States Meeting Transcript - 12th December 2017

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 12th DECEMBER 2017

PUBLIC BUSINESS ................................................................................. 4

1. Future Hospital: approval of preferred scheme and funding (P.107/2017) ............. 4 Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : ................................................................. 4

1. Future Hospital: approval of preferred scheme and funding (P.107/2017) - proposal of Deputy R. Labey to defer debate until 30th January 2018 ............................... 4

1. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier : ............................................................ 4
2. Senator A.K.F. Green: ..................................................................... 5
3. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : ................................................ 6
4. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : .................................................. 7
5. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier : .......................................................... 7
6. Connétable C.H. Taylor St. John : .......................................................... 8
7. Senator A.J.H. Maclean: ................................................................... 8
8. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier : .......................................................... 9
9. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter : .................................................... 10
10. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier : ................................................... 10
11. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement : .................................................... 11
12. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier : ................................................... 12
13. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................... 12
14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ................................................................. 15
15. Deputy R. Labey : ...................................................................... 15

2. Future Hospital: approval of preferred scheme and funding (P.107/2017) - resumption .................................................................................. 17

1.2.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):.................... 17

3. Future Hospital: approval of preferred scheme and funding (P.107/2017) - amendment (P.107/2017 Amd.) ........................................................... 21

1.3.1 Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : ...................................................... 22

4. Future Hospital: approval of preferred scheme and funding (P.107/2017) – amendment (P.107/2017 Amd.) – amendment (P.107/2017 Amd.Amd.) ............... 22

1.4.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour: ...................................................... 23

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean: .................................................................. 24
2. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................ 26
3. Deputy S.M. Brée: ........................................................................ 31

4. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary : .......................................................... 32 Mr. R.J. MacRae , H.M. Attorney General: ..................................................... 32
5. Deputy R.G. Bryans: ...................................................................... 33
6. Deputy A.D. Lewis : ...................................................................... 34
7. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................... 35
8. The Connétable of St. Peter : .............................................................. 36
9. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 36
10. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................... 36 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 37 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...................................................................... 37
11. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................ 39 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 39

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 40 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 40

12. Senator A.K.F. Green: ................................................................. 40
13. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ................................................................. 41
14. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................... 42 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:........................................................................ 42 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 43 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...................................................................... 44 Deputy R. Labey : ............................................................................... 47 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 47 Senator I.J. Gorst : ............................................................................... 47 Deputy R. Labey : ............................................................................... 47 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................... 48 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...................................................................... 49

Deputy J.A. Martin: ............................................................................. 50

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 51 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 51

15. Deputy J.M. Maçon: ................................................................... 52

5. Future Hospital: approval of preferred scheme and funding (P.107/2017) - amendment (P.107/2017 Amd.) - second amendment (P.107/2017 Amd.Amd.(2)) .... 54

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):.................... 55
2. The Deputy of St. John : .................................................................. 56
3. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 56
4. Senator A.J.H. Maclean: .................................................................. 56

6. Future Hospital: approval of preferred scheme and funding (P.107/2017) - amendment (P.107/2017 Amd.) - as amended ............................................ 57

1.6.1 The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 58

7. Future Hospital: approval of preferred scheme and funding (P.107/2017) - third amendment (P.107/2017 Amd.(3)) ........................................................ 59

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................... 59 Deputy J.A. Martin: ............................................................................. 59 Deputy S.M. Brée: .............................................................................. 60 Senator A.K.F. Green: .......................................................................... 60Senator A.J.H. Maclean:........................................................................ 60 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...................................................................... 60 Deputy G.P. Southern :.......................................................................... 61

Senator I.J. Gorst : ............................................................................... 61 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................... 61

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : .................................................................... 64
2. The Connétable of St. Peter : .............................................................. 68
3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean: .................................................................. 70
4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................ 72
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 72
6. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 73
7. Deputy S.M. Brée: ........................................................................ 73
8. Deputy A.D. Lewis : ...................................................................... 75
9. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 76
10. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin : ......................................... 77
11. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ................................................................. 78

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

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS 1.  Future Hospital: approval of preferred scheme and funding (P.107/2017) The Bailiff :

We turn to Public Business, Future Hospital: approval of preferred scheme and funding, P.107. I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin :

Might I just say something before we read that? As Minister for the Environment, it will be myself that makes the final decision on the current hospital planning application. As such, and knowing I would always have to make this decision, I have deliberately absented myself from all previous meetings concerning the new hospital. I will be also removing myself from this debate and not voting. To be clear, before I leave, the latest indication from the inspector who conducted the public inquiry is that I will now receive his recommendations in the second week of January. They will be exactly that - recommendations - and I will make the final decision one way or another after that time.

1. Future Hospital: approval of preferred scheme and funding (P.107/2017) - proposal of Deputy R. Labey to defer debate until 30th January 2018

1. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier :

I wonder if I could invoke Standing Order 87(2)(b) and propose a deferral of this debate. The Bailiff :

Standing Order 87(2)(b): "A Member of the States may propose without notice that a proposition listed for debate at the present meeting is deferred to another meeting day." It is in order for you to make that proposition. Do you wish to explain why?

Deputy R. Labey :

We have just heard from the Minister for the Environment the inspector is due to deliver his report in the second week of January. I think it is extremely important that we wait to see what is in that report before we make the decision on spending nearly half a million pounds. [Approbation] We do not have a design. We have a set and a schedule of parameters and those parameters have been changing up until November, indeed I understand that during the public inquiry new parameters were introduced. We have to find out from the inspector whether he believes due process has been followed in this regard. What about the couple who live in Newgate Street who are going to be massively impacted by this building? We have to know if they have had appropriate time to respond to the changing parameters. We do not have a design but we do now begin to appreciate the scale and mass of the building. I want to know if the inspector recommends planning permission be granted what are the mitigating circumstances? What mitigates breaking all the rules over the last 10, 20, 30 years in St. Helier where we have kept buildings in that area to the 5, 6- storey level. This massively breaks those rules. It is a matter of balance for the inspector and the Minister for the Environment. I want to know where they are applying that balance if planning permission is indeed going to be granted and those rules are going to be broken. Then there is the issue of this being - as I say, we do not have a design - an outline planning application. I just cannot believe that those who drew up the planning laws in 2002 and the legislature of the time would have envisaged that a building of this enormity and scale would go through a planning process where they adopt the Rochdale envelope, and it is an outline planning permission with design matters to be sorted out between the department and the developer. So I want to know what the inspector has to say about that because it is quite a significant departure for the Island, and on the biggest capital project that we have ever undertaken. So there are so many questions that we need answering. This House, as we know, is not the place for the determination of planning applications. Rich, coming from me maybe. Indeed, this Assembly will not have a debate on planning issues but it does have the debate, it does have the control on the spending. We should not go and green-light the spending of this amount of money for this huge project without being absolutely sure on all the planning grounds. I think the time for having this debate is when we know if this scheme has planning permission or not. I move the proposition and I would ask that the debate be deferred until 30th January. I know that there have been representations from the Health Department - I did not read it because my computer system was down - but of a time-critical nature. But it is only a matter of weeks to wait and I have to say that for every clinician you talk to who is brave enough to come out publicly and support the scheme there are an awful lot privately who have a different opinion. It is dividing opinions both in Health staff, among us all, and the population. Let us be sure about what we are doing. It is discourteous to the people who made representations to the Planning public inquiry to steam ahead like this, as if we have no regard for it at all. I move the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , can I just be clear? Is your proposition that it be deferred to another meeting day, which would be fixed in the usual way or is it a specific proposition that it be deferred to 30th January?

Deputy R. Labey

It is a specific proposition to defer it to 30th January. The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded]

The Bailiff :

Does any Member wish to speak?

2. Senator A.K.F. Green:

Not surprisingly I speak not to support this proposition. We have spent another 3 years looking at the options available for the Future Hospital. We have spent hours and hours working together as an Assembly at workshops, one-to-one meetings and discussions. The conclusion of those workshops, by a very substantial consensus, was that the current site is the right site, and that is why I believe many Members supported it when we debated that site this time last year. We have always said, and it has never been hidden, that this would be a big building. It has always been said that it would be higher than the current 1980s building and lower than the current chimney.

[9:45]

That has always been there. During the work that has taken place the Rochdale Envelope has changed slightly, and that was on the advice of the Architectural Commission to ensure that the streetscape remained similar to what it is now. So by setting the building back at the higher levels, when you walk along Gloucester Street, when you walk along Patriotic Street, when you walk down Kensington Place, although it will be modern, the streetscape is sensitive and also gave a facility for staff and for patients at about level 4. This is not a planning debate. The site has, if you like, current Health premises on it. The Island Plan has designated this area for Health use. We need, frankly, to be getting on with this. I would urge Members not to accept this referral to put off the debate again and again and again; now is the time to make the right decision for Islanders to support the clinicians. Yes, there are some clinicians who believe that if this does not get through

they can go back to the People's Park. Does anyone believe we can go back to the People's Park? No. This is the right place, the right hospital at the right time. If the planning inspector makes some recommendations to the Minister, and the Minister follows those through, then we have to alter the outline of the building, but within the budget, within the £446 million that will have been agreed. We know where we are going. We need to appoint a contractor, Scrutiny's own advisers, Concerto, said that they rated our scheme as fit for purpose, that it was amber-green,. The only problem they saw is Members' failure to make the decision today, because failure to make the decision today will result in a number of things. Not least that we cannot appoint a lead contractor. A lead contractor that can help with moving the scheme forward in a professional way. Today is the day to have that debate. If we want to air our feelings, get it out there for discussion, let us do that. Let us not put it off for another day.

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

I oddly enough will not be agreeing with many of the comments of the Minister for Health and Social Services. In terms of money, this is, as we have already heard, the biggest capital project ever. It is just under half a billion pounds. This is the only vote this Assembly gets on the matter. That is the crucial thing. If they said they were coming back for a final go I probably would not have a problem with this. This is the only vote we get. The consequences for me, and I do not want to go into planning stuff and potentially if we actually get to the debate, but I am looking at the information we have got in front of us. Now the Minister for Health and Social Services literally just mentioned the Jersey Architectural Commission. Well, in the actual planning inquiry there were some submissions by the planning officer who stated the following: "It is clear that the J.A.C. (Jersey Architectural Commission) were very concerned with some of the fundamental elements of the project. The sheer scale, mass and height of this building remain a major challenge for the design team and a major concern for the Commission. The Commission are still to be convinced that a building of this scale can be successfully integrated into this tight urban site. These views are shared by the Department of the Environment." My concern is if the planning inspector comes back and says: "Yes, in general, it is okay, but you have to take 2 storeys off the top" then that has a major cost implication potentially. I know one of the analogies that is around is Les Quennevais School. I am not going to go into as to whether it was delayed or not. In my head it was, but fine. The result was though that in the Budget that we just approved Les Quennevais School has gone up by 12.5 per cent. My understanding is that was because of the recommendations that came out of that planning inquiry. 12.5 per cent on this scheme is in the order of £50 million. For me, that is probably pretty material because even if it is within the overall envelope that they are talking about, it squeezes contingency down to fairly slim margins, shall we say, before we have even put a spade into the ground, let alone all the other issues. So for me, if the planning inspector, as we have heard, is coming back on 8th January, we have to allow the Minister for the Environment obviously time to absorb it and report back to us, but then if the planning inspector said: "Yes, go", and that is what the Minister comes up with, then a number of these amendments go away and we have a much clearer idea. To be honest, I think the whole thing will have a smoother ride. The other point I would say is, for example, I note Senator Ozouf has lodged an amendment today .. whether it was today or yesterday, but it is on our desks. I will say I was attracted by his earlier amendment. I have yet to see the one that is coming through. The Minister for Treasury and Resources had lodged something yesterday, which is a compromise I understand of the Connétable of St. John . Now I have not had a chance to even consider what the implications of this change is. At the moment I do not like the last part. I have not had a chance to digest that and I notice we have got to give permission for this to come through. That may be secondary in the overall scheme of things but bearing in mind just under half a billion quid, it is not an insignificant item and I therefore think we should be giving it proper consideration, from the point of view on knowing that before we green-light the £500 million - sorry, I will say just under

half a billion, £466 million - before we give the green light to that, because that is what we are being asked to do, as far as I am concerned by part (a) of the proposition. There is no comeback to this Assembly. We should know whether we can build it in what is held out to us by the Minister for the Environment and his officers within the last few weeks. Because if it changes there are some major implications, in my view, to that scheme. It is not a delay of months. I mean if somebody wants to amend it to 16th January, and that is feasible, fine. But at least we will know what the planning inspector is saying. That has to be directly material to this Assembly. I think the 30th is reasonable because that allows sufficient time for the Minister the Environment, it gives him a week up to the 16th roughly, and then it gives us time - maybe if we give him 2 weeks - and then it gives us time to digest the implications. We are not talking months of delay. This is the timetable that the Council of Ministers themselves put together. They are the reason we are in here, in this process. Surely it is not unreasonable for just under half a billion pounds to say: "Actually we should know whether we can build it or not." On that basis I support the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Before you sit down, Deputy , can I just put you right on one thing? The Minister for Treasury and Resources received his permission from the Assembly to have his amendment to the Connétable of St. John 's amendment debated.

4. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

I just want to speak briefly. Some Members have already got into the main debate. I simply want to urge Members not to put it off again. I urge Members to do so for a number of reasons. First of all, I think it has been seductively presented by Deputy Labey of St. Helier . As a member of the Planning Applications Committee he really should be able to leave planning matters to Planning. I know, like him, I occasionally err into the world of planning, but really we have a planning inspector doing work. He is spending his Christmas working on our hospital plans. Frankly, I do not want to spend my Christmas working on the hospital debate because I am prepared for today. I think many Members have. We have had lots of briefings. The material is all downstairs on the presentation boards for Members who have not seen it. The media have highlighted today as the day we make a decision on the hospital. Quite honestly, I think the States has so often in the past been criticised for failing to make a decision. I think we tried to rescind the Esplanade Quarter scheme 8 times before we got on with that scheme. So let us just agree to marshal our thoughts, have the debate about the principle, leave the planning issues for the planning inspector and the Minister for the Environment and the very capable Planning Committee, including Deputy Labey . Let us leave that to them for next year but let us make a decision this week about whether we are going to build a new hospital or not. [Approbation]

5. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier :

Can I just remind Members that we have had 2 other quite large capital projects in recent years, Les Quennevais School, £40 million; Bellozanne Sewage Treatment Works, £75 million; both of which ended up with an inspector looking at the scheme and that happened after we had agreed in this Assembly that we would spend the money and get on with the project. [Approbation] This is a perfectly normal process. What the public do not want us to do today is delay it further. I think the media have criticised all sorts of things about this project already. That is fair. But they have also criticised us today and yesterday about delay tactics. I think absolutely, we should have the debate today, the things that need to be said should be said and we should get on with it. So I would urge Members not to vote for this proposition, as well-meaning as I think the Deputy is being.

The Bailiff :

This is not a debate other than a debate as to whether or not we are going to have a debate. So we are not going to spend all day debating whether we have a debate.

6. Connétable C.H. Taylor St. John :

I speak in support of deferring this debate. There are 3 reasons. Firstly, we have a number of late amendments; one only arrived on my desk this morning. I have not even looked at it. Whether we debate it or not is another issue but we also have an amendment to my amendment, which having discussed it with colleagues, has pointed out a few shortcomings that I had not been aware of. I am now in a position of not knowing whether I should support the amendment to my amendment or not. Secondly, we are in a period of uncertainty. We are awaiting a planning inspector's report and recommendation. How can we approve a business plan which could be basically overturned should the planning inspector find in a different way to that which we hope. Thirdly, we have been bombarded with information. This is one of my greatest concerns. Last year we had the hospital debate on the site, and I hold here the brochure we were given at the time. It shows 12 metres at roadside rising to 36 metres in the middle. The Minister for Health and Social Services spoke earlier. The reason why the middle had gone higher was to make the street side lower. Well it is not. The street side is higher than the 12 metres and the middle is 47 metres; not slightly higher, as the Minister described, but 30 per cent higher. We carry on with misinformation. The front page of the Scrutiny report has a photograph forwarded to them by the Health Department with a photo shop of what it would look like with the new hospital. But it is to the wrong scale. That is inaccurate. That is not correct. We are being asked to debate without true accurate information. I must ask that in keeping the reputation of this Assembly we should defer because if we make decisions based on photo-shopped pictures and incorrect heights we will be the laughing stock of the world, and I appeal to Members to defer this debate so that it can be carried out in an accurate and professional manner.

7. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

The previous speaker, the Constable of St. John , talks about our reputation. I would suggest our reputation for not making decisions is going to be the biggest problem that we will have. How many times have we already not taken the decision on issues that have come to this Assembly and indeed on this decision? We have, since January, been looking at .. or long before January but since January when this Assembly was going to first consider the funding options for this hospital, been looking in some considerable depth at both the funding and indeed the way in which the hospital would be constructed. A lot of additional consultation has been undertaken. Members have been involved in briefing after briefing after briefing.

[10:00]

There is information downstairs for Members to refresh their memories and speak to any officers if they have any residual concerns about. To be using the inspector's report as another reason for doing nothing is simply, in my view, not acceptable. The reason that I say that is because the inspector will carry out, quite appropriately, and quite independently, his work. He will report and he will make recommendations. Now the difference between the hospital project and Les Quennevais School, which was referred to a moment ago, is that there is contingency funding built in to deal with just about any recommendation that the inspector might seek to come up with. If there was a catastrophic change from the inspector's report then indeed that would require a decision of this Assembly, but I can reassure Members that there is considerable contingency built in to deal with any recommendations that the inspector may seek to bring forward. I strongly urge Members, we need to have this debate, we need to make this decision today. There is nothing further that can be done or presented to Members in terms of information that should stop this particular decision being taken and the next step in this important project being undertaken. I would therefore urge Members to not support the proposal that has been put forward to defer until January. I would make one final point: I was disappointed to hear the comments of the Constable of St. John . Perhaps we will deal with that in due course, having met him and he agreed to the amendment that I proposed, but we will deal with that no doubt later. For now, I would urge Members we must continue with this debate.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Can I raise a point of order? Would you please advise me and Members what we are going to be asking to approve? Many Members are talking about the report, but could you please rule whether or not we are approving the report or effectively the recital of the proposition because I think there is some ambiguity? Because the argument seems to be about what is in the report, not the principles of the proposition, and I will deal with my amendment in a second, if I may. Is there any aspect of the proposition that binds us to the report as opposed to the proposition?

The Bailiff :

The proposition binds us also to annex A of the Minister's proposition, so to that extent that is included within the proposition. Otherwise, it will be the proposition with such amendments as are adopted.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Annex A is about just the financial modalities of the Hospital Fund? The Bailiff :

Yes.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Yes. That is the only aspect of the report which we are approving; everything else is just for information and so we are not bound by it? That is the point of order that I am asking for you to confirm, please.

The Bailiff :

No, the proposition refers only to annex A, apart from the contents of the proposition. So what the States are being asked to adopt is the proposition which incorporates annex A in the report, not the report itself.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Thank you for that ruling.

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

I stand because I am not going to be stood here today and be told off by the Minister for Treasury and Resources who has put us in this position. We are in desperation state. Sir, you may have a short memory, but I do not. You had to adjourn this Assembly because the figures did not stack up and it was only a Back-Bencher, the Deputy of St. John, who pointed out that we could be borrowing more than we have in the bank. Then today we are at desperation again and we are told we cannot delay. Well I am very sorry, why are we going out there to ask an independent expert to look at the envelope? I have sympathy, we have done £75 million and we have done £40 million, Les Quennevais School. This, as Deputy Le Fondré said, is £500 million, and I do not want to be voting on the desperation. I want to know why is the Constable of St. John now perhaps not supporting the Minister for Treasury and Resources with the figures. Because we are backed up again; we allowed the Minister for Treasury and Resources to lodge his last-minute amendment which amended the Constable. Have any of us really been through the figures with the people that know? Because we are here today, and nobody can put this off until the end of January, the biggest decision that we will make. As Deputy Le Fondré says, do not think anything is coming back; after this debate, that is it. Yes, of course, we are giving them how many million contingency? Well I

am sure anyone can manage with that - sorry, did someone say something? - £74 million which we have lowered. So, what I am saying is I do not want to vote against this particularly, but I do not what to vote against the hospital project. Somebody is saying: "But do not", but I do not want to be in this position we are in. Why can we not wait until January? Why can we not wait until January? I have not heard anything. All we hear is it is our fault. The Council of Ministers, be under no illusion, have put us here today. We started this debate in March, moved it again, then they had this, well, a magic fairy turned up and said he could lend them the money and have some scheme better. Now again: "Believe me, I have put in a last-minute amendment and, trust me, the figures are correct." Do you really, really want to spend the biggest amount of money to date with half- baked information, promises? I have read Concerto and it is sort of amber-red and it is very consultant things, it could be this, but I do not know enough information, so you force me today to have the debate and I will probably vote against it. So it is up to the Council of Ministers because I think a lot of people feel like that. So you can push for the debate today and you may lose, then you are really up the paddle without a creek or something like that. [Laughter] Sorry, Sir.

The Bailiff :

I would be hard put to find anything unparliamentary about being up the paddle without a creek, Deputy . [Laughter]

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

I think I stand to oppose the proposition principally because since I joined this Assembly in 2008, halfway through I went into Treasury working on P.82 which was the reform of health services. In my second term I was Assistant Minister for Health with Deputy Pryke and this time, along with Senator Green. I have been through all the iterations, all the delays, all the wrinkles and turns and reversals through all that period of time to do with funding, to do with Andium bonds, and all the other things we are discussing around this hospital. I would just like to remind Members that the majority of people in this Assembly, I hope, probably do not go to the hospital very much at all because of the 200,000 people that go to the hospital this year - 200,000 patient visits a year - most of those are babies and O.A.P.s (Old-Age Pensioners). They are the highest number of users. Last week, Thursday, I met with 125 of my parishioners for their Christmas lunch. They said one thing to me: "Just get on with it." They want a new hospital. [Approbation] Yesterday, I met another 125, the other half of my parishioners I could not fit into the hotel in one sitting. They said the same thing: "Just get on with it. Just make a decision. We need, we want a new hospital. That is what we want. Just make the decision and let the planning process run after that on how the hospital looks when it is finished." On the matter that was raised by the proposer of this proposal, Deputy Labey , yes, the staff are divided because they want somewhere else. Why would you not want to move into a brand-new hospital on a greenfield site? They want it on People's Park. We have denied them. We, this Assembly, have denied them, or Members have denied them that opportunity. They have now come to the position of recognising that while they still support the principle of People's Park, they recognise that is not the objective and they are, from the information I am getting from many of them, now behind the position we are in today. We need to make this decision, we need to make it now so we can move forward with the process of getting towards the planning permission and that planning permission will be the final decider of what we do and when we do it. Thank you.

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

I will speak only about the timing of this decision and whether or not to debate today and simply point out to Members, as they probably are aware, there are 2 critical points in the year where we get a build-up of work to do and we come under tremendous pressure to get that work through, sometimes - sometimes - extremely complex work on the nod. Those 2 times are the December

break through to January, this mythical somehow end-of-year which has this impetus with it to get stuff done, as if there is a difference between December - what are we today, 14th December, are we? - 12th December and 12th January when we will have the final piece of the jigsaw ready for us and the same delay in March or in September. That pressure comes on now. The other time of the year of course is the last one in July and I have used that pressure myself. The reason why we have got a discrimination law is because it was put in on 19th January one year and it ended up as last debate on the afternoon of the fourth day and, surprise, surprise, we were all in favour of voting for the anti-discrimination law and it got passed. Now it had merits, and the argument was valid, but nonetheless. Another occasion when we, I believe, made an error, again, it was the December debate and we spent 2½ days - those were the days – 2½ days on the incinerator debate. It went on and on and on and on. When we passed that the thing was: "How are we going to pay for it? How are we going to pay for it?" Pressure was on, this is the last meeting, in the last hours, oh, nod through, let us pay for it all at once. We have got £40 million in the bank, we can do that, and that is what we did. Mistake. Of course, we could have paid it on the H.P. (hire purchase) on the tick. We could have hedged it even, as somebody said; that decision did not make it either. But this pressure that comes around twice a year to get stuff through means that there is a severe, serious risk of making big mistakes under that pressure to see it behind us. I urge Members that I believe that may be happening again. I hear talk of a hospital which is now 46, 47 - 46 metres high? - 47 metres high. News to me. Last time I seriously started thinking about the hospital about 6 months ago, I thought it was done and dusted, and the heights were certainly not that high. Now, putting that massive block in the town, there is an awful lot to the standards elsewhere. Is that the new

height we are going to be building to? I have to ask, but I do not know. The pressure to push things through today could very well, and, I believe, would be a risk of making a serious error in the decision-making process, and I urge Members not to do it today.

11. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement :

I stand in front of you as the chairman of the Future Hospital Review Panel and I am gratified that so many Members, including Ministers, have referred to our report. I think it is important that we put it into context, the comments that have been made. While it is quite right that our advisers, Concerto, gave the overall project an amber-green, we have to remember that the amber-red that they gave at the beginning was: "This is all going to fall apart if you do not get planning permission." That is what they said. That is what they meant and that is why the review panel put as its prime recommendation that the debate be delayed until we had certainty from the planning inspector and the Minister for the Environment.

[10:15]

It is quite bizarre that this Assembly is being asked to debate and vote on a proposition that we do not even know whether or not the hospital, as outlined in the Outline Business Case, and the funding that is being supported by that Outline Business Case, can even be built. This is the biggest project that the Island has undertaken, but, more importantly, it is the biggest decision with regards to health care that this Assembly is being asked to take for generations to come. Surely, if it is a 6-year project and then a lifespan of a hospital of 60 years, what is the big issue about delaying the debate for 3 to 4 weeks to know that what we are discussing can be built where it is projected to be built and of the nature? That is why I feel that we would be wrong as an Assembly to base our final debate on this issue, and I stress the word "final", because it will not be coming back to this Assembly ever if we debate it today and approve it. We are being asked to debate without the full facts in front of us and that is why I feel that we should support the proposition from Deputy Labey so that when we come back in January we know with certainty what we are debating and voting on. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

I do remind Members that we are only considering whether or not to debate the proposition today.

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

I accept that. People have said that the public are critical of the States for delay. There is no doubt about that, they do, they criticise us for it. But they also criticise us for wasting money and, as Members have already said, £500 million roughly, if you accept the figures they can catch everything in the £74 million contingency of £460 million, it could creep up to £500 million before we are finished, or even more. Now the point is, it has got to be the biggest decision, as has just been said, this Assembly will make, probably for years. It is a staggering amount of money and it is one that we have got to get right. Now, the other thing that people are critical of is the fact that we do not examine things properly, our decision making. We very often pass things on the scantiest evidence, very little information or conflicting information. Just look at the Waterfront as an example. We were told so many things about the Waterfront. It was going to be let to a certain level before the thing was going to be built. We were told that there were going to be outside people who were going to be coming in and occupying the premises because there were going to be the highest standard; people from outside. We have not got one person, one organisation, come in from outside. They were all, one way or another, connected with the States of Jersey Development Company, either advisers or some of their people were on the board. We are told all this by the Council of Ministers and many people were taken in by it. The point is, we have got it, they are building it, and we know that there is right even now we do not even know if they are going to make a profit on the scheme or not. Now, this scheme, they have been telling us repeatedly: "Yes, we have got to have it. It has got to be this, and it has got to be that." Now how many of you went to the planning inspector's investigation at the Radisson Hotel? I do not know how many Members went but the day that I went they were discussing the height of the hotel. Not hotel, hospital; hotel might have been better. They were discussing the height of it. Now the Constable of St. John has mentioned 47 metres. What we were told at that inquiry was that the height will come out to almost, within a metre or 2, of the height of the road outside Overdale Hospital. Now just think about that. We have got the hill behind the People's Park and so on, this thing will be that high and almost to a height of the road outside Overdale Hospital. It is a phenomenally large building. It looks like to me, I know there were no windows in the drawings and the model that they had, but it looks to me like we are planting a nuclear power station into the middle of St. Helier . The scale is going to be unbelievable. From the evidence that I heard, I would be most surprised if the planning inspector went ahead with what was being said. Now what we are talking about here is delaying this debate, well, for a month basically, to the end of January. I honestly believe that we should wait until that information is available and then make a decision in the same way. If the debate does not go ahead, I am going to be asking for questions of the Minister for Treasury and Resources about how they arrived at some of their figures. Remember, this project was put forward in 2016 and they have been talking about the same figure ever since. Now inflation and other things are going to cause the cost to go up. I also want to know the basis of how they arrived and accounted for the various risks. So I have got other questions that need to be dealt with; they can deal with them at the same time. All I will say to Members is, yes, the public will criticise you for delay, but they will criticise you more if you get it wrong and we have that amount of money that could be spent on other things in the Island that we have wasted on this particular project. So, I urge Members to vote for the proposition of Deputy Labey and let us delay this until we have got the

inspector's report. Thank you.

13. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I understand absolutely why Deputy Labey is making the point that he did in asking Members to defer the debate on the hospital today. He is following the recommendation of the Scrutiny Panel that there should be a deferral until a decision. Now that decision is not a decision of the planning

inspector, which we heard this morning is probably going to be delivered, the planning inspector's report will probably be - and it is a probable, there is no certainty to that - a probable delivery in the second week of January and then the Minister for the Environment will have to make a decision. The Minister for the Environment will, with such a large project, I have got no doubt, want to carefully consider what the planning inspector recommends. It is the sort of person the Minister is. With such an important decision, I have no doubt whatsoever that the Minister for the Environment will wish to seek legal advice about the implications of a decision one way or the other. I see the Attorney General considering that. I think he needs to do quite a lot of considering because I have got no doubt with such a project he will want to. Why do I say that? Because we know from the history of planning inspectors' reports, how they are framed. There is a recommendation - and this is sometimes what members of the public find frustrating - there is a recommendation, on the one hand, and on the other hand there are actions which can mitigate why one might take a different view. Other Ministers have had to grapple with that and I have been lobbied on various buildings about: "Why did the Minister make such a decision when the planning inspector said A, B, C and D because that was not the full story of what the planning inspector recommended it do." They might recommend not to go ahead or not to give approval, but on the other hand say, if it were lowered 2 floors or lowered one floor or structured in a different way, that might give grounds for the Minister for the Environment to say yes to the application. Members have said there is sufficient contingency in the Budget in order to meet that type of recommendation. So I can see why the Deputy is asking Members not to make the decision today and it is quite appealing. Because other Members have said: "Well, it could be another 3 weeks, another 5 weeks, roughly, is what the Deputy is asking us to delay for, even though we may not know at the end of that 5-week period what the decision of the Minister for the Environment is." He is going to be hard-pressed to have that, but there may be one. Other Members have tried to say: "Well, if the planning inspector says it has to be a floor less, well we cannot do it, there is not the money in place." They know in the contingency there is and some Members that have said that have done their own development projects and they know how development functions like that, throughout the ongoing development things change. You use your contingency for something you never dreamt that you might need to use it for and other areas that you thought were going to be really tricky and difficult you do not need to use contingency for. The developments of this scale - developments full stop - change, they ebb, and they flow. You start off with the very best numbers that you have, but you know throughout a project it is going to change. That is how it works. But the point I want to make is: is the information that we have got in front of us sufficient for us to go ahead and make a decision today? A number of Members have gone, not just from the planning decision, but looked at all the other numbers and said: "Well there is an amendment here and there is an amendment there, there are all sorts of numbers attached to them." The chairman of the sub-panel said that the critical path was amber-red and therefore we should wait for planning permission. But he knows that his advisers said to him there were 3 areas on the critical path that were in the amber-red category, one of which was planning approval. His experts did not say: "Wait for planning approval", they said that was one of the critical path decisions which needed to be taken. But they are not ordered, they are in bullet-point form in that report, and the first one - the first one - the Deputy is shaking his head. The first one is, goodness me, it is not planning approval, it is the Outline Business Case approval, the very decision that the Minister is asking Members to take today or tomorrow, whenever we get to that debate, and I hope we do. That is a critical path decision to make

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

May I seek a point of clarification? Senator I.J. Gorst :

and that is an amber-red critical path decision to make that Members who are concerned about critical path decisions are saying: "Do not make the second decision; therefore, do not make this decision either." There is another one as well that the inspector talks about as being on the critical path and that is contractor appointment for the first stage of the main hospital build contract, so there are 3 areas that are on the critical path. I do not know if you know, I imagine you do, managing, dealing with critical path analysis, dealing with a project, there is never just one item on the critical path analysis that might be red-amber. In complex projects and dealing with complex problems, there are always several, and you cannot take your eye off any one of them and you cannot say: "I will not make a decision on this one", you keep pushing all of them forward, you keep making the decisions to keep the project on track. The same experts, the Scrutiny Panel's experts said their overarching conclusion is that the Outline Business Case provides the States of Jersey in that instance - that is us, we are the decision makers - provides the States of Jersey, however many times Members might wish to criticise the Minister or the Council of Ministers or why we are having to make the decision today, provides us, as decision makers, with a sound- enough basis for decision-making: "We rate the overall project, even though there are those 3 areas which are critical, as amber-green." Some Members are trying to talk about particular areas and say they are red-amber and therefore we should not do it, we should just wait. No, when you are dealing with a project, you manage those areas, you manage the risk, you recognise that they are there, and you do all that you can to mitigate it.

[10:30]

So not making a decision today does not mitigate that critical path, does not mitigate that risk, does not miraculously change those critical path issues into amber-green or green, it heightens the risk. It probably changes that from amber-red to red because one of those 3 critical items we would be saying: "We are putting the decision off." I do not think that is what Members want to do. Some Members do not like the site. I accept that. Some Members do not like the funding mechanism. I accept that but let us have the debate. Let us stand up, if Members do not like the site, stand up and vote against the Outline Business Case and this proposition, and explain to the public why they do not like the site. It is perfectly legitimate. Some Members do not like the massing of the outline planning application, stand up and tell the public that is why they are voting against this proposition. If some Members do not like the funding mechanism, although we are coming to an amendment in that regard, stand up and tell the public why they do not and why they are voting against making a decision, but vote against the proposition. This is not an artificial December Christmas deadline, and Deputy Southern knows that because he has read the professional independent expert's advice, so he knows that is not the case. I understand that it is appealing to wait for a little bit more information, to wait for another decision. Based on the expert's advice, advice that was not given to the department, advice that was not given to the Minister for Treasury and Resources, advice that has not been paid for by the department, advice that has been provided to the Scrutiny Panel, says there are 3 items of critical importance: agreeing the Outline Business Case that the Minister is asking us to do, getting planning approval and instructing the main contractor. It would be wrong for us. The planning issue will be dealt with. If we agree this today, the dependency of instructing the main contractor can take place. By going ahead and making a decision, we turn that amber-red from amber-red probably to amber-green. Let us not turn it to red by not making a decision. Thank you. [Approbation]

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

A point of clarification from the Minister? The Chief Minister said the planning decision can be dealt with. Does he know the outcome of the planning decision?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Absolutely not and it would be completely wrong for any Member to suggest that they did. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

So he does accept that planning risk is high?

The Bailiff :

It sounds like a second speech, Deputy .

14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am going to be speaking very, very briefly. There is one thing that is frustrating all Islanders about this Assembly and I have, certainly since not being a Minister, been shocked at the strength of feeling about one aspect of how we are regarded by the public, and that is the lack of progress and the time that it takes to make decisions. Islanders are concerned about financial decisions and the waste that arises because of delays. In fact, I have been shocked at quite the strength of feeling of the public's anger of the length of time that it has taken to make a decision for the hospital. I will make one quote from Facebook that I saw, I think, about 10 days ago: "The States take an incredibly long time to do anything. They argue about everything. They did it for the incinerator, the police station, housing sites and here we go again with the hospital. I want them to make a decision and then make sure it is properly implemented." I rest my case and I think we should make that decision and implement it and hold the people responsible, their feet to the fire, the Scrutiny Panel, the P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) and the officers to implement it properly and make that decision and, whoever that person on Facebook was, not let them down because that is the strength of feeling. We put decisions off and the public get angry.

The Bailiff :

Very well, Deputy Labey , do you wish to reply?

15. Deputy R. Labey :

I am sorry, but Members of this Assembly who are not in the Executive do not have to sit here and take lectures on delays from the Council of Ministers. [Approbation] The biggest delay was chasing that wild goose on People's Park, and the Minister was told that. As soon as People's Park was announced, there was a furore. He could have stopped it there and then. Why did the Council of Ministers not lean on him and say: "For goodness' sake, drop it, it is not going to happen"? It is not going to happen. It will not wash with the public and we have wasted an awful lot of time with that. Then, as Deputy Martin said, we had the fiasco over the last funding debate which again is not the problem or the fault of Members of this Assembly who are not in the Executive. Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough to the Constable of St. Helier , I am not trying to interfere with the planning, I am trying to honour the planning process. How would you feel, how would Members feel, if they lived in Newgate Street or Gloucester Street or Kensington Place, had made representations to the public inquiry, had taken part in the public inquiry, and their representatives were powering on regardless of what the results of that public inquiry will be? It is very easy for people to shout: "Let us get on with it. Let us get on with it" and get the foot-stamping. It is dangerous on such a big issue, that attitude and fatigue. I know people are fatigued about this debate before it has even started. No one is particularly looking forward to it, but we have got to have it at some stage. But fatigue is dangerous too because it clouds your judgment and you are not thinking straight if you just want to get it over and done with. This is my principal point, that we have to be so careful in this Island and with our processes, with our governance, that we honour the checks and balances in our system. Now the review panel provided one check and balance and whatever the Chief Minister says in his fascinating tour of every combination of traffic light, the result of that review was unequivocal: wait until the public inquiry publishes its results. Unequivocal. The public inquiry does provide a check and balance. It was a long inquiry, it was a full inquiry, a lot of people made very, very articulate and pertinent representations to it. We should wait and see what weight the inspector lends to each argument before we proceed. This is our last chance. This debate is our last chance to influence this and have our say; after that, they are off. Just why are the Council of Ministers getting so heated on this and wanting to be so hasty? What is the problem with 6 weeks? We honour the planning process, we find out what the planning inspector, the independent planning inspector has to say about it, and we learn from it and we proceed. That has got to be - that has got to be - the sensible way forward. The media and the public are very well aware, I heard it on the radio this morning on every news bulletin, that there was a chance that this would be delayed, it is in some amendments, so it is not going to come as a great shock to people. Now we should not act in haste and repent in leisure. I cannot vote for the hospital funding until I have seen a conclusion to the public inquiry, unfortunately. I have steered clear of mentioning anything about the right site, et cetera. I have just confined myself to the issue of waiting until this important check and balance of the public inquiry is completed, and we have that information, and we honour that process and all of those people who took part in that process. I maintain the proposition and ask for the appel.

The Bailiff :

The appel is called for. The debate is whether or not to defer debate on P.107 and the amendments until 30th January next year.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can I just say, I did press the button; for whatever reason it was not recorded. I would like it to be known that I voted against. Sorry, for the proposition.

The Bailiff :

I can announce to Members that the third amendment to P.107, Future Hospital: approval of preferred scheme and funding - third amendment, has been lodged by Senator Ozouf and also that P.124, Hospital catering department: cancel relocation to an offsite location - petition, has been lodged by Senator Ferguson.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I will deal with the machinations of whether or not the States will take a reduced lodging period at the point of which the amendments will be heard. Because my 2 amendments, one is in time and one is not, and so I will deal with that at the time, if I may.

2. Future Hospital: approval of preferred scheme and funding (P.107/2017) - resumption The Bailiff :

Yes, I was going to say we are going to follow the running order which the Greffier circulated last night and your 2 amendments come later on in that period. Very well, Minister, do you wish we have not read the proposition yet. Greffier, will you please read the proposition?

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to refer to their Act dated 23rd October 2012, which requested the Council of Ministers to bring forward proposals for a new hospital, and their Act dated 1st December 2016, which approved in principle the site location for the new General Hospital; and (a) to approve the Preferred Scheme contained within the Future Hospital Outline Business Case with a capital expenditure budget of up to £466 million; (b) to approve, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3(3)(a) of the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005 ("the Law"), the establishment of a Special Fund to be known as the "Hospital Construction Fund" and to approve the Fund's purpose, as set out in Appendix A to the report accompanying this proposition; (c)  to authorise, in accordance with Article 21(1) of the Law, the Minister for Treasury and Resources to borrow up to £275 million towards the construction of the Preferred Scheme, and to direct that the amount borrowed be paid into the Strategic Reserve Fund; (d) to agree that the Strategic Reserve Fund policy be amended so as to authorise the transfer from the Strategic Reserve Fund to the Hospital Construction Fund, drawn down as required, the sum representing the balance of up to £466 million after deducting the £23.6 million already allocated in connection with this project in previous budgets; (e) to agree that the Strategic Reserve Fund policy be further amended so as to authorise (i) that the costs of borrowing and ongoing finance and administration costs related to the borrowing be borne by the Strategic Reserve Fund; and (ii) the repayment from the Strategic Reserve Fund of the amount borrowed in accordance with paragraph (c) above; and (iii) that on the final account of the Preferred Scheme being presented, any unspent monies shall be returned to the Strategic Reserve Fund.

1.2.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

Well I am delighted, after a small hiccup, to be presenting this proposition today on behalf of the Council of Ministers. I should say, following the debate we have had this morning, I understand fully some of the concerns raised by some Members of this Assembly. I hope that in my comments I will give some comfort to those Members. We believe that this is the right solution to fund and build a much-needed new hospital.

[10:45]

Jersey is not alone in facing the challenges of maintaining the health and well-being of an ageing population. Considering this proposal represents one of the most important decisions that Members will be asked to make on behalf of Islanders. It is a proposition that asks this Assembly to approve

the preferred scheme for a new hospital on part of the current site. It includes additional properties on Kensington Place and a new-build support facility at Westaway Court contained within the Future Hospital Outline Business Case. It sets a maximum capital expenditure budget of £466 million, and within this is a maximum level of borrowing of up to £275 million. It also asks for the approval of a special fund, the Hospital Construction Fund, and proposes necessary amendments to the Strategic Reserve. Few people disagree with the urgent need for a new hospital to provide the general and acute care that Islanders require now and in the future. The current hospital has developed piecemeal over many decades and its physical condition, as independently assessed, is rapidly becoming inadequate. All credible solutions for a new hospital require a once- in-a-lifetime investment. Those closest to the situation, our senior hospital clinicians, are urging us to make this decision quickly. They say that commencing the build of our new hospital is now becoming time critical and that any further delays could lead to potentially serious consequences, a view backed by other professionals. We are fortunate to have high-quality, experienced and committed staff working in our hospital, but their message is clear. They are increasingly hampered by the inadequate physical environment of the current hospital. It is affecting their work and their patients. Today is not a debate about whether a new hospital is needed; that decision was made by Members in 2012 when approving proposals to transform the way our health services are provided. It is not a debate about where the new hospital should be built. That decision was made by this Assembly in 2016 after extensive research and consultation. This proposition is asking Members to approve the preferred scheme from the Outline Business Case and to agree the funding mechanism to pay for that investment. The budget for the new hospital is capped at £466 million and covers professional fees, buying the land, the new build, relocating services as work progresses, and the refurbishment of the granite block. It also includes the cost of renting accommodation for healthcare workers until 2020, as Westaway Court will become part of the new development. In terms of funding, we are proposing to borrow up to £275 million through a public- rated sovereign bond. This option has been subject to detailed analysis and remains the preferred option based on professional advice. It is a solution that has received the support of the Fiscal Policy Panel, a group of independent expert and renowned economists. Their view is that borrowing money by issuing a bond is, and I quote: "Sensible in view of the fiscal and economic outlook." The panel acknowledge the risks of this approach, but felt they were, and I quote again: "Not significant enough to require a different approach." The panel said: "This is the best and most cost-effective way of funding a new hospital, given the current borrowing costs and expected returns on the Strategic Reserve." Apart from borrowing, the balance of the funds needed to fund the hospital would come from our reserves, from the excess returns in the Strategic Reserve above the protected value agreed by this Assembly in 2012. £23 million of the total is already available from previously-voted sums. A range of experts have recommended borrowing because of the low cost of money currently available. Furthermore, a low rate can be locked in for the whole period of borrowing, giving important certainty. By fixing the cost of borrowing for 30 years or so at today's low rates, Jersey will be able to use the investment returns from the Strategic Reserve to pay the interest on the loan and to pay back all capital borrowed at the end of the period, and that is based on modelling which is both very prudent and includes assumptions for future investment returns at low levels. Future returns, as an example, have been modelled at half the average historical returns achieved over the past 40 years. The average income from the Strategic Reserve for the last 10 years has been 6 per cent, while the price of a fixed-rate bond is currently estimated at around 2.7 per cent. After consultation and advice from independent investment specialists, we have used a long-term rate of return of 2 per cent above R.P.I.Y. (Retail Price Index excluding Mortgage Interest Payments and Indirect Taxes) in our model. By borrowing at very low rates of interest we can also leave our existing reserves in place where they can continue to grow. The cost of borrowing can be funded from the excess returns on the Strategic Reserve. This is the excess income from the capital amount above the protected level that I have already referred to. Every proposal of course carries some risk, but this makes the most of the low cost of borrowing and is the most cost-effective way to fund a new hospital. The money raised through the bond would be put into the Strategic Reserve and drawn-down to the Hospital Construction Fund under a clear governance structure. This proposal makes the most of our considerable reserves and takes advantage, as I have said, of the borrowing rates and conservative future return estimates. This blended funding proposal means we retain the majority of our reserves which will continue to grow while funding all the interest payments and borrowing. I have always favoured a blended solution, but the blend is now more defined in this proposal. There is more certainty over what we will borrow and how much of our reserves we will use. We have listened to the concerns over the original strategy and we have reduced the maximum amount we will borrow to a sum I have already mentioned of £275 million. In the budgets of 2014 and 2015, Members agreed to allocate £10.2 million and £22.7 million respectively from the Strategic Reserve Fund to pay for the planning and creation of new hospital services. £23.6 million of that funding remains and will go towards the total of £466 million, which is the capped budget. The remaining £442 million comes from borrowing up to £275 million and from the Strategic Reserve providing up to £167 million of our reserves. We propose to issue a sterling bond and that is what our advisers have consistently been saying, and now we have a review panel of advisers agreeing with that position. We have looked at alternatives with our advisers, but the constant message has always been to keep it simple in order to minimise and provide certainty over costs. Timing of the bond is important too. Previously, Scrutiny's advisers felt the bond should be delayed until there was more certainty over costs. We have that now and we have a developed Outline Business Case. Those Scrutiny advisers now recognise that it would seem prudent, and I quote: "It would seem prudent to borrow now before rates go up further." We have been fortunate with borrowing costs so far, but I do not want to take any further risks and miss out on the current low rates still available. I do not want the cost of financing this hospital to be higher than it needs to be, and I know that nobody in this Assembly does either. We understand that some Members and Islanders do not like borrowing, but under this proposal Jersey will still have very low levels of debt compared to almost anywhere else. By borrowing up to £275 million, we would take our debt to G.D.P. (Gross Domestic Product) ratio from its current level of 6 per cent to no more than 13 per cent. To put that into context and as a comparison, the United Kingdom has a ratio of 88 per cent. At this stage of the project, we consider it is appropriate to include a contingency of £70 million within the overall budget. Members will recall this figure was £74 million the last time we lodged a report and proposition and that we are now proposing to build at Westaway Court, and a permanent move for pathology to the new building. The total budget for the project, as I have said, has been capped regardless of the change to contingency allocations. This should provide Members with comfort that in the unlikely event that any additional expenditure is required for the project, it could not happen without a further decision of this Assembly. The money raised through the bond, as I have pointed out, will go directly into the Strategic Reserve. There will be a strict governance arrangement around the drawdown of this money. It will only be released into the new Hospital Construction Fund as requested by the project board, and it will only be moved by Ministerial Decision, which is both transparent and public. The construction costs will be met from the Hospital Construction Fund which will remain in place until any external borrowing has been repaid. This is one of the biggest decisions this Assembly is being asked to make. It is certainly our biggest ever capital investment decision. As such, we delayed this debate to give Members more information and greater comfort around the funding options and also to allow time to develop the Outline Business Case. We have done more work with external advisers and the Treasury Advisory Panel to treat and to test some alternatives. Following that process, the funding solution in this proposal has been very carefully considered and is still the clearly recommended option. The Outline Business Case now provides more detail about what that investment will deliver. We wanted to make sure this really was the best value for money and we believe it is. The business case has been developed to industry

The Bailiff :

Is anyone going to own up to that noise? Deputy R. Labey :

Yes, it was me. [Laughter]

The Bailiff :

Deputy Labey has been

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

How ironic. Perhaps the Deputy would wish his earlier amendment had been successful. It would have saved him £25, is it, these days.

The Bailiff :

Inflation.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I was moving on to the commercial case which sets out the processes and the contractual and procurement arrangements. Then the finance case sets out the financial position of the preferred scheme. The management case details how the delivery of the scheme will be managed, how the enabling works will be controlled, and how the transitional arrangements will allow a working hospital to remain safe while construction continues. I am pleased to see that Concerto, the Scrutiny Panel's expert advisers, have, and I quote: "Found good practice within the future hospital project and within the wider health transformation programme." They go on to conclude, and I quote again: "The Outline Business Case provides the States of Jersey with a sound enough basis for decision making."

[11:00]

They also comment that the 5 elements of the Outline Business Case matched good practice, albeit containing some issues, but none of these are show-stoppers. We will of course, and I would like to give this reassurance to Members, be addressing the concerns that have been raised. As Members are being asked to agree a budget of this size, of £466 million for this project, it is important to understand what that sum of money delivers. When the previous funding strategy was lodged in November last year, the cost of extending Patriotic Street Car Park was not included. That cost is now included and it is still within the £466 million. However, the split between the cost of work and contingencies has changed. The contingency has been reduced by £4 million. That £4 million is now being used to enhance car parking. The £466 million provides not only the budget needed to deliver what is required but also ample contingency. There is an allocation of contingency to cover the planning process demands, including any adjustments to design that could also result from the planning inspector's report when it is published in January. Of course, there are risks with any project; increased construction cost, volatile investment returns and the impact on our Strategic Reserve but our estimates are prudent and professionally verified. They are based on many years of historical data. We cannot eliminate volatility and in some years we may even suffer losses but this is a long term strategy and in some exceptional circumstance, where the Strategic Reserve may be

needed for its primary purpose, we may need to consider adapting the model. We have considered all scenarios. But the debt we are taking on will be matched by the significant asset of a new hospital, something we badly need for our community. When we saw the need to invest in our social and affordable housing stock we issued a bond of £250 million. This investment is now producing more and better quality homes for Islanders. We must not forget that this proposed bond and use of our reserves will provide high quality health facilities for Islanders long into the future. This project will have a well-structured governance framework. All departments involved, Health and Social Services, Infrastructure and Treasury will work together and are working together to ensure the solution is fit for purpose, affordable and delivers value for money. This proposition sets out how we should fund our new hospital. As I have already pointed out, through a blend of borrowing and reserves at a time when borrowing is very low it allows us to ensure that we can retain our assets for the future. Our reserves can grow for the benefit of generations to come. We have to bear in mind there will, of course, on the investment returns that we have assessed, be good years and not such good years. For instance the value of the Strategic Reserve increased by more than 13 per cent in 2016. Definitely described as a good year but our prudent projections for our funding model for this project over the next 30 years or so are at a growth rate of just 2 per cent above R.P.I.Y. and, as I have said, the borrowing rate would be fixed. In conclusion, this proposal makes the best use of the savings we have accumulated over many years and maintains the value of those savings so that we can benefit from those in the future. We have taken appropriate and detailed professional advice and that advice has been also further considered by the Treasury Advisory Panel including its external advisers. They and I believe that this proposal is both well- balanced and appropriate and makes the best use of our strong financial position. Importantly, it avoids the need to raise any charges or taxes to fund the hospital construction. I will close with a reminder from our senior clinicians from the hospital who have told us that they are concerned that any delay or rejection of this proposition could add at least a further year or more to the timetable. We must take this decision and I would urge Members to support this proposition which has gone through a lengthy process of not only scrutiny, internally and externally, but it has given an opportunity for consultation and for Member engagement that I do not think I have ever seen before in a project being proposed in this way and that is absolutely as it should be considering the size and importance of this project. I urge Members to support this proposition and I maintain the proposal.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded]  

3. Future Hospital: approval of preferred scheme and funding (P.107/2017) - amendment (P.107/2017 Amd.)

The Bailiff :

Very well, we now come to the amendment of the Connétable of St. John and I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

1 Page 2, paragraph (a) – After the words "up to" insert the words "£392 million with a contingency of £74 million (as agreed with the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel), giving a total of", and after the words "£466 million" insert the words ", subject to paragraph (g)". 2 Page 2 2, paragraph (d) – For "£466 million" substitute "£392 million". 3 Page 2, paragraph (e) – After paragraph (d), insert the following new paragraph (e) – "(e) to agree that the contingency of up to £74 million will only be released on a case-by-case basis, subject to the presentation by the Minister for Treasury and Resources of a document to the States setting out the proposed expenditure, at least 21 working days before any payment is made;". 4 Page 2, paragraph (e) – Rename the existing paragraph (e) as "(f)", and for the full-stop at the end of the paragraph substitute "; and".

1.3.1 Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John :

I congratulate the Assistant Greffe for reading it so clearly and I hope everybody understood what she said. If I may start by saying I would like to pay very great congratulations to all the officers involved in the production of the hospital to date. I would also like to make it very clear that I am in favour of a new hospital. That said, I am disappointed in certain areas. A year ago I had to resign from the Hospital Working Party Sub-Committee Scrutiny Panel in order to bring an amendment. An amendment that brought in a little bit of safety, a little bit of prudence and a safety net to the scheme. This was subsequently delayed and ultimately withdrawn by the Minister but not before the Minister had agreed to my amendments. It was accepted that what I had put forward was good, sound governance. Very sadly when P.107 came forward it was without those governance, those prudence and those issues that I had put in the first P.130/2016. So what I am basically doing is reintroducing what I had already brought as an amendment and what had already been agreed by the Treasury and that is to separate the global sum of £466 million into the 2 sums of what it costs to build the hospital and a contingency and to try and create some degree of control over the contingency to ensure that it remains precisely that, a contingency. A "what if something goes wrong". A "what if there is an extra necessary cost". Not a bag of money for constructors to raid to fill their own pockets. The second part of my amendment is to try and create a safety net, what if the borrowing or the cost goes over the global sum of £466 million? We have seen it so many times in this Assembly. Something has gone over budget: "Oh, we have got the hospital three-quarters finished. We need another £150 million to finish. Can we please have the money?" Well, you cannot say "no", can you? It is there three-quarters built which is why I have worded what I have worded, is that the budgeted cost at the start of the build if it goes above the £466 million this closes down. We have got to start again because sooner or later we have got to accept that the sum of £466 million is cast in good old St. John granite and that that figure will never be exceeded. But I do not know how to do it because successive Assemblies can just put their hand up: "Oh, yes, we will spend more money" and that frightens me. I also have very great concern about borrowing money. I am pleased to see that the amount proposed has come down from £300 million .. well, originally £350 million, then £300 million and now to £275 million but I feel it perhaps appropriate that one just thinks for a moment: "Why do you borrow money?" There is one of 2 reasons. One is that you are a young family, you are starting out and it is a way of investing into the future. The other way in which you borrow money is because you are living beyond your means. You are spending more than you are earning. There is a case always for the first example, if you are just starting out in life, but this Assembly has been around for a very long time and we are not just starting out as an Assembly. We have been here a long time and so we should have been prudent. We should have been maintaining properties and we should have been looking after our affairs to ensure that we do not need to borrow. I think that is about all I wish to say at this moment other than to just quickly recap that the 2 reasons for me bringing this amendment is to provide prudence and to separate the sum of money between what the hospital is costing and what is contingency to create a safety net to ensure that the project, if is it going to go over £466 million, cannot do so. I will speak later when the Chief Minister makes his amendment as to why I have supported his amendment and what my queries might be.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]

4. Future Hospital: approval of preferred scheme and funding (P.107/2017) – amendment (P.107/2017 Amd.) – amendment (P.107/2017 Amd.Amd.)

The Bailiff :

Very well, we now come to the amendment to the amendment which is proposed by Deputy Maçon and I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Page 2, amendment 1 – Delete the following words – "the words "up to" insert the words "£392 million with a contingency of £74 million (as agreed with the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel), giving a total of", and after". Page 2, amendment 3 – For the inserted new paragraph (e) substitute the following – "(e) to agree that the budget should be up to £392 million with a contingency of £74 million (as agreed with the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel), and that the contingency of up to £74 million will only be released on a case-by-case basis, subject to the presentation by the Minister for Treasury and Resources of a document to the States setting out the proposed expenditure, at least 21 working days before any payment is made;". Page 2, amendment 5 – In the inserted new paragraph (g), for the words "paragraphs (a) to (f)" substitute the words "paragraph (a)"; and for the words "Proposed Hospital site" substitute the words "Planning Application for the new Hospital".

[11:15]

1.4.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

For Members who want to be following my amendment if you have got my amendment and you go down to the last page you would see what it would look like, the whole proposition, if my amendment were successful and sometimes that is an easier way of following what I am going to try and explain to Members. So reading my report Members will know that I did try to lodge an amendment to the original Minister for Treasury and Resources' proposals. Unfortunately it was Budget week and I did not receive approval from the Bailiff and there was not really time to haggle during Budget week with the Bailiff in order to get something acceptable. So therefore another way in was to amend the amendment of the Constable of St. John . So just to explain what I am trying to do with part (e) is still allow the Constable of St. John to achieve what he wants to in the splitting of the funding and how that is presented but through the procedural reasons I had to redistribute how (a) looked and then the substance of my amendment comes to the new paragraph (g) and how that looks. So just to explain procedurally how we arrived at where we are today. So if my amendment were to be accepted part (a) would read: "To approve the preferred scheme contained within the Future Hospital Outline Business Case with a capital expenditure budget of up to £466 million subject to paragraph (g)." New paragraph (g) would say: "Paragraph (a) shall be void and no effect if the planning inspector recommends against the current planning application for the new hospital." So what are you trying to achieve, Deputy Maçon? What is going on here? So, again, it is with the debate we had earlier proposed by Deputy Labey . It is around the aspects of the planning inspector and how the planning process should be kept independent and unfettered. If we approve this planning application my concerns are by supporting part (a) to approve the preferred scheme contained within the Future Hospital Outline Business Case what we are doing is introducing a material planning consideration for the Minister for the Environment to consider and, therefore, my concerns are, if the .. let us start with easiest case scenario. If the planning inspector comes back and says: "I am able to support the site, where it is and what the team are proposing for the future hospital" my amendment has no effect. It all goes through and that is absolutely fine. My concerns are if the planning inspector turns around and says: "I am unable to support the current application", what then? If this is supported it introduces a new material planning consideration whereby it gives possibly the Minister for the Environment the ability to say: "I am going to override the decision of the independent planning inspector because this material consideration of the States approving the funding mechanism and endorsing the business case and

therefore I am going to override that." For me that is a huge concern. For me I am really concerned about that. So, therefore, I thought, how can we take this situation out of the Minister for the Environment's realm and you do that by a new paragraph (g) which is to say it is subject to the planning application so instead of saying: "Because the funding is there I feel compelled to support the application" of saying it the other way round and saying: "No, the Minister for the Environment should make a decision based on planning grounds, based on the independent planning inspector's report and remove this as being a potential material consideration." So what does my amendment also do? I accept with all the arguments that have been going around the funding of the hospital is a different aspect to that of the planning considerations and therefore by deleting parts of what the Constable of St. John is asking for we keep parts (b), (c), (d) and (e), which means that the funding mechanism that the Minister for Treasury and Resources is proposing we keep that. That does not go. That stays as it is. So all I am looking to do is to tie what we are being asked to do, which is approve the preferred scheme contained within the Future Hospital Business Case to that of the current planning application which is going on at the moment. As Members have said, this amendment is now about reopening the debate on the site. It is about the current planning application and I would just like to remind Members that I supported the site which is where the current application is. I went round my district to ask the residents what they thought at the time. Strongly against People's Park and divided about whether it should be on the General Hospital site or on the Waterfront but I just want to remind Members that I supported this site that it is so I am not .. just before any red herrings come out, I am not looking to reopen the debate on the site. That is not what this is about. This, for me, is about trying to keep the independence of the planning decision for the Minister for the Environment so that this does not become a material consideration in the planning process and therefore the Minister for the Environment will be able to make those decisions based on the evidence provided to him on planning grounds which is what I think we should be doing. We know, for example, that the outline proposals will have an impact on St. Helier - I wonder how that might change the town site - but again these are issues which are to be considered outside of this. Again, I would like to pay a tribute to the hospital staff and how they are working. I appreciate that, yes, we do need a new hospital site and I am not arguing that that should be any different but what I am arguing is the importance of the independent planning inspector's report should be unfettered. So I have put the case down now to the Council of Ministers to argue why that should not be the case. Why should this not - a material planning consideration - why should it be allowed to influence the Minister for the Environment's decision and I do not think that should be the case. I hope Members will agree with me that that should not be the case and be able to support my amendment going forward because what it does it provides that safeguard into the system about the current application that is being proposed. It keeps the funding. It does not delay it and, as I said, if the independent planning inspector comes back and says: "I am able to support this site", is able to support the plans this amendment has no impact. If the independent planning inspector says no then it is about how the Minister for the Environment then deals with that and that the funding really should not become a material consideration when the Minister for the Environment is deciding upon the application coming forward. So I propose my amendment.

The Bailiff :

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

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Reading the report to the Deputy 's amendment I understand exactly the points that he has been making. In fact we had a short discussion last night which was also helpful for my understanding of what he was concerned about, which he has very well explained to Members just a few moments ago. But reading the report to his amendment he states the reasoning is to allow, as he has just

explained, the Minister for the Environment to make his decision on the planning application for the hospital after he receives the planning inspector's report and he has concerns about influence that may be exerted in that regard. I think Members will remember that there have been many cases in the past where this Assembly has, for one reason or another, sought to make decisions that have an implication to planning and the planning process and on each occasion the Minister for the Environment, as has been the case here, has withdrawn from the debate, not made a decision and retained his or her independence and that is exactly as it should be. This amendment puts the power to remove all approvals, the preferred scheme and the funding solution, hopefully agreed by this Assembly, in the planning inspector's hands and that is not a good position for us to find ourselves in. Whether this planning inspection application should be agreed or not is in the gift of the Minister for the Environment, as I have said, who has withdrawn himself from today's debate. It is not the inspector and it should not be the inspector to decide. The inspector makes recommendations and is going through that process at the moment and the Minister for the Environment may have good reason to disagree with the inspector's recommendations in due course but this amendment would leave us with no approved scheme and no funding for the new hospital even if the Minister for the Environment were to approve the planning application. There are a few other matters that perhaps I should also clarify with regard to the amendment and that is that it talks of a contingency which is no longer, as I have mentioned in my opening remarks, £74 million. That was the number agreed originally with the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel when the funding strategy was lodged in November 2016. The number of the contingency is now £70 million as per the report and proposition and as discussed a moment or 2 ago. Since 2016 the number for the preferred scheme has been changed as the scheme has developed and funds have been reallocated within the project. Changes, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, include the £3.3 million cost of 2 additional decks of Patriotic Street Carpark, answering challenges from

scrutiny and others around costs not included in the £466 million previously. [Interruption] The Bailiff :

Oh, Senator Ferguson.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Well, we are in the money today.

The Bailiff :

That is doing very well. Every time the Minister for Treasury and Resources speaks somebody seeks to interrupt him. [Laughter].

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

It is the cash registers he generates.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I wish that were the case that every time I spoke [Interruption] .. oh. [Laughter].

The Bailiff :

That is what is called a double whammy, Senator, double time.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I was wondering how long I would have to stand here to raise the money to fund the hospital. The Bailiff :

Quite a long time I think, Minister.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Indeed. I cannot agree to this amendment by the Deputy , despite the fact I understand what he is seeking to achieve and I do understand and have sympathy with the fact that he was seeking to do this another way and was not able to do so. So it is not a perfect fit from his point of view or, indeed I might say, from my point of view. I think the statutory planning process needs to make planning decisions and not this Assembly and I cannot accept this project being delayed because an independent inspector recommends, for example, any number of things, including different shapes and sizes, which of course he is at perfect liberty to do, and to which I have made clear there is ample contingency within the project to manage recommendations from the planning inspector, but that process must be able to  go on in its own right. My amendment to Constable Taylor 's amendment, if agreed, gives Members certainty that the cost envelope is robust and, as I have said, if the planning process creates any material difference, and I mean material difference, because there is contingency that can manage just about any likely recommendation that will come from the planning inspector's deliberations, but if there were a material difference then the amendment to the Constable of St. John 's amendment under (g) makes it clear that the project would pause because it would breach the budget set, and that budget has been capped at £466 million, and that should give Members some comfort that this Assembly would therefore have to make any decisions about any requests for increased funding. The budget of £466 million, which I know the Constable of St. John has strong feelings, should not be breached, and is seeking to do so in his amendment and that is why we have worked with him to try and amend that amendment and provide that additional security and safety net, but Deputy Maçon's proposal here does not, I am afraid, do that. As he pointed out in some detail, (g) is the substance of the amendment that he has put before Members but it will have a material effect if accepted. In particular it will ensure that we do not get to debate the amendment to the amendment of the Constable of St. John and that would leave that particular amendment at considerable risk with the numbers that are incorrect in it and the impact that it

would have on the overall project. [11:30]

I would therefore urge Members to reject Deputy Maçon's amendment that is before us to allow the debate to go on with the Constable of St. John and to therefore put in place and provide a solution to the concerns that the Constable of St. John has and I believe it also has the net effect of providing comfort to Deputy Maçon as well with the concerns that he has. So I would, in that respect, ask Members to respectfully reject Deputy Maçon's so we can consider in more detail the Constable of John's amendment and the amendment to it.

2. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I thought I would try and speak mainly on this amendment and restrain any comments on the rest of the amendments to a very limited amount, hopefully. Starting off, I just want to state these are my views. They do not represent and should not be attributed to any of the panels I either chair or have sat on and I also want to make clear that I was not present at the last time this matter was debated in the Assembly in November last year, mainly because I was at a family bereavement, so I just want to establish what has always been my position on this. Essentially I have always been site neutral. Then when it became clear that the costs that we were looking at .. I was very much for the options that were technically as good, if not better, and £20 million to £40 million cheaper but this is where we are. But then after that my concerns became around about the noise to patients; so cost and then noise and then obviously the funding and the debt; that is not relevant for now. Just to remind people, and this is part of what Deputy Maçon is amending, is that what we are being asked to .. eventually will be asked to approve today is part (a). I will not do Deputy Maçon's wording but the original wording is to approve the preferred scheme, which is why you will find a pack which I shall be talking about, as to the relevance of that preferred scheme and why I think planning risk is very high and that is why I think that Deputy Maçon's amendment, or if not the Constable of St. John 's amendment, is important. It is contained within the Future Hospital Outline Business Case with the capital expenditure of up to £466 million. The Outline Business Case is included in the documentation accompanying the proposition, whether you want to call it a report or not. Equally I might reiterate the points about I recognise completely the hard work that has been done by the officers of the relevant departments involved. To an extent what I wanted to talk about is how we got to where we are and this is why I am concerned and why I think, (a) planning risk is high, and (b) why at the least Deputy Maçon's amendment should be amended. I would like to talk people through this pack because essentially I did become very seriously alarmed at what we had seen, as Members, and what is now part of the preferred scheme. So if we start on page 2 these are the images we all started off with a year or so ago, which came from the videos, and basically they showed, and we can flick through from page 2 to page 3, which shows clearly it is .. I am not sure what you call it. It is a building with lots of gaps in it. You cannot quite see the height but we are also being told at that point it was going to be on the street side of Gloucester Street about 12 metres high. That then evolved into something that was a fairly sharper presentation and depending on your viewpoint might have some architectural merit in the model scheme or not. I am not going there. What I was going to say if one then goes to page 5 we have a sort of thing with lots of green pretty roofs and this is where, just to reinforce the particular issue about height, the granite building as is referred to, which is the building heading up diagonally about 2 o'clock in the site, is very clearly roughly the same height as the thing with the green roof immediately opposite it. There is not a major difference in height on these schemes. We then go over the page to page 6 and this was from June of this year; what was presented to Members is one of the slides and at the bottom it says.. and the wording it says: "Consultation undertaken with planning officers and the Jersey Architectural Commission to test planning policy in support of the outline planning application." Now, the way I read that; that sounded like the J.A.C. were relatively supportive of what had been going on. If one turns the page, I have already read these out, you will see in red the comments that the J.A.C. made. These are directly from the planning officer's submission to the Planning Inquiry and they are in the public domain. You can find them on the relevant website. I will just read out again for the record the items in red, which is .. again, as I said, this is from the planning officer's submission to the Planning Inquiry: "It is clear that the J.A.C. were very concerned with some of the fundamental elements of the project. The sheer scale, mass and height of this building remain a major challenge to the design team and a major concern for the Commission. The Commission are still to be convinced that a building of this scale can be successfully integrated into this tight urban site and these views are shared by the Department of the Environment." Now, the reason I say that, if you then flick back to page 6 and absorb the text at the bottom: "Consultation undertaken with planning officers and J.A.C. to test planning policy in support of the Outline Planning Application." I find that statement in conjunction with the comments in the .. so that statement made to us versus the statements made to the planning inquiry slightly at odds. We then go to this slightly .. I do not know about infamous or famous picture that we have all been shown and I think from memory on the slides we have been shown about 4 images of the hospital, maybe 5. This was one of them. I will flick between this one, the page 9 and page 10 in the pack really just to show where these images have come from and why I am going to say this has been photo-shopped and it has been photo-shopped to a fairly high degree. So if you flick between the .. I will just call it the purple image or bluish image and page 9. Page 9 is a screenshot of what is called Google street maps or street view and if you look carefully you will start seeing some similarities between the street view shot and the photo-shopped version. For example, if one looks at the down ramp, going down to the Grand Hotel where you will see a little yellow traffic refuge you will see a white van behind it. If you look carefully at the night-time shot I think you will see that same white van. If you look at obviously the lamp on the roundabout it is the same style, it is the same lamp but if you look in page 10 you will see the reality of what is presently there at the moment. If one looks again at the down ramp and flick between page 9 and page 8, if one looks on the down ramp you will see the ..

[11:45]

So why, having spent so many millions of pounds, are our highly paid experts putting in .. well, firstly releasing images to us and the public which do not represent the scale and mass of the building and secondly, why were they not sufficiently accurate to go to the planning inquiry which I think was in October of this year, if I remember correctly. In other words, what, 8 weeks ago? Then let us go to page 15. Now, this is one of the other images we have been provided with. This is the one that J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) frequently reports on. I will just take that as read but let us just go over .. just look at the angles on .. we have this building that sticks out, which I will call the plinth, which is again level with the granite building. That is reinforced if one goes over the page to page 16. Again, these are all from the planning sorry, these 2 slides are slides that were presented to us, as States Members, in June of this year. Page 16 very clearly shows that plinth, that building sticking out by Gloucester Street, as being lower than the granite building. This is what we were given. Page 17, next image, hopefully we have seen this. I am not going to the drawings, but Members may have seen an email from, what I would consider, a very respected member of this Island, who has previously had diplomatic experience that came round yesterday. He has made reference to that image and he has put a line drawing above it. I am not going there, because I am going to stick with what we have been provided with and what I can accurately demonstrate. So, roughly, on page 17, the archway is about the same size as the image on page 18. If one looks and flicks between pages 17 and 18, one will start getting a gist of how much higher this building now is. This is the preferred scheme. Now, for me I would say that there is not particularly a correlation between what States Members were presented with in June of this year, and in fact some of the States gov.je website shows the image on page 15 as of August this year and what went to the planning inquiry in October. I am not prepared to make a decision on a huge capital spend on the basis of images that have either been photo-shopped or do not represent the reality of what we are being asked to spend our money on. The Minister for Treasury and Resources made reference to community engagement. Well, of course, the community have seen half of these images that I have just referred to and have not seen that image or the one looking east from Overdale. I think the community would have a fairly different reaction to seeing those images. Now, there has been talk about the delay on the project. As far as I can see, the project had already been delayed. I will expand on that in a minute. This is meant to be 60-year project. If we get it wrong, my children will be in their 70s before it can be corrected. The Ministers have already caused delay through prevarication. We could have had the funding debate in May of this year. It was the Council of Ministers that withdrew that proposition. I go back to the planning risk. The planning officer's submission was very detailed. I have given a highlight; that gives a flavour of what they have said. I have not covered the heritage officer, who is equally scathing about the areas and there were concerns around Kensington Place and the impact on the Opera House and all that sort of stuff. But, the sheer mass of it is, in my view, horrific and not what we were represented with. I would like to touch briefly, because again this is about the proposed scheme, on Westaway Court. This is on the critical path of the whole scheme. Now, I am not sure where we are at present, but we are definitely behind schedule. The design was meant to have been finished on 9th June of this year and construction was meant to have started on 4th September this year. Well, I have not seen any bulldozers going in yet. In fact, I am not even aware if planning permission has been sought. Now, if they have only just recently moved the Path Lab, because in just June of this year that was in the main building, because that was on the slides we were presented with and it is now across at Westaway Court. Because funnily enough the vibration issues, which everybody was saying: "Yes, is that not going to be a problem?" Yes, it is a problem, so that is why they are moving it across. It all seems very pressurised at the moment and that is where mistakes get made. I touch briefly on the scheme, which was mostly raised at the inquiry, in terms of outpatients at Westaway Court. If you are elderly and you cannot park there, and there will be limited parking, you will have to park at Patriotic Street. Certainly speaking from elderly relatives' point of view, there is a concern. If you have to drop your elderly husband at Westaway Court, park at Patriotic Street and then get back, because there are literally 14 spaces at Westaway, it is quite a struggle when you are getting to 80. None of us here are at that level; we may feel it sometimes. So, it does seem to be a moveable feast. What I am going to just touch on, having mentioned parking, because again the Minister for Treasury and Resources referred to this and it is part of the scheme. The Minister for Treasury and Resources very kindly pointed out that now they have introduced the costs for Patriotic Street. Yes, for the extra couple of levels on there. If you look at the Design Access Statement, I think it is, at present the public car parking in Patriotic Street is roughly 10 floors. In terms of availability, even though we have added floors, that will be reduced to 5½. Okay? We will lose 4½ storeys of public parking. That is per the Design Access Statement on the planning website. It is not all going to patients. Patients roughly do not have 1½, they have one and an eighth or something, if you try and work out the green rectangles or however they have shaded it. They maybe get 1½ or one and three-quarters. The rest of it will be staff parking. That is what it is showing on the application. That is fine. The point is, there are a lot more people working down that end of town, therefore, what are we doing on the parking front? Because that has been an issue all the way down the line. We are removing about 4½ storeys of public parking. I have an issue, I will just put it on record; compulsory purchase is an issue for me. I am not sure if I could support compulsory purchase of properties, if it ever came to that, for a scheme which in my view is more expensive and is going to cause a lot of disturbance to fragile patients and have a huge impact on St. Helier by being so overbearing. What I will say is it is our duty, in my view, to ensure that States money is being well spent. It needs to be a scheme that we are proud of and it has to be affordable. If we end up with something that is an eyesore and costs more than it should, and I am not talking about whether it is within a generous budget of just under half a billion pounds or not, then we will have failed on all counts. Now, I have talked quite a lot about the mass of the building, the scheme that is being proposed, and as I have said, in my view, it cannot be acceptable that part of our decision-making is based on an image that has clearly been photo-shopped. It is based on other images that do not show the mass of the building that has been presented to us as being fit for approval. I have talked about the cost element, because that is where it ties back into the planning position and why, in my view, Deputy Maçon's amendment needs to be supported and if not then the Connétable of St. John 's. Until we know what the outcome of that

3. Deputy S.M. Brée:

This is a very, very important amendment brought by Deputy Maçon. I commend him for doing so. It gives us a second opportunity. The States Assembly voted this morning that they did not wish to wait or defer the debate, so that we could debate something with knowing the full facts. So, effectively what Deputy Maçon is doing here is putting in that final clause (g), which basically is saying: "Paragraph (a) shall be void and of no effect if the planning inspector recommends against the current planning application for the new hospital." That is vitally important that we have the

ability to put a brake on things, to slow things down, to revisit things. Now, it has been suggested that by voting for this we are handing over responsibility for the decision-making on whether or not we are going to have a future hospital to the planning inspector.

[12:00]

It could not be further from the truth. The reason that I agree with this amendment and the reason why I think it is very carefully thought through is that the planning inspector recommends against the current planning application. We know that the planning inspector will only make a recommendation to the Minister for Environment. However, we also know that there is huge political will among the Council of Ministers that this be rushed through, that this be pushed through. So, to use their words: "We can get on with it." One would then wonder whether the Minister for Environment would follow the lead of the Council of Ministers and believe that there are extenuating circumstances why the planning inspector's recommendation should be gone against. I do not want this decision, which is the biggest capital project we have ever entered into, is going to affect generations up on generations to come, to be decided because of the political will of a Council of Ministers. That is why I think it is important that we support this amendment, because it gives a point in time where, if the planning inspector recommends against approving outline planning permission, we, the States Assembly, get the ability to revisit the issue again, without it being steamrollered through by a Council of Ministers, who seem to be rushing headlong into this without even really understanding the concerns of some of the Members of this Assembly and certainly the concerns of the members of the public who spoke very eloquently, very well researched and very knowledgeably at the inquiry. Now, surely our role here is to listen to the public. We hear very often that the Minister for Health and Social Services tells us: "The public are just telling me to get on with it." Well, either he speaks to a completely different section to the public that I do or we do not really seem to be understanding what he is trying to tell us. Because the public I speak to say: "Yes, we need a new hospital." I think we all agree we need a new hospital. But, the question is not: do we need a new hospital? Nor is the question: why cannot this States Assembly make a decision? The real question is: is this the right decision to be making? If we do not support this amendment we will not get the opportunity to discuss this again. We will be handing over the whole project without even a thought, without even questioning. What happens if? That is the question. What happens if? Nobody has an answer to that. I think it is important that we do support this amendment, because it gives us that opportunity to re-examine the whole project. If the planning inspector comes back and recommends that the Minister for Environment does approve the planning application then we have lost nothing. We have not lost time. We have not lost money. Hopefully, we have not lost the support of the public in this very, very important project. That is why I recommend all Members to serious consider supporting this amendment for all the reasons I have stated. Thank you.

4. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary :

I have certain concerns regarding paragraph (g) of the amendment, which perhaps the Attorney General might be able to assist me on. As now drawn it says: "The earlier paragraphs should be of no effect if the planning inspector recommends against the current planning application for the new hospital." I envisage that the planning inspector might come to a decision which says: "I cannot recommend the application as currently is, but I would be prepared to make such a recommendation if there were certain variations. Would the Attorney General care to comment as to how the amendment would be construed if the decision was on those lines?

Mr. R.J. MacRae , H.M. Attorney General:

This is perhaps more a question of fact than a question of law. But to assist the Deputy : as he has drawn to our attention, the amendment proposed by Deputy Maçon provides that paragraph (a) should be void and of no effect if the planning inspector recommends against the current planning application for the new hospital and in order to determine whether or not that amendment, if accepted, takes effect, there would need to be an examination of the decision of the inspector to see whether in its terms it was a conditional approval or a refusal. So the terms of the decision itself would need to be examined to see if the inspector was saying effectively a yes, so long as A, B and C are complied with, or a no, for the following reasons. So there would need to be an assessment of the decision of the inspector to see whether or not it amounts to a recommendation against in the terms of this amendment. I hope that clarifies the position for the Deputy .

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Could I ask, in light of that advice, the Attorney General to consider the determination of the planning inspector in the Les Quennevais School case in the first instance and what effect this amendment would have had, had we had a similar amendment in that regard?

The Attorney General:

I would need to have the decision in front of me, which I do not at the moment, but I can certainly respond to that later on today.

Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier :

If I could help perhaps with regard to Les Quennevais? The Bailiff :

It seems to be it is a matter of law that was being put to the Attorney and so if you wish to speak then you can speak after the Deputy of St. Mary has finished his speech.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

I am grateful to the Attorney General for his advice. With respect, I am not sure it does help me too much, it does leave matters slightly in the air. My concerns remain that the planning inspector might say: "Not as is, but maybe if A, B and C were amended" and, if the Minister then sought to approve subject to A, B and C, whether that would come in the terms of Deputy Maçon's amendment or not. I am still, I am afraid, uncertain as to the effect.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , is your question whether the Minister for Treasury and Resources has the ability to commit to a borrowing between now and the planning inspector's recommendation, is that what your question is, under the Public Finances Law?

The Deputy of St. Mary : My question is that, if the .. The Bailiff :

If this is adopted. Because, if so, that is a legal question that one could put to the Attorney and he can give us some advice on it.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Sorry, forgive me, I am unsure ..

The Bailiff :

It clearly is not your question. That is fine. Deputy Bryans.

5. Deputy R.G. Bryans:

If I can help the Assembly at all, I will just reflect on the situation that we found ourselves with Les Quennevais. In fact, with reference to Deputy Le Fondré with his concerns about photo-shopping and the design of a building, I too had come across this. I have previously been on the Planning Panel and had recognised that when you get an outline what happens is architects then provide various degrees of illustration in that regard with different perspectives and different outlines, and some of what Deputy Le Fondré is referring to is absolutely correct. Different people have different points of view of how a certain things look. But these are just outlines, in fact they do not say that this is what the final building is going to look like, and in fact in terms of Les Quennevais that is exactly what happened, the original drawings, I was not particularly fond of, and it had some elements of it I was not too keen on. But through the process of what we did, going in front of the planning inspector and everything else, all of these issues became ironed-out and I will go through those in a second. Just referring to Deputy Le Fondré's notion that things are photo-shopped, he refers to the building looking like a nuclear site. Well photo-shopping works in 2 ways, you can make all things look like all sorts of things and when you look at the very final page of his illustration you have this monolithic block that does indeed look like a nuclear station. I have no doubt that by the time the process is gone through here in terms of looking at the inspector and going back to the architects and redesigning the building in the way that we want it, massing aside, it will not look anything like that final illustration on Deputy Le Fondré's document. So, to go back to Les Quennevais, I think if this was the consideration of Les Quennevais before us instead of the hospital, and with reference to Deputy Maçon, and I stand to be corrected by the A.G. (Attorney General) here, but Les Quennevais would be somewhat thwarted at this point in time because the way it happened with the inspector in Les Quennevais was that he looked at 2 aspects he was very concerned about and said: "On the basis of those 2 aspects I would have to give a refusal." Subsequently, a great deal of work was done by lots of people, including an independent architectural commission and revisiting the architect's original designs, to get to the point when it was presented to the Planning Panel they, with their great sagacity and wisdom, saw that we had identified and reduced the effect of the concerns raised by the inspector and permission was given for the build to go ahead. So I think in answering some of the questions, just to be clear about it, so in the Les Quennevais case the planning inspector came back and said; "I refuse this particular application because of 2 concerns that I have." Those 2 concerns were then addressed, new drawings were submitted, new views were given, and the Planning Panel allowed it to proceed. I do not say that would be the particular same case in this site, but I think that addresses the Deputy 's concerns.

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

If I could ask the speaker to clarify, just with the Les Quennevais thing, will he confirm that after rejection a fresh and new application was submitted to the panel, which addressed the concerns with the previous planning application?

Deputy R.G. Bryans:

Yes, that is right, so what you have is the opportunity, post the planning inspector's decision, to rectify the very problems that arose.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Can I ask for a point of clarification, just for the Minister to note that he made reference to an illustration on the back of the pack and that particular image is directly from the planning application, it is not an illustration, and, yes, it is about massing, but I have been informed from Planning that is one of the few images we can rely on in terms of the application that they are considering at the moment.

6. Deputy A.D. Lewis :

I am delighted the Minister for Education has stood and clearly outlined the process that happened with Les Quennevais School, which ended up being a very good one, and that is why I do not think we should be fearful of what the inspector is likely to do. I am not wishing to pre-empt that at all but the process is right and it is a good one. But what I rise to speak about is I am a St. Helier Deputy and of course some of my residents live in that very great district and would be concerned about the look and feel of the building, and not least how it might impact on nearby buildings and streets. But overriding that, my bigger concern, or rather my main issue, is when you are in bed and you are sick and you are really not well and your family are distressed, do they really care what the outside of the building looks like? I am not sure it is a top priority. I am not suggesting that we should ignore everything regarding outlying planning permissions and bulk and everything else, and I am sure we will get on to that in a later debate, but to get hung up at this stage as to what it is going to look like when the most important decision today is about funding and doing the project. That is the most important thing. You are not going to lie there sick wondering and worrying about the colour or the look of the building on the outside when you are in this what I hope will be a wonderful fantastic facility. The outline given on page 18 that Deputy Le Fondré referred to is what it is, it is a big block, and that is what outline planning permission looks like when you make the application, it is the massing and that is why it looks not that great. All the other work is going to be done later on.

[12:15]

If you impose restrictions at this stage in the manner that has been suggested in Deputy Maçon's proposition in terms of the contingency, then if something does go terribly wrong with the design process, which we all hope it will not, we have some experience in some recent times where that has not happened - Les Quennevais School is an example, and I do not believe it is a major issue - but, if it is an issue, you have one hand tied behind your back if you put these types of restrictions on what you do with your contingency. We have a recent good track record in coming in on time and on budget with 2 quite large recent projects, St. Martin 's School and the new Police Station, well managed from Property Holdings, well-delivered, on time, on budget. I know they are much smaller schemes and the Deputy is quite right that if the same percentage overspend that Les Quennevais experienced the numbers will be much greater when you have a building that is costing you 10 times as much, I accept that. But also my understanding here is that, if we accept Deputy Maçon's perhaps well-intended proposition, it then makes it impossible for the Minister for Treasury and Resources, who we understand is prepared to accept the Constable of St. John 's proposition. So therefore I would urge Members to vote against this proposition, as well- intentioned as it is, because what indeed the Constable of St. John is trying to achieve, which I understand the Minister for Treasury and Resources is largely in favour of, that opportunity will be lost. So I would strongly urge Members to vote against this well-intentioned amendment so we can get on to the main debate and many of the things that have been articulated already by Deputy Le Fondré and I am sure will come up again with other Members, that is the time to have that discussion, but at the moment we are talking about this one amendment. I am concerned it ties hands unnecessarily but I want to hear more about what the Constable of St. John has to say and what the Minister for Treasury and Resources has to say about that amendment, not this one. So I would urge Members to vote against it.

7. Deputy R. Labey :

Let us not forget that the Les Quennevais School application was not an application for outline planning permission, the design was in front of the inspector and the public and anyone else who wanted to contribute and make a representation. The inspector went with the most controversial area of the application, which was building on a green field, but he was scathing of the original design. So the Minister went with him, refused it, and another application arrives at the Planning

Committee with a new design for Les Quennevais School. The difference between the design that was approved and the original one is immeasurable. So the process worked because we have a much, much better building for Les Quennevais School than we would have. My issue with this is the nature of the Rochdale Envelope here that this is an outline planning permission, so just the scale and mass, without any reference to design. Those are reserved matters and we should be afraid, we should be very afraid, Deputy Andrew Lewis , about what the building might look like. I mean it is hugely important what it looks like for St. Helier , breaking, as it does, so many rules. I think that is a big worry. I think Deputy Maçon's argument is quite persuasive in that respect and I would just like to mention that this process now, and the Attorney will correct me if I am wrong, this public inquiry process is the end of it as far as the respondents are concerned. It is the end of the line. They cannot, as with the Planning Applications Panel, then challenge that with a third- party appeal, which goes before the independent planning inspector. It is all happening at once, this is the system, and unless they want to take an action in the Royal Court I believe that they cannot then have another third-party planning appeal. This is why I feel it is so important that people are listened to and that is what I was trying to get at with my original proposition, because this is the end of the line for them. It is unlikely that people living in Newgate Street, Gloucester Street, might start to take a Royal Court action. I think that is unlikely. So this is the be-all and end-all for them and that is why it is so important. I just wanted to make that point and make sure everybody knew that this is the end of the line.

8. The Connétable of St. Peter :

I am just motivated to stand on a couple of items, which have concerned me in the last couple of speeches. I think I was rather troubled with Deputy Le Fondré's speech, I was not sure what he was debating because I thought we were debating the funding rather than what the hospital may or may not look like going into Lewis Street, floors of parking on Patriotic Street Car Park, for example. But I think one of the most important things I would like to just quickly pick up is from the last speaker, Deputy Labey , when he spoke about the second planning application that was made for Les Quennevais School, and if I can just quickly read a note from the planning officer dealing with the hospital project, his comments to me are: "Today's debate is akin to a private developer having a board meeting to conclude their approach to financing and in normal circumstances this would have been absolutely of no relevance to the consideration of a planning application by a regulator." We are here today to decide on the Outline Business Case, not a planning application, an Outline Business Case and the funding methodology for that, as if we were a board of directors acting on behalf of the people of Jersey.

9. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I am going to quite brief, really just adding to something Deputy Labey said. He mentioned that this is the last chance and I agree with him. He also mentioned that the residents in the area might try a legal route and try to challenge it that way. The truth of the matter is, we know darn well that members of the public cannot afford to go to court. The cost of going to trial on anything is prohibitive and ordinary individuals on this Island are left without any justice. We saw in the paper, I think it was the other week, a lawyer charging over £1,000 an hour; the others are probably between £300 and £500 and you have to earn a fortune basically to be able to afford spending money on that type of thing. The public are looking to us to make decisions and to protect them if they are being abused, so I would urge Members to support Deputy Maçon's proposition, which I think is a sensible one, we should get the information from the inspector and, as he has already said, if he comes out in favour then nothing has been lost. I say please support the proposition of Deputy Maçon.

10. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I am just trying to double-check the situation with regard to Deputy Labey and whether an appeal against the planning application, because this is an outline planning application, which is different to a designed planning application, whether there does not remain at that point the ability for individuals under the normal Planning Appeals Law or not, I think that would be a useful confirmation. I am grateful to the Deputy who indicated when I asked the earlier question of the Attorney General that he accepted the result of this amendment would be that, if the planning inspector recommends that the Minister for the Environment does not approve the outline application, that he would expect a further outline application to be delivered. The concern I have with that is that his amendment also makes the Outline Business Case, as I understand it, the entire proposal null and void. That does give me concern because then it is not simply a matter of revisiting the outline planning application, but it makes the entire process potentially null and void. On top of that, of course it puts the decision into the hands of the independent planning inspector, whereas the law puts the decision in the hands of the Minister for the Environment and I think there is a conflict there, which causes difficulty. I also understand that this decision today to approve the Outline Business Case and the funding, while the Deputy is right to say it is a material decision, it is not a determinative decision that the Minister would use as a determinant factor. The Deputy is questioning that. That is the advice that I have received, so I think we just need to be mindful of that as well. So I think we just need to be mindful of what we are trying to deliver in accepting this proposal and I think that perhaps what we would be doing, if we are not careful, is, not just throwing out the outline planning application, but everything that is before us today, and then of course therefore bringing an indeterminate length of delay into the process. But if the Attorney General feels it is a matter of law; he may not, he may feel it is a matter of fact, for any clarity that he might bring.

The Bailiff :

The clarity that you are requesting is on whether accepting this amendment would have the effect that the whole of the proposed scheme is lost?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Initially, I was asking whether at the planning application stage, picking up on the point that Deputy Labey made, those who would normally be able under a third-party planning objection, be able to continue in the normal process under the law or whether that is lost in the way that Deputy Labey has suggested.

The Bailiff :

That is a legal question. Attorney, are you able to help the Assembly? The Attorney General:

I need to look into that and respond in a moment by reference to the law. The earlier question that the Chief Minister asked me in relation to Les Quennevais is right, of course in that case the inspector did recommend refusal on 2 conditions and in those circumstances, if there was a similar provision in that case, then the matter could not have proceeded.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Can I seek a clarification from yourself, in terms of what part (a) of the proposition means, because my reading of it is that it says: "To approve the preferred scheme contained within the Outline Business Case." My reading is therefore to me the preferred scheme is what is, for example, outlined on page 74, 75 and onwards of the Gleeds report. So the argument, I would suggest, some people are saying it is just a funding decision, my understanding, if we are approving the preferred scheme, we are approving basically what is being proposed that is going to go there. It is not just a funding matter.

The Bailiff :

It is a matter, Deputy , that I have been considering myself. Could I ask the Minister for Treasury and Resources whether there is anything in your proposition that defines the preferred scheme, because I could not see anything. All I saw was on page 3 of the report, a reference to: "The preferred scheme is a new-build hospital on a part of the current site with additional properties in Kensington Place, new-build support facility at Westaway Court, contained within the Future Hospital Outline Business Case with a capital expenditure budget of up to £466 million." That is what I understood the preferred scheme to be and therefore, if the planning inspector or indeed the Minister for the Environment rejects what is currently put forward, the preferred scheme can still go ahead because all it is is a new-build hospital on the current site with additional properties up to that capital expenditure budget and one would need to get planning approval for whatever revised proposition comes forward in the usual way. That is what I understood it to be. But there is no definition of "preferred scheme" other than that penultimate paragraph on page 3 in the report.

[12:30]

Senator A.J.H. Maclean: Yes, I would agree with that. The Bailiff :

On that basis, Deputy , I took the view that what is in the Gleeds Outline Business Case is an explanation of what Ministers would like to do but it is not part of the proposition because the preferred scheme is what is defined to the extent it is in the report. So, if the planning inspector does not approve the current application or the current proposal, or makes a recommendation that it should not be approved, then that would be a matter that the Ministers, as the body taking forward the proposition for the new hospital, would have to consider if the Minister for the Environment has not approved it. It may lead to a change in the way in which the hospital is designed or constructed, but the preferred scheme is still approved for the purposes of this funding proposition; that is to say £466 million for a new-build hospital on the current site and the adjacent properties.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Thank you. The reference to the Outline Business Case therefore is not that relevant. The Bailiff :

I must admit I did not take that as being a key component of what the States were asked to approve. It is a description, if you like. It may be the basis upon which Members are being asked to vote, but I did not see that it prevented Ministers from moving away from the Outline Business Case description if they were so advised.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: Thank you.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I may be thick, but I am not 100 per cent sure on what you are saying. I am looking around the room here. There is a lot of people thinking about what you have just said. We need to think about it and to be suddenly thrown into this now to make a decision is rather difficult.

The Bailiff :

The preferred scheme is set out as the penultimate paragraph on page 3 of the report: a new-build hospital on part of the current site with additional properties in Kensington Place and a new-build support facility at Westaway Court. The description of what is in the scheme is contained within

the Future Hospital Outline Business Case and it has a capital expenditure budget of up to £466 million. The proposition seeks the approval of the preferred scheme contained within the Future Hospital Outline Business Case with that capital expenditure budget, but it did not seem to me, on reading the Outline Business Case, the totality of that was being written into the proposition. The preferred scheme, I thought, was only the new-build hospital on part of the current site with the Future Hospital Outline Business Case setting the parameters as to what the Minister's intent is. That is the way I read that proposition. I cannot put it any more simply than that. So, in other words there might be some changes. As a matter of common sense, one cannot imagine that, at this stage of the process, there would be no changes to the way in which the building will be developed over the next 5 years.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

It is just perhaps a query for the Attorney General. According to .. The Bailiff :

Is this a speech or a question for the Attorney?

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I suppose it is a bit of both.

The Bailiff :

Very well, then I am writing you down as making a speech.

11. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I thought I would do it without having to ping my telephone at the same time. The Planning Law says in Article 12(6) - it is talking about public inquiries - and it says: "A person aggrieved by a determination by the Minister under this Article may appeal against the determination to the Royal Court only on a point of law and for the avoidance of doubt no appeal arises under Part 7", which is: "An appeal must be made within a period of 28 days beginning with the date of the determination." So am I correct in understanding that, when a Minister calls a public inquiry, then the general public have no power to bring any inquiries except on a point of law after the determination of the inquiry? In other words, as Deputy Labey said, we have no public right of appeal or question or comment or anything else once the determination has been made on the Minister's review?

The Attorney General:

Yes, the Senator is correct in what she says under Article 12. This is an application for outline planning permission. That leaves the planners with reserved matters, but those are matters that are reserved by condition attached to the permit or permission, and in those circumstances the only appeal would be the appeal to the Royal Court by any person aggrieved by a determination. I do not think that extends to third parties - I will confirm that in a moment - and it is only an appeal on a point of law to the Royal Court after the Minister has made his decision, having regard to the view of the inspector. Of course there would be judicial review available in the usual way against a decision of the Minister, which any interested person could seek leave to pursue.

The Bailiff :

Do you wish to continue your speech, Senator? Senator S.C. Ferguson:

That was the point.

The Bailiff :

So it was a speech or it was a question, I am not sure? Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I will carry on with it. Yes, I am sorry, I agree with both the amendments that are being proposed and I will be supporting them.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Sorry to indulge your patience on this, could I refer you to page 95 of these reports, which does define: "The preferred option 4 is now referred to as the preferred scheme."

The Bailiff :

Yes.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

So, on that basis, I think the preferred scheme would be defined as option 4, which is what starts on page 74 onwards, and therefore has certain details in that scheme and there will be changes.

The Bailiff :

There will inevitably be changes.

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

So then the point being then this debate is more than just funding. The Bailiff :

Members will take into account whatever they think ought to be taken into account in this debate, but certainly the paragraph (a) asks Members to approve the preferred scheme, which is the new- build hospital on the part of the current site with a capital expenditure budget of up to £466 million. So by approving the preferred scheme clearly it is more than simply a question of funding. I am sure everyone would like to adjourn at this stage while we think about what has just been said.

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

The Bailiff :

The States will now stand adjourned until 2.15 p.m. this afternoon. [12:39]

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

[14:19]

The Bailiff :

Now we return to the vote on Deputy Maçon's amendment. Does any other Member wish to speak?

12. Senator A.K.F. Green:

There seems to be some confusion, at least I felt there was some confusion before lunch, on what we are debating today. Anybody listening in would be forgiven for thinking this was a planning debate, which it clearly is not, and nor is it meant to be. Members are being asked to agree the Outline Business Case and the funding strategy for the future hospital on the site agreed by this Assembly. The amendment to the amendment before us at present, if accepted, will, in the event of a recommendation from the independent inspector for refusal, remove the legally elected Minister for the Environment from the process. That is bad enough; that is dangerous, but furthermore paragraph (a) falls away, along with it the Outline Business Case and the funding. The safer option is that of the Constable of St. John 's amendment, as amended, because it allows for the approval of the Outline Business Case and funding with the proviso, for those who want that little bit of insurance, that if the planning process throws up significant changes, which results in a cost above the budget of £466 million, then the matter must come back to the Assembly. On that basis, I urge Members not to abdicate their responsibility, to reject this amendment and accept the Constable of St. John 's amendment as amended.

13. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I did not understand when I saw this amendment how an amendment, which is clearly in order, effectively can change what has been a policy decision of this Assembly to set up a process for important planning applications, which is that there is an inspector and a report is given to the Minister and the Minister then makes a decision. What effectively we are being asked to do, there is effectively an overriding of my understanding of the Planning Law, not an overriding or something that is simply this Assembly is basically making a decision to move away from what we have agreed as a policy of this Assembly that is the normal course of action. I have just wondered over the lunch adjournment whether or not that is appropriate. I spoke to Deputy Maçon and we had a very good conversation and I said to him: "When I first saw it, I felt great merit in it, and then I considered the Planning Law and what we had agreed and then I found that it was in fact contrary to effectively the established principle of what the Planning Law said." So, with great regret, while I absolutely understand the motivations and the well-intentioned motivations of Deputy Maçon, and the concerns that Members have about the application, and I have been lobbied like many Members over the weekend with different places and pictures of different things and all the rest of it, and I went on the Planning website and looked at it myself. I would say that I have confidence in the process and the law, which we set up. We have set up an arrangement that there is a public inquiry, an inspector's report, and this Assembly has no doubt placed the confidence, because there is confidence in Ministers unless they have votes of no-confidence, and I have confidence in the Minister in balancing whatever the criticisms are made. There is one further observation I would make. I questioned the officials who are dealing with this matter as to whether or not there really was a problem with this planning application. They did not reply, but what they did say, and I looked then on a number of inspectors' reports from other planning applications, is what I would expect from an inspector and I think that we can expect from this inspector is, if there was a problem, this is a matter of national importance to Jersey, there is an urgency in it, and there is a budget that this Assembly is going to express and say what that is. What an inspector does normally, from what I can see, under normal circumstances, is work within those parameters. So what I am expecting is, notwithstanding the concerns, the valid concerns that some Members have, is I am expecting an inspector to come forward, if there are problems they are going to be documented, but then solutions are also going to be presented in that report, and that report is also going to be respectful of this Assembly's decision that there is a certain budget and an inspector will make those decisions with those constraining factors. For that reason I urge Members to respect the policy decisions that we have taken previously in approving a Planning Law that takes out Ministers from making certain decisions and putting experts in where experts are needed, but ultimately that are overseen by democratic consent. The democracy of it is that this Assembly has delegated to the Minister for the Environment that final decision and this Minister for the Environment, if I may say so, has a difficult job. But in all the Ministers for Planning and Environment that I have seen in this Assembly in the last 18 years, this one has been probably the least unpopular of any of them, and that speaks volumes for the work and the diligence in the way he goes about his work. [Approbation] So for that reason I have confidence in the Minister for the Environment and I have confidence in the process and I have confidence in the law that we