States Meeting Transcript - 20th March 2013

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 20th MARCH 2013

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ......................................4

1. The Bailiff :..............................................................................4

STATEMENT ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY..........................4

2. The Chief Minister will make a statement regarding the United States Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act............................................................4

2.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):..................................................4

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ................................................6
2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................6
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................6
4. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:......................................................6
5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................7
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................7
7. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:..........................................8
8. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John : ......................................................8
9. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:.......................................................8

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................9

3. Beach House, Green Island, St. Clement : grant of a right to access through the sea wall (P.16/2013) - resumption............................................................9

3.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................10

1. Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier:......................................................11
2. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................12
3. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin:...........................................15
4. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade:......................................................17
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................18
6. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................19
7. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................20

8. Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement : ........................................................21
9. Connétable S.W. Rennard of St. Saviour : ..............................................21
10. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................21
11. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................22
12. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence : ..................................................22

4. Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Law 2011 (Appointed Day) Act 201- (P.19/2013)25

4.1 Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier (The Minister for Housing):........................25

1. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................25
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................25

3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................26
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................26
5. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................26
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................26
7. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................26

5. Draft Amendment (No. 20) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.29/2013) ...........................................................................................28

5.1 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ............................................................................28

1. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................29
2. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................29

6. Draft Companies (Amendment No. 7) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.20/2013).........29

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................29

1. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................30
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................30
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................31
4. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................31 Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade (Vice-Chairman, Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):..32

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................32

7. Channel Islands Lottery: allocation of profits for 2012 (P.21/2013)...................32

7.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................33

1. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................33
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................34
3. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................34
4. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................34
5. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................34

8. Ratification of the Agreement for the Exchange of Information Relating to Tax Matters between the Government of Jersey and the Government of Brazil (P.22/2013) ...........................................................................................36

8.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):........................36

9. Ratification of the Agreement for the Exchange of Information Relating to Tax Matters between the Government of Jersey and the Government of Latvia (P.23/2013) ...........................................................................................37

9.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):........................37

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................37
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................37
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................37
4. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................37

10. Draft Taxation (Exchange of Information with Third Countries) (Amendment No. 6) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.24/2013)...................................................38

10.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):........................38 Senator S.C. Ferguson (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):......................38

11. Independent Planning Appeals Tribunal: establishment (P.26/2013)..................39

11.1 Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................39

1. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:................................................45
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................46

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

3. Senator P.M. Bailhache :.............................................................48
4. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................51
5. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin:.....................................................52
6. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................53
7. Deputy E.J. Noel:....................................................................55
8. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity : ..............................................55
9. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................56 Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:..................................................58
10. Senator A.J.H. Maclean: ..........................................................58
11. Deputy M.R.Higgins:............................................................60
12. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:........................................................62
13. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:.........................................................63
14. The Connétable of St. John : ......................................................63
15. Deputy J.H. Young: ..............................................................65

12. Liberty Bus: reinstatement of Route 18 to Le Squez and Le Marais (P.28/2013)......69

12.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................69

1. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................72
2. The Connétable of St. Martin : .......................................................73
3. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................73
4. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................74
5. Deputy A.K.F. Green:...............................................................75
6. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................75
7. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................75
8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................76
9. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:....................................................76
10. Deputy M. Tadier :................................................................77
11. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:........................................................79
12. The Connétable of St. Clement:...................................................79
13. Deputy J.H. Young: ..............................................................80
14. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:........................................................81
15. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:.........................................................82

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................87

13.1 The Connétable of St. Helier (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):......87

13.1.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................87

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................87

The Roll was called and the Greffier of the States led the Assembly in Prayer. COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER

1. The Bailiff :

Members will be aware that a delegation from the Government of Madeira is visiting the Island this week. The delegation is led by Mr. Manuel Correia, the Minister for Agriculture and Natural Resources. He is accompanied by 2 officials, Dr. Antonio Trinidade, the Chief Officer to the Minister and Mr. Gonçalo dos Santos, the Director of Immigration. Mr. Correia, the Minister, is in the public gallery with his delegation and I am sure Members would like to express in the traditional way.  [Approbation]  Members may also have noted that there has been a T.V. camera filming the proceedings so far. When the Madeira delegation arrived last night a request was made as to whether Madeiran TV could film the opening of today's ceremony. As it was not possible in the usual way to obtain the Assembly's agreement, I took it upon myself, as a courtesy, to agree that they could do so until Public Business begins, in the way that we do agree to our local companies filming us on other occasions. I trust Members are content with that decision, and when we move on to Public Business, the filming will stop. Very well, so we do now move on to Public Business. We are in the midst of the debate, but I have been informed the Chief Minister wishes to make an urgent statement. Would Members agree it is convenient to take the statement and any questions at this stage, and then revert to the debate? Very well, I invite the Chief Minister to make his statement.

STATEMENT ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY

2. The Chief Minister made a statement regardingtheUnitedStatesForeignAccountTax Compliance Act

2.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):

I am making a statement about negotiations on the U.S. (United States) Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and on related negotiations with the United Kingdom. There will be reference to these matters in the U.K. (United Kingdom) Budget today. As Members will be well aware, F.A.T.C.A. (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) seeks to limit the evasion of U.S. tax by placing reporting requirements on foreign financial institutions. Consultations with industry were completed last Friday and it is clear that industries' preference is for Jersey to enter into a F.A.T.C.A. intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. We have sought to negotiate such an agreement. This is similar to the one that the U.K. signed with the U.S. last year and to some 50 other agreements that are still being negotiated. It is generally accepted that there are real benefits for financial institutions in reporting through an intergovernmental agreement, as opposed to reporting directly to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Guernsey, the Isle of Man and the Cayman Islands are among the jurisdictions to share this view. Our negotiations have progressed well and we recently initialled an agreement with the U.S.A. (United States of America). The only outstanding matter is a jurisdiction-specific annex on which a response from the U.S. is awaited. Therefore, financial institutions can be assured that they will be operating under the umbrella of an intergovernmental agreement and can plan accordingly. We hope to be able to sign the full agreement, including the annex, shortly. The agreement will then be presented to the Assembly for ratification and the required regulations will be presented for adoption. When the U.S. agreement is in force, financial institutions will have until 30th September 2015 to report information relating to calendar years 2013 and 2014. The U.K. indicated to us, to the other Crown Dependencies and to the U.K. Overseas Territories, that they wished to match the position being negotiated with the

U.S. That is, they were seeking a F.A.T.C.A.-type agreement exchange on an automatic basis. They found it difficult to accept that we would be giving more information to the U.S. than the U.K. in the fight against tax evasion. We were concerned that there would not be a level playing field, globally. The U.K. clarified that they regarded F.A.T.C.A. as setting the new standard in international tax transparency. We understand that the U.K. will be pressing for this at the G8 meeting in June and at meetings of the O.E. C.D . (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). We, along with Guernsey and the Isle of Man, also have concerns regarding those U.K. residents who are non-domiciled for tax purposes, the so-called "res non-doms". An alternative reporting arrangement for this category of taxpayers  was sought because there were concerns about the potential loss of business to competitor jurisdictions. Such a loss would affect not only Jersey, but also the U.K. economy. There was also a concern regarding the internationally-accepted view that jurisdictions should seek the same information from their own taxpayers that is being asked of another jurisdiction. At all times we have emphasised to the U.K. that we are committed to supporting them in the fight against tax evasion. We emphasised our good track record, with tax evasion having been included as an offence under our anti-money laundering legislation since 1999. We mentioned our public statements, agreed with the finance industry, that Jersey neither needs nor wishes to accommodate those engaged in tax evasion. As a vice-chair of the O.E. C.D . Global Forum Peer Review Group which assesses compliance with the international standards, we seek to lead by example. Members will be aware that Jersey has an internationally-recognised reputation which has been confirmed in assessments by international organisations such as the I.M.F. (International Monetary Fund). Having balanced all these factors, I am announcing to Members today that we have agreed a package with the U.K. similar to those committed to by the Isle of Man and Guernsey. This agreement will be referred to in the U.K. Budget today. The package is as follows: an intergovernmental agreement that, apart from certain annexes, closely follows the agreement with the U.S; financial institutions will have up to September 2016 to exchange information relating to 2013 and 2014; an alternative reporting

arrangement for the res non-doms', which will be included in an annex to the agreement. This will be finalised to the same timetable as the agreement currently being negotiated with the U.S; disclosure facility, full details of which will be published shortly, which will allow investors with assets in Jersey to come forward and regularise their past tax affairs. In addition to this package, the U.K. have indicated that they are happy to consider a possible renegotiation of our current Double Taxation Agreement. The package of measures will put beyond doubt Jersey's ongoing commitment to the fight against tax evasion. We have also recognised the special relationship that we have with the U.K. We will watch with interest the efforts being made by the U.K. to promote a new global standard based on F.A.T.C.A. Should such a standard be adopted internationally we will respond appropriately. For our future as an international finance centre, it is important that the international community continues to recognise Jersey as a jurisdiction that has high levels of compliance. Increasingly, the best financial institutions and investors will only want to be associated with such a quality jurisdiction. By reaching agreement with the U.S. and the U.K. on enhanced information exchange, we are making an important contribution to the future success of Jersey as an international finance centre. We intend to continue engaging positively with the U.K. and other countries in the pursuit of the global objectives of transparency and international co- operation.

[9:45]

Studies commissioned from Capital Economics and McKinseys have both shown how we contribute to the U.K. economy and to world financial markets. Ministers are at present completing an update of the Island's financial services industry strategy. This strategy is designed to continue to ensure the industry innovates, prospers and continues to be regarded as one of the world's financial centres. I have absolutely no doubt that, working together, we in government, the

regulator, and the finance industry will ensure the continuing success of Jersey, to the benefit of all Island residents. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Very well. There are 10 minutes in which Members may ask questions. Deputy Baudains?

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement :

I wonder if the Chief Minister would clarify for me with regards to this outcome whether that affects the level playing field that apparently we were waiting for before entering into agreements with one or 2 countries. I thought we were waiting for a level playing field across all.

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Hopefully, as I explained in my statement, they are exactly the arguments that we made to the United Kingdom, but we do have a special relationship with the United Kingdom and therefore we made that point, I hope persuasively, that the U.K. are absolutely committed to ensuring a global level playing field and that is why they have set their agenda for the G8 later this year. But this is an agreement about tax evasion, and we have been absolutely committed to ensuring that Jersey is not used for tax evasion, as I said, since 1999. Therefore, in light of that special relationship and of that commitment to fight tax evasion, we have agreed to this package.

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

Could the Minister give some details at this stage of the disclosure facility he refers to in the second page. Is it, for example, more or less stringent than the Swiss disclosure facility?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

It will be, as I said in my opening statement, published shortly and it is based largely on the Isle of Man disclosure facility which, as I am sure the Member knows, does have differences from the Swiss facility.

3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour :

Despite the comforting words that have been placed here about our compliance with tax evasion, would the Chief Minister not acknowledge that in fact political sentiment is also running against tax avoidance? We have seen the issues in Cyprus with Russian money, no doubt we will see this afternoon further statements from the Chancellor. Can he tell me how he intends to deal with it, because the issues, in the public mind, are increasingly merged issues?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Be in no doubt, we are absolutely committed to the fight against tax evasion and Members will be well aware of previous statements and comments I have made in the public domain and in this Assembly with regard to aggressive avoidance. The Deputy is right that in some media representations those 2 have been merged. They are different but I am also on record as saying that aggressive tax avoidance has no place in our future either. The world is changing; we must continue to show, as we have historically, that we are a quality, well-regulated jurisdiction, we have got independent reviews that prove that, and by signing-up to and agreeing to this package today, that should, I hope in Members' minds, put beyond doubt our commitment to ensuring that we are not used for tax evasion, but we have also committed to ensuring that when businesses are taking on new business, they have regard to the reputation of Jersey at large.

4. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

There are 3 little things that I would like the Chief Minister to clarify. On page 2, around the bullet points, on the first one it says: "An international agreement that, apart from certain annexes, closely delivers the agreement with the U.S. F.A.T.C.A." Can you explain what they are? That is number 1.

The Bailiff :

You can only have one question.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

A pity; I would have chosen another one, thanks. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I do recall a previous occasion where the Deputy has asked this question, and I answered him then, therefore it is in the public domain. As I have quite clearly said, we have initialled the U.S. intergovernmental agreement but there are annexes to that agreement which the U.S., and of course the U.K. as well, are, I use the word "negotiation". Perhaps the Deputy was more comfortable with "considering together" and that is where we are. And as I said in my opening statement, we are still waiting to hear back from the U.S. in regard to that annex.

5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

On the eighth line of the second page the Chief Minister says: "Jersey seeks to lead by example in the fight against tax evasion." However, on the first page and on previous occasions he has said that Jersey: "Desires to see a level playing field globally before Jersey would be put in the position to have to sign up to F.A.T.C.A. with the U.K." Which position is correct? Do we want to lead by example or do we want to wait until there is a level playing field before Jersey starts to play ball?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

I am not sure they are necessarily mutually exclusive. We will, I believe, start to hear a term referred to as "fast followers" and that is a position that I think Jersey has historically been in for a number of years. Now, we recognise that our future, and our future as a provider of financial services, is where we show that we are a quality jurisdiction; that we are complying with relevant international standards - there is no change there - but also, that we are a fast follower. So they are not necessarily against each other, those 2 positions. In actual fact, I would say that they work together.

6. Deputy M. Tadier :

A supplementary: so the Chief Minister is essentially saying that we lead by example by following others. Is that perhaps a personal way that he runs his own Council of Ministers that he is applying to the international relations?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

I think the term I used was: "fast follower". Deputy M. Tadier :

Yes: "Follower".

6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

None of us here agree with tax evasion, but is this, effectively, yet another instance of political bullying by the U.K. Government arising from their own inability to apply and [Approbation] simplify their own tax codes of which there are 11,000 pages?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

The Senator will have heard me say in my opening statement that one of the points that we made to the United Kingdom was that we would expect them to be collecting the same information from their own taxpayers, and in that regard she makes a very interesting point. In Jersey we have a transparent and clear tax code; other jurisdictions do not enjoy that, and I think they are rapidly realising that perhaps a simplified tax code is one way of ensuring and delivering economic growth.

7. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

The third bullet point on page 2 refers to: "Allowing investors with assets in Jersey to come forward and regularise their past tax affairs." Will the Chief Minister explain what is meant by the words: "Regularise their past tax affairs."

Senator I.J. Gorst :

I just thought it was quite straightforward: exactly that. We, as I said, have had anti-money laundering legislation which meant that tax evasion has been an offence in Jersey since 1999. We are confident in that, but we believe that by agreeing to this package whereby a disclosure facility would allow, if people have not been compliant, to contact H.M.R.C. (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs) and regularise their tax affairs. We have already been doing that for a number of years through our legislation and making tax evasion an offence, and this therefore puts beyond doubt that we are absolutely committed to dealing with tax evasion.

8. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John :

Has Jersey gone along with the Isle of Man and Guernsey and capitulated, as we did over the fulfilment? This looks to me as a one way street. Since the Island got involved with the British- Irish Council and these regular meetings where supposedly exchange of information is happening at a certain level, a Ministerial level, will the Minister agree that sometimes our Members sitting around the table might be too free with local information to be passed across, which is, in turn, turned on its head and worked against us in the long run?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Unfortunately, once again today, I cannot agree, with the Connétable of St. John. I do not believe that he can describe the way that this Government responded to the changes in low value consignment relief that the United Kingdom announced when we sought to have the decision judicially reviewed, as capitulation to them. Far from it; we are robust in our negotiations, we stand up for Jersey and we fight our corner as we think is best, in the interests of every individual and the economic interest of Jersey. This is a package about tax evasion. As I keep saying, we have been committed to ensuring that Jersey is not used for tax evasion since 1999. In fact, our legislation is far stronger than many jurisdictions around the world. I believe we have a record that we can be proud of and that these agreements today, borne out of our special relationship with the United Kingdom, should put that beyond doubt in anybody's mind.

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

Could I just refer to the line under the 3 bullet points, and if I can try and get 2 for one .. The Bailiff :

No, only one.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Where it says: "Happy to consider a possible renegotiation of our current Double Taxation Agreement" could the Minister explain what that would involve and really why, precisely?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

We have not gone into any detail yet with a renegotiation of the Double Taxation Agreement, but as the Deputy will know, the current agreement in place is many years old and therefore needs to be brought up to date and made perhaps more fit for purpose.

The Bailiff :

That brings questions to the Chief Minister to an end. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

Sir, a point of order. I pushed my light on immediately after the statement was made, and I think I was probably one of the first, and I did try and draw attention to the fact that my light was on but obviously you either missed me or well, I hate to say it, but you did not ignore me, I am sure. [Laughter] But I am quite disappointed because I did have a relevant question here which I am now not allowed to ask.

The Bailiff :

Connétable , I can only apologise. Blame it on the head of the Chairman on your Comité [Laughter] which obscured ..

The Connétable of Grouville : I can assure you he ducked. The Bailiff :

One moment. I can only apologise, Connétable . Certainly, the Chair, as it sees Members' lights, does it strictly in order, so I am sorry if you had your light on and I did not see it, and I can only apologise.

The Connétable of St. John :

Sir, on a similar point of order, I noted that all the questions in the early part of the questioning came from that side of the House and it was not until it got to Centenier .. sorry to Senator [Laughter] Ferguson that you moved across here, so possibly you might want to look around the Chamber and pick them around, Sir. [Members: Oh!]

The Bailiff :

The Bailiff does his best to look all around the Chamber. Deputy M. Tadier :

It might be of assistance. On behalf of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) these are issues which we are considering and will be considering in an ongoing manner, so I do not think it is the Chair's fault, but it perhaps a technical problem which we need to resolve in the Assembly.

The Connétable of Grouville :

Perhaps I could ask the Deputy the question, Sir?

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

3. Beach House, Green Island, St. Clement : grant of a right to access through the sea wall (P.16/2013) - resumption

The Bailiff :

Very well. I am sorry for those Members who have not had time to ask their questions. Now we return to Projet 16. Before we do, I am going to leave the Chair now to welcome the Minister and receive him in my Chambers and I will return later, so I will ask the Greffier to take over, but the next Member to speak is Deputy Baudains.

3.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I believe most Members have been invited to visit this particular site and yesterday we heard the Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources give his explanation of the situation. Shortly after that, Senator Le Gresley spoke and what he said was, basically, this has dragged on for far too long and the owners of The Beach House have been treated poorly, with which I cannot disagree. However, I believe also that what my Connétable said yesterday does have some merit because I have to ask: does the fact that this has dragged on for so long mean that we must now overlook possible safety issues in a final, but albeit overdue, rush to conclude the matter? I hope not. In a moment I am going to suggest what I think is possibly a better way forward. But first of all, I would like to start by addressing the flooding issue which has been raised.

[10:00]

I have to say, I am more relaxed about this issue than my Connétable because the way I look at it, if there is flooding there - and I am sure there will be at some time when there are high winds on top of a spring tide - it is the owner's own property that will suffer. If their garden is washed away or their property damaged, it is on their own heads. So I do not think it is for us to worry about that, it is more so for the applicants. But I have to contradict the Assistant Minister when he uses, or as I understood it attempted to use, the breach in the wall that exists further to the west as some sort of

precedent to back up what he is proposing. I would refer Members to page 2 of the document which the Connétable of St. Clement circulated yesterday where, I think, Members will see that the other entrance which has been spoken about is not, in fact, on the slip, it is on to the beach and it is not a particular entrance, in fact, it is not an entrance at all, it is a recess of the wall. So to infer that this is a precedent for what we are being asked to approve today is simply, in my view, invalid. The major worry I have about this proposal is, as my Connétable so eloquently said yesterday, pedestrian safety. This does concern me because as a member of the Planning Applications Panel I am fully aware of the need for accuracy and taking all material considerations into account. It is a heavy responsibility, yet here we are being asked, effectively, to be planning experts  for the duration of this debate. As I said when I started, quite a number of Members will have seen this property recently but, of course, for those that may not be familiar with the area, I would remind them that they saw it in the winter months, but I can advise them that during the summer months the slipway is always full of people and people want to relax safe in the knowledge that their children can run up and down the slip, get an ice-cream and so forth. My concern is if this entrance is allowed, any vehicle exiting the property, we know, will have zero visibility and to make matters even worse it will be exiting right next to the back of a kiosk, where presumably there will be children and others running around anyway. Of course, then the vehicle would have to drive right across the slip in order to drive up and out. That, of course, assumes the entrance is not blocked by vehicles. To me, that does raise concerns. But, of course, the whole reason why we are even discussing this today is because the application did not go through the normal channels. The original planning application did not include this access and so Public Services and others did not object, the Parish was not consulted. The access was applied for by way of an amendment to the original application which was approved by planning officers, as the Constable said yesterday, 3 days after submission and, crucially, as I said, no one was consulted. Because under normal circumstances for an application of this type there would be consultation and, as we were told yesterday, if Public Services, for example, were asked, they might have had a negative opinion because they have consistently in the past opposed this particular breach in the wall. As a member of the Planning Applications Panel, I have no doubt that the Historic Buildings Officer might have an opinion on the visual aspect and no doubt the Constable would have wanted to state his case as well. Planning themselves may have had an issue about the possibility of setting a precedent, because I was just scanning my mind this morning, and I am unable to come up with another example in Jersey where there is a private vehicular access on to a slipway, maybe there are around Bouley Bay, Grève de Lecq, all the way along St. Clement and La Rocque, thereon in. So if we set a precedent, where does that leave us in the future? Unfortunately, because of the way this issue has been handled, and it has been handled disastrously over the years, none of these issues was put into the equation, none of this happened. Due process was not followed because if it had we would not be here today, we would not be discussing it today. I am also somewhat unhappy about the fee the Treasury proposes to charge for the right to breach the sea wall and here, in complete contrast to my Constable - I am watching his reaction .. oh yes, there it is [Laughter], apparently this is calculated on the basis of being half of the increase in value that will accrue to the property. But why half? Why not two-thirds or half of two-thirds or four-fifths divided by the rate of inflation? Who decided on £70,000 and why? I do not know. But, to be brief, when I started, I said there was a better way to resolve this and what I am suggesting is that the due process that was bypassed in the first place should now be put in place, should be put in train. That way all relevant parties would have the input, a fair resolution would be arrived at, just as would happen were the application made today. Naturally, the only way I can see that being achieved would involve a fresh planning application which, of course, would be unusual. But then again the whole case was extremely unusual; in my years in politics I have never come across another one like it. I would further suggest that because this is all due to the failure of government to provide an acceptable service, any application fee should be waived. I would also suggest that, should the decision be in the applicant's favour, the Treasury fee should either be substantially reduced or perhaps, except for the legal cost, cancelled altogether. This has been unfair to the owners of that property for some time because this is, in my view, a mess that nobody can be proud of. But we are not an Assembly of 51 planners, so I do not believe we should be making yet another departure from process by

making a decision without the benefit of advice from Transport and Technical Services, Historic Buildings officers and others. So really, what I would like to do is invite the Assistant Minister to withdraw the proposition and let this be resolved through the normal channels.

1. Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier :

I think many of the arguments have already been covered to some degree, so I will be brief. I, like many States Members, took the opportunity to meet the couple who own the property. They seem reasonable, empathic caring individuals who simply want to gain a decent vehicle access to their property, but this is not their right, as the Constable described yesterday. I was equally concerned that I would find something different, that there would be strong reasons to prevent them achieving what they had set out to achieve: a breach in our historic sea defences. But what I found, to be fair, was the opposite. I will just deal with each point that is written in the letter by the Constable: (1) Lack of consultation. I think to some extent that this is right, possibly, but these people were new to the environment, new to the process and, equally, once they realised that you need to communicate with all parties, including the Parish and T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) they did so. (2) Integrity, which refers to the wholeness of the design, in other words, the hole in the wall. Those that took the opportunity to visit the site will have seen the integrity has already been compromised, and we have already discussed when is a breach not a breach but a coche. I am not sure what a "coche" is, to be fair, I did try to look yesterday but I could not find anything on it. But there are breaches, as Senator Le Gresley said, all along the sea wall, clear breaches in the wall considerably lower than that of the proposed entrance, and so far no problem, having weathered extremely high tides. (3) refers to risk of flooding. Equally, Deputy Baudains has already made reference to the fact that the first property that would suffer would be the owner's own Beach House. Why would you build in a potential risk for flooding? It does not make any sense. They have done their homework. Existing records prove the risk is non-existent. (4) Impact on

pedestrian safety. Pedestrian safety is already compromised by allowing parking on the slipway, but there is a wide access proposed, allowing strong peripheral sightlines. Once again, the onus rests with the owners of the property to be diligent in exiting their premises. I think they would do that. Who would not? (5) The beach concession is just that, a concession, it has no rights but, that said, the owner of the concession has agreed to move her trailer further down the slip. (6) Policing is an issue. The Parish is duty-bound to some extent (I do not know the underlying laws related to this) to police a designated parking area. That said, The Beach House owners have confirmed they will not - I repeat will not - contact the honoraries should an obstruction occur. They are well aware of the potential problems the breach creates and are happy to accommodate all that it will take to ensure that they get decent access to their property. Lastly, we get to the aesthetics of the area. Aesthetics are quite subjective: what is to one man a breach of integrity is to another a sympathetic design of a gateway. So lastly, here we have it, the neighbours are happy - I have spoken to them - T.T.S. are happy in reference to pedestrian safety, the concession owner is happy, Jersey Property Holdings are happy, the Crown gives its consent. The only person unhappy is the Connétable , and I sympathise with his concerns, but I will be supporting this proposition.

Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

Sir, could I ask the speaker for some clarity? One of the last things he said was that the neighbours are happy. I know he cannot say in this Assembly, but I have numerous letters from immediate neighbours and people in the area objecting, so I do not know what possible ..

Deputy R.G. Bryans:

Yes. I am quite happy to explain. I tried to contact the neighbour on the left-hand side, looking at the photograph that you have supplied, and was not able to do that, but if you do look at the photograph that you have given the Assembly, you can see that in terms of risk of flooding, the actual flooding would be contained on both sides. I spoke to the restaurant owner who is on the right-hand side, and he was quite happy with the design.

The Connétable of St. Clement : There was one neighbour, then.

2. Senator L.J. Farnham :

I am pleased that Deputy Bryans has covered some of my points, which will make my contribution slightly shorter, but I really want to follow on from the speech of the Constable of St. Clement yesterday, and I do enjoy listening to the Constable, he is good; there is no doubt about it. He knows his way around the Assembly and, yes, it was good to listen to, and I always enjoy listening to what he has to say. Yesterday we had a good delivery from the Constable, we had a bit of history and we learned about the Victorians knowing their stuff when it came to building sea defences and we had some drama when the steps were washed away, and we had a little bit of creative input as well when we were told that the proposed gap in the sea wall was to be directly behind the small trailer in the picture provided by the Constable, which of course it was not, it was to the right of that. We had a short lecture on safety issues and were warned of the calamity of global warming and rising sea levels should we allow this local family to create an entrance in the wall to provide vehicular access to their home. In conclusion, we were told that the proposition to facilitate this was so ridiculous you could not make it up. So I simply do not know why the Constable of St. Clement is so against this, given the considerable amount of work and research carried out over the years and expert opinion provided. I will take issue with what the Constable said in relation to this and, regrettably, the Constable was rather dismissive of the reports provided by the reputable experts engaged by the owners of The Beach House by insinuating that they would not say, or would be unlikely to say, anything controversial and were therefore not truly independent. I think it was wrong for the Constable to impugn the professionalism of these advisers in this way from his seat in the Assembly. I was going to address a number of the same points that Deputy Bryans addressed, so I will deliver an abridged version of that. I believe the Parish have been sufficiently consulted and 2 key areas of consultation were the meeting in 2007 between the applicant's advocate and the Parish Roads Committee and a meeting in 2009 between the Constable himself and senior officers from T.T.S. and Planning, at which the Constable requested that the Ministers for T.T.S. and Planning agreed for the arrangements for the breach in the sea wall between themselves.

[10:15]

So I think 2 examples there of the good consultation that has taken place over this. The impact on the proposed works and the integrity of the sea wall were well covered in the expert reports. T.T.S. is happy with the proposed engineering solutions and the wall is not a primary sea defence. Risk of flooding to nearby properties due to this breach, I think, would be non-existent. Again, T.T.S. has approved the engineering solution and I believe is prepared to oversee the works. The engineering solution also calls for an incline ramp to be created from the slip into the property which, at over 50 metres, will meet the height of the existing sea wall and the ramp will be watertight and will be effectively a sealed gulley. So this is really a belt and braces in case there was any water coming up there at any stage in the future, there is little chance of it doing any harm other than being diverted straight back on to the beach. I do not think there have been any reports of flooding; I know the sea around our Island gets rough from time to time but, as far as I am concerned, there have been no serious reports of flooding arising from this breach and the Parish does not appear to have any concerns with the lower and more exposed breach further along, otherwise they could have rebuilt that defence at any time. Now, I think the impact of pedestrian safety is being over- exaggerated slightly here. If you go to Green Island, I know Green Island very well. I cannot remember how many times, but I think I was brought up on that beach in the summer as a child, and it does get very busy, the car park is extremely busy. In actual fact, the café itself, you buy an ice-cream and you walk straight out on to the road. For goodness sake, I mean, you might be too busy looking down having a lick of your ice-cream to walk straight in front of a car, but I have not heard that one brought up yet. I hope I have not set any hares running with that. So it is largely a very safe area. Vehicles currently reverse up the slip, and this can only be considered more dangerous, due to the poor view a driver would have compared to a slow exiting car from any driveway. In fact, in October 2012, the Parish had the opportunity to address any pedestrian safety when legislation for parking on the slipway was changed to allow for only 12 hours in any 24. Why at that stage then did the Parish not raise these safety issues and ban parking on the slipway altogether? Cars drive in and out and up and down and round and round, but the Parish were not prepared to do anything then. Another comment made: there is no other sensible location for the beach concession. Well, when you look at the beach concession, the little trailer there with wheels that can be rolled up and down the slip and placed conveniently literally at any site on the slipway, depending on the state of the tide, and whether that is another red herring .. Of course, we have heard that the concessionaire and Economic Development are perfectly happy with this arrangement. One thing I just wanted to raise for the Assistant Minister to consider is the fact that the onus for part of the arrangement with them will be to have to sign an agreement in relation to the access, as the Parish is refusing to potentially police it. Now, I think it is ludicrous that Planning would allow for an access to be made to somebody's house and then refuse to put a bit of yellow line in front of it or refuse to stop people parking there. Let us take, for example, a tourism

destination area ..

The Connétable of St. Clement :

Sir, I wonder, would the Senator give way for a moment? Senator L.J. Farnham :

I am not giving way, Sir.

The Connétable of St. Clement :

Sir, the Senator was saying that we would refuse to police it; that is absolute nonsense. It is the Economic Development Department who have made it quite clear that they object to this breach because it is a 12 in .. Sir, the Senator has said that the Parish would refuse to police it; that is simply not true, the Parish has no authority to police it.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

Thank you. I am pleased the Constable has no objection to the slipway being policed [Laughter] and I would ask that the Deputy then considers putting a small strip of yellow line in front of this driveway to avoid potential problems for the owner. If we look at a tourism destination, at St. Aubin Bulwarks where many driveways and garages exit on to the road, there is a small yellow line in front to avoid people parking there, and I think to expect the owners not to have that facility would be, quite simply, ludicrous and I would ask the Assistant Minister please to consider that as part of the arrangement, if the Assembly do, of course, favour this proposition.

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I wonder if the Senator would give way for just a moment - I will be very brief - because several times he has alleged that this is endorsed by Transport and Technical Services, and yet they were never consulted on the first application. Two months later they opposed the entrance and in November 2008 they said that the application must be considered afresh. So could the Senator advise ..

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Deputy ..

Senator L.J. Farnham :

I have not given way, Sir.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I think, Deputy , there is a solution. I am sure other Members have noted the Minister for Transport and Technical Services shaking his head at some point, I am sure he will want to speak at some stage.

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I did ask if he would give way and he sat down, Sir, so now he is interrupting me. I would like to know if he could make up his mind. [Laughter] What I am seeking is clarification from the Senator as to where he gets his information that Transport and Technical Services endorses, because he is in danger of misleading the House.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

Hopefully the Minister for Transport and Technical Services will be able to clarify any points in relation to this. Moving swiftly on. Senator Le Gresley referred at the beginning of his speech to Shakespeare's comedy Much Ado About Nothing, which leads me to share briefly some interesting history which Members might find sounds familiar. During the Elizabethan era, the Globe Theatre used coloured flags which were displayed to advertise which play was to be performed that day. Because there was limited planning involved in respect of production, the owners and actors had to ensure a fast turnaround of business. A play would often be performed as soon as it had been written and the actors had to learn their scripts quickly or rely on cues or prompts from other actors, and some actors could appear in as many as 9 different plays in one day. A raised flag was the

signal that a play would be staged that day and continued to fly until the end of the performance. Different colours were used which depended on whatever play the play was to be: a white flag was flown for a comedy, a black flag was flown for a tragedy, a red flag was flown for a historical play. I could not help but think that we might introduce a similar concept here, notwithstanding that we would be rather hard-wearing on the white and black flags and may even have to fly them together on occasions such as this. I know it is an important issue for those involved, but I do find it disappointing that it has taken so long and required a debate in this Assembly to resolve. [Approbation] I therefore urge Members to support this proposition quickly so we can crack on with the real business and debate the reinstatement of the number 18 bus route in Le Squez. [Laughter]

3. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin :

There is not much I can say now to add-on. I was expecting to speak first this morning. I would like to advise the Assembly before I start that I do not believe I am conflicted, but I know the current occupants of the property, having known them about 10 years ago - not recently, but I do know them - and I also know the 2 authors of the reports that were prepared for them during this long 15-year saga. I am not related to any of the parties concerned. Although I know the owners, I also know and like to think that I am a very good friend with my colleague, the Connétable of St. Clement, for whom I have a great deal of respect, and with the former St. Clement Connétable , Mr. Stan Le Cornu, who I read within the bundle has also been involved in this matter. I congratulate the Constable of St. Clement on his passionate speech yesterday afternoon; it is very difficult to follow 2 good speakers like him and Senator Le Gresley before him, and I thought I was going to have to follow the 2 of them. Fortunately, we have had the overnight break. I would have found it very difficult to speak today on this matter if the wall and slipway had belonged to the Parish of St. Clement and was a parochial matter, however, as we all know, the wall does not belong to the Parish but belongs to the public, and hence this debate. I saw the first report regarding the slipway and the objections to it in the newspaper and I read it before I had a chance to read the proposition. Reading the newspaper and the editorial lead, I immediately formed the view of this sea wall being opened up for a driveway by a new homeowner with a chance of flooding whenever fierce southerly gales coincided with the spring tides, and that it was a foolish idea and should never be supported. On reading the proposition, I realised that there was much more to this than I had read in the newspaper. I believe that a number of Members like myself have since taken the time to visit the site and look for ourselves. During my visit, I again expected to find a situation that would result in the property being somewhat along the beach with a need to open up this thick granite retaining wall that would allow the tide into the property and a further need for making a new drive across the actual sand along the beach before reaching the existing slipway. For those Members that have not been, this is not so. As we all know, the section of wall requested to be opened is near the very top of the slipway and just a matter of yards from a change in the surface, and one would presume, if this is the case around the Island, the start of different legislation and a different authority. I have looked for other possible similar slipways and there is a house at the top of the slip at Rozel, but the weather last week prevented me from getting to the west of the Island to look for others in the far west. Many departments other than the Parish seem to have some involvement. The slipway falls under the control of the Minister for Economic Development with the policing of beaches legislation, and I would say to the Constable of St. Clement that police officers, as they have on any of the Policing of Beaches Regulations offences, other the authorised officers for beaches, be they States or Honorary Police, do have powers to police the Policing of Beaches legislation. The Green Island Car Park falls under the authority of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services and his public places legislation and, of course, today's proposition comes from yet another Minister, the Minister for Treasury and Resources through the Assistant Minister. I took a number of photographs not knowing that we were to be bombarded with photographs of the

site. I walked westward along the beach and found, I think, 8 sets of private steps leading from the beach up to private properties, private homes. I accept these steps do not breach sea defences but are to private homes, however, like others who have also visited, I found a large hole already there, an opening in the sea wall already at a point further down towards and closer to the beach to that of the proposed site and much lower than the proposed opening will be. If there is any risk of breaching, then surely any risk of flooding will start at this opening. Again, I thank the Constable for his explanation of that lower hole yesterday afternoon and to Deputy Baudains who has explained it again this morning. The proposed entry gap in the wall would be considerably higher than the existing breach of the sea defence. I also thought, as one does when in a plane, there can be tense and anxious moments, but the pilot is flying the plane, he knows, or he should know what he is doing and is not going to put the passengers at risk or himself. Is the applicant wishing now to break the sea defences and allow sea water to flood their own new home, their own basement, car parking area and their cars? No, they are not going to do that. They must be satisfied all is safe and have even commissioned their own reports on it. As Senator Le Gresley clearly stated yesterday afternoon, this has turned into a pretty sorry state of affairs for the current owners and even the previous owners before that. How on earth it has ever managed to go on and take officers' and Members' time for 15 years is unbelievable. We have learned and read that apart from the initial encouragement to allow the opening that was subsequently withdrawn, planning permission has since been given to the application as far back as 2002 and that it could have probably been achieved at a minimal cost at that time yet, 10 years later, the owners are still waiting and trying. I am not sure what else the current owners can do; they want to remove their cars from the public car park, and that will subsequently free up spaces for members of the public to use when they visit the area, and for the concessionaire for deck chairs, who is happy to move from his usual location. All the relevant States departments and the Crown have accepted that the entrance proposals are now feasible and apparently all support the proposition, albeit with some conditions. The owners have agreed a sum of money as well as waived their need to call the Honorary Police and the States Police if anyone blocks the entrance, and that would be a selfish driver who would park on an opening to somebody's driveway anyway, the 12-foot opening being less than the length of most

cars; it is not the length of an artic. lorry or a bus. [10:30]

Although there appears to have been some concerns for the lost one car space for the slipway parking, I think there are 73 parking spaces in the 12-hour maximum parking in the car park at Green Island with the approval of the scheme. The plan would allow at least another 2 spaces to be freed-up, because the occupants will be able to park in their own parking spaces at their home, and of course, the public is better off by £63,000. I think the Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources beat the Connétable yesterday afternoon in their reasons, for which I think the Assistant Minister came forward with 10 good reasons for the proposal, and the Connétable unfortunately submitted 7 against. All in all it was a good opening debate. However, there seem to be 2 main reasons why this opening should not be allowed: the possibility of flooding and the danger to pedestrians using the slipway. I think both have been covered with an agreement to disagree with each other. In conclusion, and probably for another day, but I am not convinced that there should be any parking on slipways in any case for those who cannot bother to walk from a car park or find somewhere else to park when going to the beach with the family or just exercising their dogs. What greater danger than a motorist losing control of his or her car on the long west side of the slipway; in fact, on either side of the slipway, while trying to park, driving over the edge on to a family on a beach having a picnic? I have seen and dealt with such accidents on slipways while people are trying to park. Some years ago I dealt with a fatality just a half a mile up the road at Pontac slipway in the same Parish of St. Clement, when a motorist trying to help a friends tried to move a car on the slipway as the tide came up one evening and accidentally drove over the side into

the sea, and was unable to get out of the car in time and died in his car. I recall removing that man's body from the car with ambulance officers. Surely someone coming out of his own private driveway knowing the possible dangers on the slipway is likely to cause less danger than someone who may have driven up the slipway before, as they drive down and try to park, reverse back up or turn on the slip or even on the beach, those that attempt parking as close as possible to the side of the slip or as close as possible to the beach. I am sorry for the Connétable of St. Clement , but I will be supporting the proposition and hope the Connétable and other Members will agree that this is not the start of widespread requests to open up sea defences, it is not setting a precedent but is something that needs to be finally resolved after 15 years of discussion, effort and frustration for everyone concerned.

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

Like many Members, I visited the site and met the family (very lovely people) and I listened carefully and read their papers. I went there wanting to find a way to help them. Of course, having read the papers, my initial reaction was: "Well, I am really unhappy with the idea of what I would call States participating in ransom strips trying to extract money for a right" and £70,000 is a lot of money. I was not comfortable with that, but I wanted to look at the underlying issues. The whole process is a procedural mess-up and it illustrates, as was said yesterday, why we need an ombudsman. Apart from them paying us money, I think it should be the other way round, because they have been messed around for 10 years and spent money and frustration and still do not know where they are. But we have a solution on the table: "Okay, go ahead and allow access on to a slipway on to a very popular beach." That is not a usual thing to do. I read through the comments of the Constable of St. Clement and listened carefully to his speech and I concluded that there is a procedural issue about consultation when the planning process clearly was far from ideal - and that puts it mildly - but I do not think there is anything in the issue of sea wall flooding and so on. We are talking about a property which sits at a very high level above the beach, well up to the level of the car park, and I think those issues are not material. The one issue that troubles me really, and since my visit I am still dwelling over it, is pedestrian safety. I have 3 grandchildren under 5 and, like all young children when they go to the beach, they are excited in the summer, they run back, their attention is not on looking out for vehicles, and I do not think young children coming off that beach would expect to see vehicles exiting from a property on the left, in any event. Of course, we have got a difference in levels here, so a vehicle coming out of that would be partially concealed for quite a long part of its exit. So I said to the owners: "Look, I would like to see some visuals here. I think there is an issue about pedestrian safety" they said: "What do you think?" I said: "I think there is a problem. I do not think the reports we have got in the paperwork are good enough." A lot has been said about T.T.S. issues, but of course, this is not a standard visibility splay issue, visibility splay is about normal roads, traffic travelling at normal speeds. This is about vehicles coming into a pedestrian area where it is a leisure area which is very busy and congested. When I looked at the visuals, I am afraid they did not entirely reassure me because the edges of the new rebuilt granite wall will conceal the car for quite a bit of that period and so somebody sitting in that car would not necessarily see young children at a low level in height running up that slip way. Of course, I did not realise at the time when I made the visit that Constable Norman said yesterday, and it is in his drawing, we have got a concession there as well and so you have got parked cars. So I think that is going to increase the potential for pedestrian risks. So where do we finish up? There are pedestrian risks. In a perfect world this whole business would never have got off the ground, planning consent would never have been given for this until some way.. I wanted to find a way. I have no doubt that the owners of that property, if this is allowed, will take extreme care themselves, but you cannot control their visitors, accidents do happen. So it is a balance of risk. For me, I do not think 2 wrongs make a right and therefore I feel that taking money for it does not eliminate the risk. There is a risk there and for me the balance of risk is not acceptable, so I am not going to support the proposition.

5. Deputy M. Tadier :

Yesterday we heard the value of process. Not wanting to drag-up former debates that we have had, with the minimum wage - I think many of us have our own personal opinions - we are told that there is a group that is set up to look at that, and they come back with a decision, whether we like it or not, and there is no point in micromanaging these decisions. That is what we are doing today. I am certainly not a Member who is best placed to make these kinds of decisions, I do not think anyone here in their capacity as a States Member is, although we do have a Planning Applications Panel. We have got at least one of the owners upstairs listening to this, I imagine getting very frustrated. I imagine Constable Norman is getting very frustrated because essentially he is bringing a rescindment motion; under other circumstances he would have brought an amendment, which means that he could have summed-up at the end and we could have a balanced argument. That simply means that this is definitely not the best form to do that. You would normally expect these things to be done at a panel level where people can come and make their objections, expert advice would be done on safety. It seems to me that there are 3 reasons of concern which one should have, and these have been looked at for the last 10 years and they have been resolved, I think, in the various reports, although there are still some contentions. The first one which is of paramount importance is: is it is safe? By passing this decision today is it going to create pedestrian danger for those pedestrians? Will it create a precedent? I think that is a consideration: it is not necessarily the most important consideration, first of all because you have to question how many properties there are in this specific kind of context where they will require a vehicular access via a slip, which does not already have other access to the property. The other question which has been raised is: is the price right? Let us look at that quickly. If we are saying that the price is not right, we are saying that we do not trust the figures coming from Jersey Property Holdings and the Minister for Treasury and Resources. Of course, that would not be the first time, but we seem to let these things go anyway because of political deference. But if we are really saying that the price is not right, as a political issue, we have to take that up with the Assistant Minister and the Minister for Treasury and Resources, and if we do  not have confidence  in their capabilities and their staff, we do something about it, either by bringing a vote of no confidence or making sure we have a change of personnel there. But that is what they are saying and that is the political solution. It is not the owners' fault, that price. We also have to consider in 10 years, what is the actual increase to the owners of this development? If they had been able to do it 10 years ago, how much money would they have saved? So this is the price that has been put on the table, it is not fair to go back and squabble about that, it is not the prime consideration. Yesterday we learnt that we have a new evangelist in the Assembly for the impending perils of climate change and rising sea levels in the Constable of St. Clement . So he will be leading the fight for the promotion of awareness of climate change and the likelihood of threats in the Island. He will also be leading the fight, I hope, to safeguard all of our sea defences around the Island, not just one on a slip in his Parish which may appear to be a breach, he will no doubt want to make sure that the breach, very close and towards the west of the property, is filled in as soon as possible. Because, of course, that is much lower, that breach, I have seen it with my own eyes, and there are several breaches. The Constable, who is very concerned about the risk of flooding, will no doubt be getting on the phone Monday morning and making sure that is filled in and also other defences. Now, when it comes to road safety, I also expect he will be giving consideration not just to his Parish but La Haule Hill, which is a danger in our area because there is part of the road where accidents are waiting to happen. Pier Road; of course, we all park up there. We see cars coming on the wrong side of the road. I am not sure if Transport and Technical Services are keen on that. I had it flagged-up by a taxi driver, who I am sure is known to both of us, about the issues on there, accidents waiting to happen. St Aubin's

Inner Road, accidents are just waiting to happen. We allow cars to drive on the other side of the road because the parking issues are never resolved in Jersey. So we are completely oblivious to that. Of course, that is not a reason in itself to pass this, we are just saying we must be consistent, and it is amazing more accidents do not happen, I think, in this area. That is perhaps because drivers and pedestrians know of the impending dangers and they generally take the relevant risks, and parents also make sure they look after their children so that they are not running around. The other thing is that these people already have planning permission. Now, the question is if that planning permission is wrong, then where do we go from that? Are we going to overturn a decision that has been made because, if we are, that is significant and I think it is not usually done at an Assembly level, it is usually done through an appeals process. So these are the considerations that I have flagged-up. It is interesting to note the Constable said he received letters from the residents of the area; I would have thought that is a material consideration that the Assembly should be aware of and that he could or should circulate anonymised copies of those letters so that we could at least verify them, because we have Senator Farnham or other people standing up saying: "I have spoken to residents and they are happy about it" (I think it was Deputy Bryans) and we are told that other letters exist. So that would be useful to see. So, in my mind, I am likely to favour the approval of this. I think the owners have been through far too long a period of uncertainty. We certainly do not cover ourselves in glory with these kinds of debates, I do not think it is what we are elected to do, it is not the best use of our time and there are other experts who should be doing this in a completely different context but we are here today to make these decisions. So, really, I think, it boils down to safety. If it can be shown that there is not a risk of safety and there are lots of vehicles already on the slip turning round: tractors, people delivering boats, et cetera. Boats are perhaps even more dangerous when you are doing U-turns, knife-jacking, et cetera, on a slipway. I think generally one has to be aware of the safety issues, and certainly our slipway down at St. Brelade is probably a lot more choc-a-bloc than this slip may be. So I think we just have to put this in context, not an ideal

solution either way, but I am certainly minded to support this proposition.

6. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Into the breach once more. I had to say that. There are few things really left to say, because I think the points have all been made, so I will only be a couple of minutes. I think we could have really stopped this debate after we heard Senator Le Gresley, because I know he is very familiar with the area, I often see him down there when he is dogging or dog-walking or whatever the term is - I had better correct myself - and I am very familiar with the area too, not for dogging, I should point out.

[10:45]

People talk about the safety issue, but let us be quite honest: there are cars parked there all the time, cars reverse up there and the 2 vehicles which are probably going to be moved at the moment if this happens are the vehicles belonging to the people. What is the problem? We are saying that there is a big safety issue; well, I would suggest that there is very little in pulling out slowly from their premises than in someone trying to manoeuvre when they are parked bumper to bumper on the slip. It is not going to be a huge difference. Perhaps the Assistant Minister will clarify when he sums- up, but is there not a speed limit on the slip? I think there is, but I may be wrong. Can that be enforced? We have heard about these visitors that are all going to be there, you know, how realistic is it to say that the safety issue is going to be greatly increased, because I certainly cannot see it, and I have spent a long time on that beach. I think it has been really unfair that people have been muddying the waters by going on about the cost and the benefits to the people and their property by this being allowed to happen. Well, I do not think we should be making profits from people just for opening up an access to parking at a premises which the people have owned for many years and for which, as we have heard, they have been waiting more than a decade to get this resolved. We really should not be discussing this in the States, I do not think. They have been treated appallingly. The flooding issue, well, I think that has is completely overstated and, again, there are many openings all the way round there, right round back to La Mare slip itself. If anyone does get flooded, well, that is going to be the people who own this property, the costs will be down to them, and I really cannot see that it is going to affect anyone else, to be quite honest, there are walls around the property. The time saga, really, as others have said, it is completely unacceptable. It seems to be something about St. Clement . I know this, my parents .. well, I have only got one of them left, lived in the same Parish, were told that they could not put a wall around their property because it would obstruct the view, but they could put a fence. Now, what an irrational decision that was but, of course, 20 years later, it has changed and they are allowed to put a wall; the trouble is it will cost about 20, 30 times, and my father has died since that. Where is the logic in some of these decisions, how can things go on for 15 years? It is absolute madness. I think the Constable has got every right to object to this, but are these problems really going to manifest? Most of us will not park across an entrance, I believe. What is to stop the people putting up a sign saying "Access needed 24 hours a day"? What is to stop them on their own land parking on a yellow line? It is not going to have any meaning in law, but there is nothing to prevent them. Most people will look at a yellow line and common sense will prevail. I think it will; obviously, the Deputy here regularly parks across entrances and yellow lines. I will not name her; it is Deputy Vallois, by the way. I say let us go back to what Senator Le Gresley said at the beginning: these people are not really asking a lot. If it puts a bit of value on their house, the fact of their parking, well, so what. They have to park somewhere now, they are taking up spaces that could be taken by members of the public. If you go down to that Green Island Car Park, you will find the biggest danger is in the car park itself where people, especially some young people, drive round there like absolute lunatics. It is not the slip. I am sure the Parish, somebody, polices that on occasion, especially in the summer when it is busier, so I would urge all Members: let us put an end to this saga and let us get on with discussing some serious issues, whether that is the number 18 bus route, I am not sure, although it is a very important issue for people in the St. Clement area, but it is not what Government should be talking about. So let us just bring this to a conclusion, vote, and let the

people get on with enjoying their lives and their property. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

If I could just add from the Chair, this matter has been going on for some considerable time so I am sure Members who have got something to add will be relatively brief. Senator Maclean?

7. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Sir, I thought it was rather unfair just before I rise that you made that comment. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Purely coincidental.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I can assure you I have no wish to prolong this painful debate any longer than absolutely necessary. I do, however, feel it is incumbent on me just to make a few remarks on the basis that Economic Development, as has already been mentioned, has responsibility for the Policing of Beaches Regulations which, for absolute clarity, includes the slipways. Therefore, there have been a number of concerns raised by officers of the department with regard to this proposal; I just thought I would bring it to the attention of Members. I do not think, frankly, there is anything particularly substantive. The access, once opened, would not provide an ability for the owners to ensure clear access to their property, but of course, as far as I am concerned, that would be a matter for them to deal with. It could, indeed, at times become frustrating if they find vehicles parked across the entrance, but again, it is an issue that they would have to manage themselves. The department is concerned about the deck chair concessionaire having suitable storage. Again, I do not think it is

necessarily a critical issue, but there is a lack of space typically on the slipways and indeed a similar point of access for emergency vehicles down the slipway is a problem when more and more vehicles and other storage facilities are included. It is a problem in other parts of the Island that emergency services do not always have access and, clearly, it is absolutely essential that they do. It does not, in my view, impact directly on this particular decision. I listened to the comments yesterday by the Connétable of St. Clements and I have a great deal of respect for him, particularly as he has just walked in through the door [Laughter] and is standing behind me, but I would just simply say that from a pragmatic point of view and from the point of view of making an observation, 15 years to make this decision, the hour or so that we have now spent discussing it is quite extraordinary. It is not an example of good government at all. [Approbation] If we wish to grow our economy to have these types of debates really does not give us a great deal of hope to achieve that particular objective, we should be concentrating on far more critical issues, particularly in this very difficult economic climate. I would, having taken all into consideration, and despite my regard for the Connétable of St. Clement , urge Members to support the proposition that is before us. It seems to me pragmatic, it seems to me reasonable, let us put this to bed and let us move on to more important matters.

8. Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement :

Most of my points have already been covered, notably by Senator Le Gresley and Deputy Bryans. I too went to visit the owners and the site. I have not met them previously. I was concerned mainly about the precedent of breaching sea wall or sea defences. There are apparently 118 of these precedents around Jersey's coast with one being just to the west of the proposed breach. As for safety, the proposition is for vehicle access to a private home, not a commercial enterprise. It is notably a secondary sea defence wall. As other speakers have said, recently Deputy Tadier , this is not a good use of States time and I also believe that after so many years of frustration and enormous expense incurred by the owners, they should be compensated for their legal expenses accumulated through the prolonged inefficiencies of the decision or non-decision making of this government, previous committees and Ministries.