I have set out in the report if the States wants to agree this. I have been told in my political career that sometimes Ministers for Treasury and Resources know the price of everything and the value of nothing. That is an accusation in previous debates that really kind of hurts me. It really struck a chord and made me really think whether or not every decision that I make in terms of Treasury and Resources is about price, about value, about numbers versus the long-term issue of value to the Island. One of the things that I did when this accusation was put to me over 18 months ago, I spent some days with some voluntary organisations and I spent a day with the National Trust and I will declare that. I am not a member of the National Trust. I am a member of the Société de Jersiaise but I am not a member of the National Trust but I spent a day with them last summer. I started the day at New Street and I went around the fantastic refurbishment that they have carried out there. We then went to Les Arches, which was a property which had been left to them. I think it has been said that sometimes the National Trust is left with burdens as opposed to assets and certainly they have a burden there because they have been left this property which they have got no money to do anything with. We went to Morel Farm. I used to go as a child to Morel Farm with my mother to buy goats' milk and I had not been there for probably 25 years. I thought about the generosity of the individual that had left Morel Farm and how absolutely important it was that Morel Farm as a model small landholding has been kept and the National Trust have a challenge in relation to Morel Farm about what they do to it. Then we went to St. Peter's Barracks. As an organisation, I think that we really should and a lot of words have been said by those Members who are not supporting the proposition and supporting the proposition. I think that we should salute the work of the National Trust in what they do in all of the areas of the preservation of our natural and our built environment. [Approbation] This is not a debate from an organisation that is simply saying: "States do it, pay the whole of the amount of this money." They have - and this is why my position and I accept that my position on Plémont has changed - worked to come forward not only to lobby us and to say the reasons why we should do it but they have put some money behind what they want to do in terms of raising £3 million. I think that that is a different situation from some other of the petitions and representations that some States Members have made that this is simply a binary decision about whether the States should buy the whole of it or not. This is not. We are being asked to enter into a partnership with the National Trust, an organisation which is so important in preserving the things that have been important and have got the Island to where we are today. We cannot have everything and I am not one of those Members that believe that you can cast the whole of the Island in aspic and that you can keep everything and that you can go back to what Jersey looked like 100 years ago or 200 years ago but the National Trust do try and hold on to some aspects and, in fact, that does help me and it does help me offset some of the responsibilities I have in growing the economy. I thought that the remarks of the Constable of St. Helier were really quite important and I think Members should reflect on the remarks and the position of the Constable of

St. Helier because he is saying that yes, we need to see the urban development and the progression of our urban environment and St. Helier and there are some Members who are going to completely balk at the fact that I believe that we are going to have to continue to develop our urban areas and we are going to have to continue to provide homes and the places to work. We may well have to find a technology centre somewhere in St. Helier . We may well have to deliver a new office centre in terms of the future of our financial services industry. The pace of life which never endingly ceases to accelerate, as I say, as a 42 year-old it seems to accelerate more and more and I believe in the next 10, 20, 30, 50 years that there is going to be even more pace-making and it is going to be even faster moving. I really think that this decision is not just about a decision for today. We know the economic situation of Jersey is difficult and we know that the economic situation of the world is going to be extraordinarily difficult in the next 12 months but every winter turns to spring and I am confident that this Island will succeed in terms of its economic endeavours. I said that I had struggled with this debate and I will admit that I have been pulled in directions. I have been pulled in the directions of Members that say: "Do not dare to spend a penny" to those that say: "Absolutely you must protect Plémont." Last night I met with McKinsey, the management consultants that are doing the work for financial services and one of the ways that McKinsey think, they think about scenarios and that is what I am going to concentrate on in the last few remarks that I want to make. We have effectively 3 scenarios for Plémont. We have a scenario of doing nothing. We have a scenario of clearing the site and returning it back to nature which is represented by that picture there and we have a scenario of where the houses are built.

[10:30]

That is what I reflected on this morning and as Members who follow tweets know, I went to Plémont this morning. I went at sunrise and I drove round and I should have probably walked or gone on my bike or run but I did not, I used my car and I drove there. I drove past the crossroads and into Route de Plémont. I passed by the entrance and I saw the shocking position of the holiday camp, which is in a purely disgraceful position. I drove down to the car park and I parked my car, and then I walked up and I considered what the future of Plémont was going to be if we saw this planning application. With my wonderful piece of technology, I looked at the video that has been produced by the developer about what Plémont is going to look like. That is the reason why I have circulated 2 pictures of Plémont because I am going to put my piece of technology in the coffee room and I would like Members to play the picture of Plémont, of the before and after. It is about one minute, 2 seconds to one minute, 5 seconds. [Laughter] It is beautiful music and it makes you feel really good. It lulls you into a lovely sense of security where we have beautiful pictures of what Plémont headland is all about. But when it comes down to it, this is what this debate is really about. The turning point, the game changer, the decision that we are really faced with is actually at one minute 2 to one minute 5. What I have done is I know another Member has taken the chance to do a copy, so I want Members to reflect on these 2 options because it is the one minute 2 to one minute 5. It is the scenario. The first one is the picture of Plémont holiday village, the thing that we all hate, that we know would never have got planning permission if we had not had a Beauté Naturelle or Planning and Environment Department. We know that. Let us cast that aside as the scenario that we all do not like. Let us consider what the second scenario is: the scenario apparently of the situation where we get 70 per cent of the land back, that we get the headland restored and wonderful wildlife reserves and puffin protections and all the other birds that I should know the name of that I do not know. Let us consider what this will look like. Let us consider what it will look like in 10 years' time, in 20 years' time. I think Senator Sir Philip Bailhache has

been in the States for 40 years next Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin :

Would the Minister give way for a minute?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : Yes.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

Would the Minister accept the 2 photos he is asking us to look at at the moment were taken from a different angle, from a different distance and from a different position [Approbation] and, as such, are particularly misleading with the point he is trying to make at the moment? Would he withdraw them?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

No, I will not and I want the Deputy of St. Martin to think. He is a clever man and he is capable of taking out all of the marketing stuff. He is capable of taking out all of the marketing. He is capable of taking out all the representations from the architect who is persuading us with 70 per cent of land given back. Let us just look at the facts because they are the pictures. Whether or not this is the montage from the corner of Route de Plémont or whether or not it is from the car park, let us just look at the reality of what the planning application that will go ahead is going to mean. I ask Members to look at this photograph. It is a realistic montage and, yes, it could be taken from a number of different angles. But as I parked my car at the entrance where the bolted gate is in front of the Plémont headland, I considered the first group of houses on the left-hand side, which is the ones just there. As you go down to the fantastic car park, as you see the sweeping landscape of the north coast of Jersey, Members will be faced with a cluster of houses, the first cluster. Not just one faux farmhouse, but I think there are about 12 of them. When you drive down to the car park, you will see on the right-hand side a further cluster of houses. When you are in the car park and you then go around the cliff path and you walk round to the north, you will see a further cluster of houses. We need to take out of this debate the marketing spin. We just need to look at the facts because that is what it is. This is the marketing spin, but this is the reality. The reality is that we will be putting 28 houses on the headland at Plémont. Those houses will not be there just for the next year. They will not be there for the next 5 years. They will be there forever. I do not think that this decision is just simply about putting that into there, because that is the extreme position everybody wants to do. The picture there is a beautiful position, a beautiful picture of what Plémont will look like, but that is not really the reason why I am going to support this. I am going to support it because I cannot live, I do not think, with a future that sees this scale of housing estate on the headland at Plémont. [Approbation] That is what I think this debate is really about. Those

Members who are wavering and who are worried desperately, like I am, about being pulled in the different directions of short-term considerations for money, I think they need to think about this picture. I think they need to think about the long-term for ever placement of an estate of houses in 3 clusters that is truly on the headland, in fields that approach one of our most spectacular areas of Jersey. In a world of short-termism, this Assembly has a history of being a long-term place and long-term decision-making. This is about long-term decision-making. This is not a decision for just today or tomorrow. This is a decision that we can only make once but will have incredibly long-term consequences. We have a choice about how we use contingencies and it is to an extent urgent because we can only make this decision now. This decision will not be able to be made in 2014, 2015 or 2016. It is a decision that we have to make now. If Members feel that they are confident with the cost and the cost I believe is a clear one. I believe the valuation is £4 million and I believe that there is an amount that we are at risk in actually settling that valuation, which I believe is within the region of £1 million or £2 million above that. I believe that that is the case and that is the professional position that we are taking. I do not believe that any board of arbitration can construct or accept a valuation that is in these dizzy figures, as we have heard that has happened with Lesquende, of £15 million or £18 million. I believe that it is a maximum figure and, yes, I do believe the compulsory purchase order and the offer that the Treasury should make is superior to the valuation because compulsory purchase  should reflect  the fact that you are compensating somebody for their loss. I do think that it should be more than £4 million that the developer as owner because the developer is interested in the cash. They are not interested in really anything else. This is a commercial transaction. I think that this debate is really about that scenario. Nobody wants scenario one. Everybody would perhaps like to have scenario 2, but for those Members that are in the middle, that are worried, that are worried about what their position is going to be in 2 years' time when we see the building of these houses, it is actually the avoidance of scenario 3. It is not right to say that this is a clean giving back of the headland to the people of Jersey. This is about stopping and yes, I say that. I say stopping a development of 28 houses on the headland at Plémont which for ever more as people drive down Route de Plémont, when they approach the car park, when they want to go down to the coast, they will be faced with house upon house. That is the reason why I am going to vote in favour of the proposition. [Approbation]

Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

Can I ask a point of clarification from the Minister for Treasury and Resources? The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Deputy Martin, point of clarification.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

When I spoke the Minister for Treasury and Resources said what the contingency fund he did mention a lot of things. Was that list exhaustive? Because he did  not mention freedom of information and I just want to know that that money that is in the contingency for Freedom of Information Law is safe.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am sorry, yes, I do apologise, I abridged my comments on the contingency. Yes, the freedom of information money is within that contingency that we put forward and that was what the Deputy expected.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

Would the Minister for Treasury and Resources address the 2 questions I aimed at him yesterday on Financial Direction 4.3? How does he justify the use of these contingencies under conditions 2.1.1 and 2.1.3? Since he has to keep a contingency and has to top up the contingency fund, can he say what projects may or may not be delayed, deferred or abandoned?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am sorry, I apologise for not answering that question. The contingencies, we did not put any new money in contingencies in 2013, or have not done, because we are rolling forward the contingencies that I am not expecting to spend this year, which are £6 million. We have put 2 new contingency amounts in 2014 and 2015 of £6 million and a further £6 million, and so there is no consequence. The figures that we are talking about, there is no consequence of any proposals not happening as a result of using that contingency. We will still have the £6 million untouched contingency, which is what I would want to deal with genuine other unforeseen matters. In relation to whether or not it fits the criteria, I think that under the contingency definition of 2.1.1 contingency is set aside for unforeseen and urgent expenditure. This can only be made now. In a year's time it is too late and so that is why I believe that it is possible. These are guidance notes and ultimately they are the Minister for Treasury and Resources' decision after consulting the Council of Ministers, of which I have carried out a brief and abridged version because I need to advise the Assembly at this time.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

It is not question time, Deputy , but very briefly. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I asked a question in the course of the debate and it has not been answered. Would you prefer me to address it to the rapporteur?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well, we will ask the Minister for Treasury and Resources to answer briefly. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

That is about the final resort and so I have no other options to give to the Assembly apart from the use of contingencies for effectively the amount of money that I have put forward. I have no other way of doing it. It is the use of contingencies and there is sufficient.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

The point I made yesterday was since the proposal is by the Chief Minister, should you not be looking at the individual department's own reserves first and not addressing contingencies?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Very briefly, I believe that is exactly what I was trying to do and I am sorry if I did not explain it, but that is the abridged process that I have done. That is the report that we have attached to my comments is that I have sought and asked the Chief Minister's Department whether or not they have £6 million and they do not. That is why I have come to the conclusion on the advice of the Treasury that only the contingencies can be used.

6. Connétable S.W. Rennard of St. Saviour :

I have to declare an interest. As everybody knows, I have worked indirectly for the National Trust for 18 and a half years and I also rent land from them. Let us be honest, if this was a brand new application with nothing on that site, it would not have taken place. We now have a chance to take back and make things right of what happened wrong a long time ago. The upmarket homes look okay, but the plans will, I hope, stay as they are unless as usual we have a revised plan and a revised plan and a revised plan, which end up looking nothing like the original. The greens in between times, it is going to be fabulous because Deputy Tadier plays the accordion, my husband sings and plays guitar, so we can go there on a Sunday and sit and have the most wonderful picnics. Or the Minister for Planning and Environment can put his other hat on and leave it for the environment, which means he could have these lovely hay fields and everything could go along and really help the environment. I do not think if you have paid a lot of money for a home you are going to want me and Deputy Tadier and my husband singing and playing on a Sunday. I certainly do not think you are going to want a hay field to help the little animals and the ragwort, which the Deputy Bob Duhamel seems to think is going to be very, very good for everybody.

[10:45]

I have asked at the presentation what would happen to the wildlife and I was told the wildlife was going to be scooped up from where it was, removed, put on the headland, wires and fencing would be put up to stop them encroaching back on to where the buildings were going to be taking place. The lizards and everything were all going to be moved out of the area so we could build. When we have built, the wires and everything else will then be removed and they can go back to where the houses are being built. Now, I do not know if any of you have ever seen Elephant Walk, the film, but a gentleman who was very arrogant decided to build a house where the elephants trekked all the way through. If these builders seriously think that the wildlife is going to stay behind this wire,

hanging over a cliff, when it has been having the rest of the environment to walk upon, then they are sadly mistaken. Animals do not do that. These animals will try to get back to where they are, so they will be in the middle of the buildings. I have had a large number of people in touch with me in the Parish. I have not had people from outside the Parish; I have had the odd one or 2. But most of the parishioners who have been in contact with me - except for 4, and hand on heart it was only 4 that asked me please not to consider buying the land - the rest of them want to buy it. So whatever I feel, I have been voted in by my parishioners and so I will go along with what they want. Having said that, if I was not the Constable of St. Saviour I would still vote for the land to be bought. I cannot see how luxury homes being built on this property will make a big difference to the housing list. Something else I found very, very useful at the presentation that the developers gave to us was the fact that they had bought the fields alongside and had kept a right of way from one group of the houses to get to the other fields that they had just purchased. I do not say just purchased; I could be wrong. They have had them for a little while. But they have purchased them, and you must ask yourself why they have kept a right of way from one housing estate to go to 4 other fields which also take in the cliff. You have to ask yourself why they have done it. I am going to cancel out in a minute because everything has been said and we are all exhausted, if we are being perfectly honest. By the way, even though my husband and I have a lot of grazing land from the National Trust, we are organic so we will not benefit from this field if it is returned to a field as it takes years for land to be returned to be organic. So I have nothing else to say about that except we have a chance to save a piece of land for the Islanders. This is never going to happen again. If we do not take - and you will excuse the expression - the bull by the horns we are going to be in big, big trouble eventually because it will just keep building and building and building. We will end up being a concrete jungle and people will not want to come and live here because we have nothing that we can possibly offer them, which is going to be a great pity. You can all sigh and think what you like. I can understand where St. Mary is coming from because they want the main drains. That will be the worst thing that could ever happen to them because once they have the infrastructure they will be built on, trust me.  As a person from St. Saviour, St. Clement, St. Brelade , we have the infrastructure, and St. Helier, so they just keep building and building because we have the drains, we have the water. I think it is going to be fantastic when the other outlying Parishes have it because we can move them out. [Laughter] The Deputy , and I love her dearly no, I do, I do, and I have looked up to her. Having been new in this Assembly I have asked her lots and lots of questions. She is right. You just keep building where there are drains and where there is water. Well, let us give St. Mary the drains and let us put everybody out there. I think that would be a very good idea. [Laughter] We now have a chance to put right a mistake that was

made a long, long time ago, so please, let us take it. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :

Can I ask a point of clarification from the speaker? The Connétable of St. Saviour :

Yes.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

As an animal lover, can I just ask if we go with this proposition and the National Trust have to clear the ruin that is there now, surely they are going to have to move the wildlife, too. I think she is making too much, if I can say that with due respect.

The Connétable of St. Saviour :

No, I do not like to stand and correct you, Sir, but I will do it. I do call you Sir because you are a more important politician than me. [Laughter]

The Bailiff :

I am sure you may do that outside the Assembly, Connétable

The Connétable of St. Saviour :

No, I do not call him "Sir" outside, Sir. [Laughter]

The Bailiff :

but you may not do it in the Assembly because you must speak through the Chair. The Connétable of St. Saviour :

Yes, Sir, I do apologise. No, when they clear the site obviously the animals will be removed, but then we are talking about builders' lorries, diggers, all sorts of other things which will be then brought on to the site to do this. You will lose some of them, that is quite obvious, but you are not going to lose as much if you have all these builders doing this.

The Bailiff :

Very well, Connétable , you have given your clarification. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour :

On the back of the Constable's speech, a question has arisen which I would like to pose to the Solicitor General. Is that possible?

The Bailiff :

Yes.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

It strikes me that what we are really doing as an Assembly is reviewing and attempting to overturn a planning decision. It strikes me that that has legal consequences. We have been warned against that time after time. I wonder if the Solicitor General could comment on that.

Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:

No, you are not overturning any planning decision. What would happen is that if you went down the route of compulsory purchase the value of the land to be assessed would take into account all the attributes of the land including the fact that it now has the planning permission.

7. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade :

It is a real pleasure to follow the Constable of St. Saviour's speech. In this very difficult debate I think it lightens the attention because it has been very difficult for all of us with this heady mix of immediate financial pressures and long-term planning issues which require vision. In my experience, mixing those 2 up is dynamite. In this high profile case, it has proven to be. I want to say a few words today about the underlying planning issues because I think what has been said just now, it is right, this is a planning issue. We have a solution on the table which is going to give us a better outcome than what would otherwise be the case, so I am grateful for that clarification. I think the Constable of St. Peter gave us a long account of the planning history, over 13 years, starting off with the aspirations to put 117 homes on that site, then down to 46, then down to 36 and now we are at 28. But I think the long history shows just how controversial the development of that wonderful northwest headland for housing has been to the people of the Island. Obviously, we have arrived at a point where the planning decision has been made. Therefore, it is right to ask ourselves at this point are there alternatives. Before this debate kicked off, 145 people made written submissions to the planning inquiry. That was no easy thing. There was a format to follow, 1,500 words, and they put down all their planning objections. That I think has to be recognised.

Earlier planning applications produced equal overwhelming responses, not just the number but it is the quality of those objections that matters. Now, of course, when one looks through - and there are lists for the public on the website, you can read them - they are not all members of the National Trust. There are many others. Some are members of groups, but there are very many, a large number, of private, public-spirited citizens from all over the Island. This is the point. This headland is a national asset. It benefits the whole of the Island and not just those wealthy people who are fortunate enough to live in the countryside. We have overcrowded urban areas and there is a desperate need for urban regeneration. We have to do more about open space and improving the environment for town dwellers, but those arguments to me are not an argument against having our special places where the community can go and be. Health issues, I absolutely agree, wellbeing of life, quality of life and mental health of the community, we have to have places to go and escape, all of us. It would be nice if you had a bus service to Plémont but, of course, there is not one on a Sunday. Now, in contrast with that, there were 22 representations at the last planning inquiry by the applicant. I think that balance, and it is consistent right the way back over 13 years, of 85 per cent majority against on planning grounds is an important consideration in this debate. Now, I want to highlight the reasons why, briefly, those people have that overwhelming objection. I will not go into detail, I promise, and I will not rerun the planning inquiry. The case is made, first of all, this is a headland of Channel Islands and international importance. The issue is our landscape. It is not about the puffins. The puffins are at the southerly limit of their species' scope and they are doing well to hang on, but the primary issue is landscape. It is the mix of geology. It is the mix of the whole quality of the history, archaeology, the natural landscape and so on. All of that is important. That is worthy of the highest protection of our Planning Law. The question arises has something gone wrong that a development should happen on the most special of places. It is of outstanding natural beauty quality. That would be its designation in the U.K. It is our national park. It is elevated. It is right at the top of the Island on the edge of the countryside national park, visible for miles from sea and land, and its development is contrary to the policy that seeks to put our new housing in our built-up areas for all the reasons that we all have put in the Island Plan. It is entirely contrary because it impacts on traffic, local infrastructure; it impacts on schools, village shops, churches. All those amenities are not there. It is an isolated, rural, wild place. Housing is different to a holiday camp. A holiday camp is self-contained. Housing is a 24/7 activity. It will generate 100-plus cars and visitors, an estimated 500 to 600 vehicle movements a day. Is this the place for that? Now, the inspector - because obviously much has been made by others on alternative points of view - has said nice things. The truth is he actually recognised that all those

arguments I have just set out against planning consent are all sound. They were all soundly based. The Bailiff :

Deputy , I do not want to stop you but the fact is there is planning consent and whether it was rightly or wrongly granted, is that relevant to this debate? The planning consent is there. The issue is whether the States should or should not buy it.

Deputy J.H. Young:

I wonder if I could just continue a bit more and you can stop me, Sir, if I because I am about to make the link, I think, if it is possible.

The Bailiff :

Very well.

Deputy J.H. Young:

Because what he said is this development taken on its own would not be in compliance with the Island Plan policy. I think that says what we are dealing with. It is accepted, I would submit, that those effects on this Island are not what the Island Plan wanted to produce. We have ended up there for other reasons, but that is not I think there are reasons in the inspector's report which on a different day would be liable to challenge. In view of what you have just said there, I will not outline but I think there was a letter in the Jersey Evening Post last week in which I set down a very cogent case. Now, sadly, our Planning Law restricted the Minister from publishing the inspector's report before he was required to make a decision. I think that is something we should review. I think clearly, though, the Minister must have been in the position where he had to accept the planning inspector's recommendation. The inspector concluded that this was the least worst option.