States Meeting Transcript - 10th February 2020

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 10th FEBRUARY 2020

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS ........................... 5

1. Appointment of the Chair of the Privileges and Procedures Committee ................ 5

Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier : ................................................................... 5 Senator I.J. Gorst : ................................................................................ 5

1. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier : ........................................................... 5

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : .................................................. 6
2. The Connétable of St. Helier : .............................................................. 7
3. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ........................................................ 7
4. Deputy J.M. Maçon: ....................................................................... 8
5. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier : .......................................................... 8
6. Deputy I. Gardiner : ........................................................................ 8
7. Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen : .................................................. 8
8. The Connétable of St. Ouen :............................................................... 9
9. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier : ............................................................ 9
10. Deputy R.J. Ward : ...................................................................... 9
11. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ................................................................... 10
12. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : ............................................... 10
13. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet : .............................................................. 10
14. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier : ................................................... 11

2. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ................................................ 11

1. The Connétable of St. Helier : ............................................................ 12
2. The Connétable of St. Helier : ............................................................ 12
3. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 12
4. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 12
5. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier : ...................................................... 13
6. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 13
7. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet : .................................................................. 13
8. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet : .................................................................. 13
9. Deputy I. Gardiner : ....................................................................... 13
10. Deputy R.J. Ward : ..................................................................... 14
11. Deputy R.J. Ward : ..................................................................... 14
12. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : ...................................................... 14
13. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................ 14
14. Deputy J.M. Maçon: ................................................................... 15
15. Deputy J.M. Maçon: ................................................................... 15
16. Senator T.A. Vallois: .................................................................. 15
17. Senator T.A. Vallois: .................................................................. 15
18. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ................................................................... 16
19. Senator L.J. Farnham : ................................................................. 16

20. Senator L.J. Farnham : ................................................................. 16
21. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary :....................................................... 16

2. Appointment of the Chair of the Planning Committee .................................. 20

Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade : ............................................................ 20 2.1 Connétable P.B. Le Sueur of Trinity : .................................................... 20

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 21
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 21
3. Deputy J.M. Maçon: ...................................................................... 21
4. Deputy J.M. Maçon: ...................................................................... 21
5. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 22
6. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 22
7. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................... 22
8. Senator K.L. Moore : ...................................................................... 22
9. Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier : ................................................... 22
10. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ...................................... 23 Deputy M. Tadier : .............................................................................. 23 Deputy J.A. Martin: ............................................................................. 24 Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : ............................................................ 24 Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter : ................................................................ 24 Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade :.............................................................. 24 Deputy M. Tadier : .............................................................................. 25

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption ................................................................ 27

3. Residential Properties in the Waterfront Development (P.165/2020) - as amended (P.165/2020 Amd.).......................................................................... 27

3.1 Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 27 Deputy J.H. Young: ............................................................................. 29 Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: .............................................. 29

1. Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement : ........................................................ 29
2. Deputy L.B.E. Ash of St. Clement : ...................................................... 30 The Deputy of St. Mary : ........................................................................ 31 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 31
3. The Connétable of St. Helier : ............................................................ 32
4. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 33
5. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence : ..................................................... 34
6. The Deputy of St. Peter : .................................................................. 34
7. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................ 34
8. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 35
9. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 36

4. Draft COVID-19 (Island Plan) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.168/2020) - as amended (P.168/2020 Amd.).......................................................................... 39

1. Deputy J.H. Young (The Minister for the Environment): ................................ 39

1. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................... 41
2. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 42

2. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 44
3. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 46

1. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................... 46
2. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 46

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 47 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 48

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS ....................... 48

5. Appointment of the Members of the Privileges and Procedures Committee .......... 48

1. Deputy C.S. Alves (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee):...................... 48
2. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:................................................................. 48
3. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : .......................................................... 48
4. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 50
5. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 51

6. Appointment of the Members of the Planning Committee .............................. 51

6.1 The Connétable of Trinity (Chair, Planning Committee): ................................ 51

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ................................................................ 52

7. Draft Taxation (Companies – Economic Substance) (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.172/2020) ........................................................................... 52

1. Senator I.J. Gorst (The Minister for External Relations):................................ 52

1. The Deputy of St. Mary : .................................................................. 52
2. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 53

2. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 54
3. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 55

1. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 55
2. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 56

8. Skatepark at Les Quennevais Sports Centre (P.1/2021) ................................ 57

1. Senator S.W. Pallett: ...................................................................... 58

2. Skatepark at Les Quennevais Sports Centre (P.1/2021): amendment (P.1/2021 Amd.) .............................................................................................. 63

1. Deputy H.C. Raymond of Trinity (Assistant Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture - rapporteur): ............................................... 63
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 66
3. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 66
4. Deputy I. Gardiner : ....................................................................... 68
5. Senator T.A. Vallois: ..................................................................... 68
6. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier : ................................................... 69
7. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement : .................................................. 70
8. Connétable R. Vibert of St. Peter : ........................................................ 71
9. Deputy K.C. Lewis : ...................................................................... 71
10. Deputy L.B.E. Ash: .................................................................... 72
11. The Deputy of St. Mary : .............................................................. 72
12. Deputy G.J. Truscott: .................................................................. 73
13. The Connétable of St. John : ........................................................... 74
14. Deputy R. Labey : ...................................................................... 75
15. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ............................................................. 75
16. Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour : .................................................. 78
17. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 80

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 83

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS

1. Appointment of the Chair of the Privileges and Procedures Committee The Bailiff :

The first matter this morning follows on from the appointment of Deputy Labey as Minister for Children and Housing. That means there is a vacancy for the role of chair of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee). In accordance with Standing Order 118, I invite Members to make nominations for this office.

Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier :

I take great pleasure in nominating my vice-chairman on Privileges and Procedures, Deputy Alves , for the post. She will be known to Members because she has worked on a record number of policy development boards and across Scrutiny Panels. I am sure I do not need to tell Members what a fantastic asset she is to the Assembly and she would do a great job.

The Bailiff :

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Other nominations, Senator Gorst ? Senator I.J. Gorst :

Yes, I would like to nominate Constable Jackson of St. Brelade for the position of chair of P.P.C. This is a very important role taking over from the previous chair. It is a time when we are looking to deliver reform and change and a number of those pieces of work need to be continued. It is extremely important that balance and bringing the Assembly together remains a priority but equally bringing the Island together, which are skills that I think the Constable of St. Brelade enjoys and will bring to the role.

The Bailiff :

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Then in accordance with Standing Order 118(3) I will invite the candidates to speak and answer questions in the order in which they were nominated, and that of course will start with Deputy Alves . Candidates will speak for 10 minutes and then Members will have up to 20 minutes to ask them questions. The Greffier will ring a bell when the candidate has been speaking for 10 minutes to signal that time is up. When candidates have made their speeches and answered questions we will take a recorded vote and the candidate who receives more than half the votes cast will be appointed. In accordance with the normal rules then, when Deputy Alves is speaking and being questioned the Connétable of St. Brelade must not be present. Therefore the position will be that the Connétable will be asked to leave the meeting and will be contacted by a member of the States Greffe and will be brought back into the meeting when the process dealing with Deputy Alves has been dealt with, and then the same will operate in reverse after that. Connétable of St. Brelade , could I ask you please to leave the meeting? I will just wait for the Greffe to confirm that we are in a position to continue. Obviously because we are operating remotely it takes a little bit of time because not only has the Connétable to leave but a member of the States Greffe has to telephone and make contact with him at this point. We will move on to deal with the speeches when we are certain that the rules have been observed. Yes, the protocol has been complied with. Accordingly, Deputy Alves , you may speak for 10 minutes followed by 20 minutes of questions. The timer will start now and a bell will ring when your time is up.

1. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier :

Over the past 2½ years I have had the pleasure of working closely with Deputy Labey on P.P.C. as his vice-chair. I would like to congratulate him on his recent appointment and thank him for all the work he has done. Filling his space will be no easy feat and I sincerely hope that with the Chief Minister's backing he will be back on P.P.C. to continue to support the good work that was started. Working on the subcommittee looking at implementing the E.O.M. (Election Observation Mission) recommendations has been the highlight of my work on P.P.C. so far. Putting together various proposals to bring forward for more equitable electoral districts, seeing this work evolve and working with Members from across the Assembly as well as taking part in Parish roadshows and communicating these proposals to the public was interesting and enjoyable. At times it was also frustrating when the numbers did not add up and we did not always get the results we were hoping for but I am glad that we were able to adapt and bring forward a compromise on our original proposals, which the Assembly agreed to pass, after decades of electoral reform standing still. This is an outstanding achievement for us all and I am keen to have this legislation brought back as soon as possible for final approval. I thank Members wholeheartedly for their support in achieving this. I am also excited to bring forward the remaining changes to the Public Elections Law, which I hope will be done in time for the next election. Having successfully completed the C.P.A. (Commonwealth Parliamentary Association) Election Observer programme and more recently the one-year Professional Development Certificate in Parliamentary Governance run by McGill University has given me a good understanding of best practices for democratic legislators and an insight into areas that we need to work on as a parliamentary body. Areas such as support for Members when dealing with constituents, communications and professional development. During my election campaign and since being elected I have been vocal about the importance of ensuring the public are informed of our electoral system and the working of the Assembly. I was shocked but not surprised that Jersey was ranked one of the lowest for civic engagement in all the O.E. C.D . (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries. Having been born here and raised here I knew there was very little in the way of political education on the Island and this is why I asked to set up the Political Education and Awareness Sub-committee of P.P.C., which I chair. The work done on this committee really needs to be pushed forward in the final 16 months of this term if we are serious about achieving better voter turnout and engagement. Although COVID has presented us with challenges in this area I will be making this a priority if I am elected. All Members work extremely hard and I know that non-Executive Members especially often feel there are less resources available to them therefore it is vital that P.P.C. continues to build on and strengthen the fantastic work already being undertaken by the Greffier Department in providing support to all Members. Provisions for accessible resources and training for Members needs to continue to evolve so that our Parliament is given the tools to function at its best and given the importance it deserves.

[9:45]

COVID has presented us with many challenges this past year with us all remote working and many of us having not physically been in each other's presence for months. I have strived to support and assist Members as much as possible during this difficult time and I hope I have shown that I am able to work with all Members regardless of our politics. As an Assembly we have had to adapt, reach compromises and meet tight deadlines, and we have done so in an exceptional manner. I hope that Members will entrust me with the role of P.P.C. and I hope that I will be able to advance the work that is undertaken by the committee and achieve the best outcomes for our Assembly Members and the public.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Deputy . There is now 20 minutes of questions to you. The timing starts now.

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

The Deputy will know that St. Helier residents are under-represented in the States. Even with the reforms that have recently been agreed St. Helier will have 13 votes in the Assembly of 49 when we know that it has at least a third of the population. Could the Deputy say what she will do if she is elected chair of P.P.C. to continue to make sure to work towards a state where everybody in the Island has the same power at the ballot box as each other?

Deputy C.S. Alves :

I thank the Constable for his question. As I am sure the Assembly are aware, we recently approved some electoral reform although, like the Constable says, it probably does not go far enough for St. Helier residents. The Assembly has made its decision and I will not be seeking to overturn that at this stage. In that proposal, the Assembly also approved the Jersey election authority body to be set up so that going forward things like this would be looked into by that election authority, which will be completely independent from the States Assembly. I think that is a real important key to ensure that any electoral reforms going forward are taken seriously because it can often be seen that Members are maybe working in their best interests when looking at electoral reform. So I hope that when the legislation is brought back for the election authority that this is approved by the Assembly, as it has been agreed in principle last year.

2. The Connétable of St. Helier :

Would the Deputy agree with me that with thousands of new units destined for St. Helier the situation of voter inequity is only going to get worse with each passing year and an Assembly that refuses to deal with this lack of equity can fairly be described as gerrymandering?

Deputy C.S. Alves :

I thank the Constable for his follow-up. This is quite an emotive subject and I would agree with the Constable in that the population is ever increasing in the centre of St. Helier and that the system does need to be looked into, to ensure that there is voter equity across the board. We will also have the Boundaries Commission that will be set up to look at that and I hope that with the Census coming forward there will be more evidence to support any possible changes that there might be proposed by that commissioning body.

3. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

May I ask the candidate, as she will know that during the reform debate into larger constituencies I have expressed concerns about the cost of running for election and its particular impact on young people and people from poorer backgrounds, I wonder whether the candidate has any plans to address these concerns?

Deputy C.S. Alves :

I thank the Deputy for his question. Yes, this is something that we have looked at. Obviously the concern that the area that will now be covered by some of the new districts is significantly larger than it was before for some of the candidates that will be standing. I know that Guernsey, for example, gave all of their candidates that were standing for election a set amount of money to help them with this. I think there are other options that can be explored. For example, providing a facility where the candidates can have their leaflets delivered to everyone in the district through the Greffier Department. I know that obviously we have had the vote.je booklet in the past, which is great but it is limited in what .. candidates are limited on what they can put into that booklet and I think that you often cannot get a sense for what a person is truly about and what they stand for from something that is generic. I would like to see maybe some kind of provision that would allow candidates to make sure that their leaflets are distributed to everyone in the district. Failing that, the other option would be to have their leaflets uploaded on to the vote.je website. Obviously everybody's leaflets are different and it does communicate an aspect of that candidate that cannot be communicated or put across to the public in just a simple 500-word blurb.

4. Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I thank the candidate for her response.   Therefore, when putting together P.P.C.'s bid to the Government Plan for next year, given that it is an election year, would the candidate be proposing funds into that process in order to cover any of these ideas?

Deputy C.S. Alves :

I have been in talks with the Assistant Greffier about this. There might be the need to ask for some more money however I am hoping that getting rid of the need to put across the volume that used to be produced before of the vote.je booklet will be reduced significantly. So that might reduce the cost of producing that, for example, and that could be redirected to distribute the leaflets, for example. Uploading the leaflet on to the website, I think the website is there so it can be still utilised. There are also savings to be made if, for example, automatic registration comes in as things like letters, for example. There will not be a need to put out letters to every single household.

5. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier :

I would like to ask the candidate what are her views and maybe plans about the letter register being automatic.

Deputy C.S. Alves :

I thank the Deputy for her question. This is a workstream which is currently underway. The aim of this register is that it will draw on various databases that are currently available within Government and it will become an automatic process so that when members of the public reach the qualifying period to be able to vote they will be automatically put on to this automatic register. It will be an electronic register. It will be centrally populated but it would still be administrated by the Parishes, which I think is really important, as this was something that the election observers highlighted as a positive when they came to observe us in the last election.

6. Deputy I. Gardiner :

Is the conversation ongoing with the Parishes to bring the workstream together? Deputy C.S. Alves :

Yes, I believe that the Parishes have been included in all of the work around bringing forward the electronic register. This is why we still want them to administrate it and have oversight of it. I am hoping that with this electronic register it will make things easier for candidates as well. I believe we had the Deputy of Grouville , who brought up the issue that the electoral registers at the moment are in very different formats across the different Parishes, so this will mean that the register will come together in one format and hopefully it will be a lot more accessible for any candidates who wish to stand. There is also the issue that we need to look at as to how accessible we want to make that electoral register. I know that in the U.K., for example, there were complications around businesses getting access to that information and using it for marketing purposes, which is obviously something we want to avoid. One area I have not mentioned is the opt-out system for the electoral register would also still exist for the same reasons that it currently exists as well.

7. Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen :

If I could just ask the candidate, could she please set out very briefly, because I realise time is limited, her views on the Constables retaining their seats in the Assembly going forward? I know this was decided at the last vote on this subject but clearly it could easily come up again. I am just keen to understand what her position is on this.

Deputy C.S. Alves :

I am sure, as Members are aware, I obviously campaigned for one type of States Member only however I think the public have spoken and also the Assembly has spoken as well. I think it is really important that the Constables are seen as the heart of the community and they do play a role in the Parishes. I think that as long as the public believe that the Constables should retain some kind of role within the Assembly then that needs to be respected.

8. The Connétable of St. Ouen :

I thank the candidate for her clear expression of her views. Could she also just express a view on the recent introduction of "none of the above" as an option on the ballot paper and what her views on that are?

Deputy C.S. Alves :

I am not sure if Members were aware but I think I was the only one out of my party that voted in favour of that. I understand that there are some difficulties around the "none of the above" option. Obviously if the "none of the above" option wins we need to look into what would happen there. However, I did, during the election campaign, hear a lot from the members of the public that one of the reasons that they often did not vote was because they did not want to vote for any of the candidates and they did not want to spoil their ballot paper. I think in the interest of increasing voter turnout and voter engagement, I supported the idea of having "none of the above" and I look forward to seeing how that pans out in the future.

9. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier :

Can I ask the candidate what actions she has taken to increase her knowledge since being elected of the areas around P.P.C. and governance and what she would feel would be useful for Members of the Assembly to undertake in terms of their own personal development and professional development?

Deputy C.S. Alves :

I thank the Deputy for his question. I mentioned in my opening speech that I have taken part in the one-year Professional Development Certificate in Parliamentary Governance, which was set up by C.P.A. and run by McGill University. I think it is a shame that this is not open to all Members. It is specifically designed for new members joining Parliament but I think that there are areas in that that are definitely worth maybe putting together a bespoke programme for all Members and giving all Members access to that. I think talking more widely, I would like to see more events run by professionals or experts in different fields. For example, I know that many Members attended the briefing on attracting a more diverse range of election candidates, which might have been last month, I think, or beginning of this month, which was organised by Deputy Doublet as the chair of the Diversity Forum. I had a lot of positive feedback from that. I think that this is the kind of thing that should be put on more often for Members so that we can look at more professional development opportunities.

[10:00]

10. Deputy R.J. Ward :

I was going to ask what type of ideas for training. Can I ask the candidate, does she believe that perhaps areas such as training in developing media skills, et cetera, is something that should be offered to States Members?

Deputy C.S. Alves :

Yes, absolutely. I know that personally having come into this role and never been in contact with the media it was a very daunting thing and it is definitely an area that we can evolve. I know there have been a couple of sessions run before because I attended a one-day one regarding working with the media. But I am very open to hear Members' ideas and I think anything that makes us more productive as an Assembly and more confident in the way that we work needs to definitely be explored and looked into.

The Bailiff :

I will just mention there are a large number of Members who still wish to ask questions and we are into our last 5 minutes.

11. Senator S.Y. Mézec :

Since returning to the Back Benches I have found it very frustrating dealing with States Members resources and, in particular, the computers in the States Members facilities in the Assembly room, which are appalling and take about 3 hours to log into. If elected, would this candidate offer to discuss with States Members how facilities could be improved for them, so that we are able to do our jobs and be able to print things off and things like that, just because that is something that has caused me a lot of frustration recently?

Deputy C.S. Alves :

Yes, and I thank the Senator for his question. I am always open to Members issues and I think one of the things that we could do is maybe put together a survey to look at improving the facilities that we currently have. I think it is really important that Members time is used productively and waiting around for old computers to boot up is not a productive use of time. I have to say that I did go into the States building the other day and I noticed that some of the screens, for example, had been upgraded but I think the machines have not been upgraded necessarily. I think this just highlights that I would like to see our Parliament given the same level of support and importance and urgency when it comes to upgrading equipment, as is given to government departments. Because in my opinion, first and foremost, we are all Members of Parliament before any of us become Members of Government and so we should be given the same level of support and resources.

12. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour :

I would like to ask the candidate, I am quoting a phrase from the proposer of the other candidate, who said: "Balance and bringing the Assembly together is important." I would like this candidate to explain how she would do this and how she would do it in as inclusive manner as possible.

Deputy C.S. Alves :

I thank the Deputy for her question. Obviously it is very important that we have representation on the panel, which is as representative as possible from the Assembly. I will state now that I would like the committee to stay as it is as much as possible I think for continuity. We have worked really well as a team and there is a good balance there of gender and interests as well. We have not always agreed and I think that is really important because it is often how we disagree that pushes us forward. But I am sure the Deputy is aware that I have been involved in numerous policy boards, for example, and I am not afraid to talk to anyone and ask for ideas from anyone. In fact I welcome that, I think it is really important that we get different perspectives on issues because different people see things in different ways and that always needs to be taken into account.

13. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

How would the candidate involve the wider Assembly who are not necessarily members of the committee?

Deputy C.S. Alves :

I thank the Deputy for her question. I think that P.P.C. has various sub-committees that are set up to bring Members together. I would encourage Members to take part in those sub-committees because those sub-committees often form part of feeding back into things that we discuss as the main P.P.C. committee. I think that would be a way of bringing Members together and also things like surveying Members for looking at Members support, which has been mentioned before. I think that is really important as well.

The Bailiff :

Deputy Southern , there may be a chance for an extremely swift question.

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

I will try, Sir. What concrete steps will the candidate take to improve voter participation in our electoral process?

Deputy C.S. Alves :

I think the key to this is informing the public, keeping the public informed and educating and raising political awareness as a whole. I am sure Members are aware that I am the chair of the Political Education and Awareness Sub-Committee and on that sub-committee I have made sure that I have had a balance of members, which include 2 Constables, the Constable of Grouville and the Constable of St. Helier . This is a workstream that I think definitely needs to be looked into. Obviously COVID has given us some issues because originally we wanted to get out into community events, for example, and kind of spread the word on how to vote

The Bailiff :

I am afraid, Deputy , I must ask you to stop at this point, your time has expired. Thank you, Deputy Alves . If you would now leave the meeting and, again, as the way it has operated before, someone from the States Greffe will telephone you and when we are satisfied that that system is set up, then we will proceed with the Connétable of St. Brelade . Could the States Greffe please now arrange for the Connétable of St. Brelade to re-join the meeting? Thank you. This may take a moment or 2, so we will pause. Welcome back, Connétable of St. Brelade . We will start when we are sure the protocol applying to Deputy Alves has been complied with. Just a moment. The protocol has been complied with. Connétable of St. Brelade , you have 10 minutes to speak, the time starts now. It will be followed by 20 minutes of questions.

2. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

This has taken me somewhat by surprise and has not given me much time for preparation, apart from the last 10 minutes of Deputy Alves ' speech, which I of course did not hear. I do, however, speak in these times of diversity as a white-haired old male who fully supports the philosophy of diversity. The former chairman has performed the role of chairman of P.P.C. with great efficiency and aplomb, which no one could aspire to emulate. But I can assure Members that in all the roles I have undertaken I would perform it to the best of my ability. This is my third term in the Assembly and the array of procedural complexity never ceases to amaze me in this Assembly. Having a Connétable of P.P.C. is not new and I recall the former Connétable of St. Clement , Derek Gray, held the position when I was first elected in 2005 and he was ably followed by the former Connétable of St. Mary , Juliette Gallichan. Members will be curious as to my views on election reform, as proposed by the present committee. I am by nature a traditionalist but I am not at all averse to new ideas and change if it can be justified. I believe and have always maintained in election manifestos that the Jersey public like stability, business-like stability, and that is also my philosophy. I am a traditionalist but I welcome new ideas and we cannot cast ourselves in aspic and get left behind. My thoughts on parties are yet to be confirmed and I can only observe that even going back to the Rose and Laurel Party in the mid- 19th century, they have never really worked over here. I am fiercely independent and my voting record will dictate that. I tend to support whatever I deem to be the best for the Island, based on the best information of the day. I do believe in fairness and integrity and trust and I can assure Members that I shall always adhere to those principles, whether elected or not. The work of P.P.C. is much and varied and I would confirm that my application to the tasks in hand, if elected, would be assiduous and concentrated. I am aware of the close role played by P.P.C. with the Greffe and, rest assured, I

will continue, if elected, to cultivate that. The membership of the present committee is broad and with varied experience and it would not be my intention, if elected, to make any changes in that respect if those members wished to continue to serve. I thank Members for their attention and look forward to their questions.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Connétable . There now follows a period of 20 minutes, the clock is starting now.

1. The Connétable of St. Helier :

I would like to ask a question as a former chair of P.P.C., probably before the candidate's time though. Would the candidate advise what action he would seek to take to address the inequity that exists in voting in Jersey, which could lead one to say that we have a gerrymandered system, even with the reforms recently agreed St. Helier will only have 13 votes in an Assembly of 49 Members, whereas it should have at least a third of the seats? Could he say what steps he would take to address this important issue?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

My views are that I agree that the representation of St. Helier is poor but I would suggest that that is sometimes dictated by the lack of voter turnout in St. Helier and thereby, in turn, the lack of candidates coming forward to serve the Parish. I believe that the proposals made by the present P.P.C. are a halfway house and are contributing to remove that inequity. I would always be open to the ideas of the Connétable of St. Helier to propose alternatives, should he so wish.

2. The Connétable of St. Helier :

Is it a matter of concern to the candidate that when the Constable of St. Mary votes on an important matter affecting the Island or indeed affecting St. Helier , he has far more power at the ballot box than the Constable of St. Helier :?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Yes, no doubt in terms of numbers that is the case. But in reality that is the situation we have in Jersey. If we wish to throw out all our traditions, we could aspire to the Connétable 's wishes. But in reality we have to make a compromise and that is a compromise we have to make, should we wish to retain our 12 Parishes.

[10:15]

3. The Connétable of St. Ouen :

Could I ask the candidate, given that the position of the Constables in the States was a fairly controversial topic during the last debate, could he set out his views on whether he believes the Constables should retain their seat in the Assembly or whether he feels in time that that will disappear?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Clearly, there is a desire by the public of the Island that the Connétable s do remain in the States and that, in turn, leads to the point that there is an inexorable link between the Parishes and Government. I think that were Connétable s to be removed from the States, I think we would lose that link, which would be a detriment to Jersey and to the public in general.

4. The Connétable of St. Ouen :

Could I ask the candidate to set out his views on the recent introduction of the "none of the above" option, which was agreed by the Assembly at the last debate on the construction of the Assembly?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

I do not agree with having that particular element in a choice because it is akin to abstaining in a States election. There will be those who choose not to have a view but I think it is important to give the public sufficient choice in views to avoid having to offer such a choice.

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

I would like to know the candidate's views; the States, after many, many years, has agreed to larger districts and changing the composition of the States by removing the Senators. This is coming back to the Assembly in the form of legislation. Does the candidate fully support that or would he support those who would like to try and change it yet again?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

I believe that the States have agreed to that proposal and it is for that to be enacted. I am a believer in democracy, whether I agree with it or not, but once a democratic decision has been made I see no advantage in revisiting the whole thing and starting all over again. Yes, the straight answer is that I would proceed with the decision made by this Assembly.

6. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

One of the problems, especially in places like St. Helier , not so much a problem in the Parishes, is where people cast their votes, a lack of parking and everything else, and for as long as I have been in the States we have been trying to seek new locations so people can vote easily or even electronically. What is the candidate's view on those 2 issues?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

I would concur wholeheartedly with the Deputy 's suggestion, in that the ability of the electorate to vote must be made easier and by making it difficult by insufficient parking at the voting stations is of course something we have to overcome. I do believe that we will embrace technology to make it simpler. I do think that the public ought to be able to vote for whichever district they live in, wherever they live, and particularly in St. Helier where people are working, so that we can, yes, get the numbers up to satisfy democracy.

7. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

The proposer for the candidate mentioned balance and bringing the Assembly together. I would like to ask the candidate how he would achieve this and how he would be inclusive in doing so?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

I think the important thing is to work with prospective candidates before the election time and encourage those from a broad base of backgrounds to allow their names to go forward, so that the public of the Island have the choice and the best candidates for the job get elected.

8. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

I think perhaps the candidate might have misunderstood the question, it was more about involving the wider States Assembly and how the candidate would do that.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Once the wider-ranging Members have been elected, I think it can only be by invitation, by outreach and by encouraging those who are perhaps not involved in certain areas, which they would prove to be of benefit to reach out and encourage them to join in and that has been my modus operandi throughout Parish life as well.

9. Deputy I. Gardiner :

I would like to ask the candidate if he will be successful, what will be his plans and, if no plans, what are his views about the electoral register being automatic?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

I think the electoral registration needs work. At present it is easy to say it is automatic but there have to be filters; that could be done in technological terms. I think there will be technological input into any future registers. I can assure the Deputy , from experience of working in the Parish and having close involvement with how the registration works, it is not as simple as might be thought but I would be very keen to modernise it to ensure that everyone in the Island has a vote.

10. Deputy R.J. Ward :

I am just trying to remember my wording before I start; it is the same question and a fair test. Can I ask the candidate what training he has undertaken since being elected, which is relevant to the role of chair of P.P.C. and what he believes Members should be offered in terms of training to assist them in their roles?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

I think in terms of my training I have attended some 2 C.P.A. events with particular application to electoral management. I think that has been a very useful experience. I do think that the process, and I go back to a response I made just now, that there is need for training prior to election, so that those Members who put their names forward into the States do have some idea of what is going on, rather than coming in completely green, as is the case very often at the moment. Our election processes have evolved over many years and are well-organised but we must always look ahead. Training in terms of technological input, I think, is essential. A lot of us, and I speak for myself, benefit from that, to take full advantage of the facilities that we have out there and technological improvements, which have been revealed, shall we say, in the last year or so with the necessities of COVID.

11. Deputy R.J. Ward :

Yes. Can I ask the candidate's opinion on diversity training and unconscious-bias training and things like dealing with the media; would he suggest that Members are given access to those?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Yes, indeed, the unconscious-bias training has been provided to date and I think there is more to come. Training with the media has been provided and I have attended some of those. We can always improve ourselves and I think the more training opportunities that P.P.C. can provide by the Greffe members the better.

12. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Does the candidate think that engagement of young people in the political process is an issue currently and, if so, what steps might he take to deal with that?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Yes, it is lacking. It goes back to the previous question, as maybe that States Members need education in dealing with the younger residents of the Island. Maybe we need to do more work with the schools to stimulate more interest from the younger people in our political situation. I would confirm with the Deputy that my enthusiasm for dealing with the younger members of our population is very high.

13. Deputy G.P. Southern :

What concrete steps would the candidate take to improve participation in our electoral process? The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Going back to the previous response, I think work on making it easier for electors to vote has to be a priority. It is challenging at the moment and I have seen this at ground level when people turn up to vote and cannot, for whatever reason. Then we have queues coming in after work where people are having to form long queues to be able to vote; that is far from satisfactory. Perhaps more voting stations in the town or in the concentrated areas where people are working would be an advantage. Cross-referencing throughout the Island has to be made to work technologically and I can see that being an easy win to start with.

14. Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I asked the other candidate the same question. In the recent reform debate and the move to the larger districts I expressed concern about the cost of standing for election for younger and poorer candidates. I wonder whether the candidate has any thoughts if anything can be done to support candidates who come from these backgrounds.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

If I am understanding the questioner correctly, he is questioning the ability to provide funding for elections. If that is the case, my suggestion is that with the new proposals the costs need not be as much as they would have been for a former senatorial candidate and would be restricted to possibly a similar amount that has been paid or been put out by Deputorial and Constable candidates presently. The cost can of course be whatever one wishes it to be and probably depend on the amount of effort a particular candidate is prepared to make themselves or put into, shall we say, printing posters, putting up posters and such like. I think that there will have to be consideration given in the light of changed processes to the amounts allowable. But I would imagine they would be not dissimilar to those allowed to Deputies at present.

15. Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I thank the candidate for his answer. Can I ask whether the candidate feels that extra support could be given around, for example, providing an envelope and the stamp postage so that candidates can be able to put out their literature to a wider district and whether he would be prepared to put that into P.P.C.'s M.T.F.P. (Medium Term Financial Plan) budget request in the next Government Plan?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Yes, I would tend to agree with the Deputy . But of course already there is a mass circulation of manifestos done by the Greffe, so there is no reason why that should not be just discussed further to establish what would work better. Because the bottom line has to be to get the maximum amount of information to the electorate so that they can vote in accordance with their wishes.

16. Senator T.A. Vallois:

I would like to ask the candidate what 3 top areas of work would he focus on to achieve during the remainder of this term of office if appointed?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

That is an interesting question with a short lead time. But I think the first one is to close off the electoral forms proposed by the existing P.P.C., as the States have decided we must proceed with that. I think that improvement in technology processes, which we have learned rapidly over the last year and the improvement thereof is high on the priority list. I would suggest that, thirdly, the training, as indicated by former questioners, is an area which I would like to enhance.

17. Senator T.A. Vallois:

Can I ask the candidate then what his view is of machinery of government and whether that needs continuous review and what he would do about it?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

I am not overly sure whether the present machinery of government has worked terribly well, as we would have wished. I can only say that from the experience I have had of working with a particular chief officer, as a former Minister. My take, shall we say, on the present situation with a particularly dominant chief officer or chief officer role, not applying to any individual, is that it does not appear to me to be working as we would have wished. I think that review is continually needed.

18. Senator S.Y. Mézec :

The same question that I asked previously. Would the candidate pledge to engage with States Members, if elected, on what can be done to improve facilities for States Members? Obviously Members of the Government have facilities provided for them at Broad Street and Constables have their Parish Hall s but some of the facilities in the States Assembly building itself are pretty poor, in particular the computer facilities.

[10:30]

Would he pledge to do that work with Members to work out how that can be improved? The Connétable of St. Brelade :

I would agree and my understanding is that the Greffe are underway and have a budget for doing exactly that. I see no reason why that process should not continue and will no doubt be enhanced in time, depending on technology available. But for Back-Benchers to do their job properly the facilities must be provided. I would take this opportunity to thank those in the Greffe who have been doing that to date.

19. Senator L.J. Farnham :

Could the candidate inform the Assembly on his views on States Members remuneration and whether he thinks appropriate, adequate or need complete review?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Yes, I am aware that there are those of the view that the States Members should not be remunerated at all. There are those with a view that the remuneration is adequate and there are those who take the view that they are totally out of kilter with the private sector and the sort of responsibility that States Members have in relation to the private sector are not in harmony. We find ourselves with a base salary, some would dispute that and I think that a review is long overdue.

20. Senator L.J. Farnham :

Does the candidate think that the level of States Members pay has impact on the type and number of candidates coming forward for election?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

It has been made clear that that is the case and I have read from several that they feel deterred by the level of salary, in that if it is equated, as I indicated earlier, with the private sector, it is much less. That will, inevitably, have an effect on those Members putting their names forward for election.

21. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary :

If elected, will the candidate still intend to carry on with his present role as chair of the Environment Panel?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Sadly not, and it is a role I have thoroughly enjoyed and would be reluctant to give up. But I think realistically one would not have the time in the running of a Parish, which I have to give much attention to and more than one additional role.

Any there other questions for the candidate? There is 30 seconds to go, so it would have to be an exceptionally brief one. Senator Pallett, you have got 20 seconds.

Senator S.W. Pallett:

Sir, as you said it is only 20 seconds, I will withdraw the question because it is going to take a longer answer.

The Bailiff :

The time has now expired for questions to this candidate. There will be a pause while the Greffier arranges for Deputy Alves to return to the meeting and at that point then we will deal with the voting.

Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

Sir, could I just ask a question? Can I check if this is an open vote for the chair, like it is for Ministers? The Bailiff :

Yes, it is, Deputy , it is an open vote. When the link is posted and Members seek to vote, there will be a choice between candidates. It is not a pour, contre or abstain. There is just a choice between candidates which can be voted on.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Sir, could I just ask a point of order? It is not so much for Deputy Tadier . The Bailiff :

Yes, Deputy , what can I do for you?

Deputy M. Tadier :

It is probably not going to be relevant to this vote but I think that it is always useful to have an abstention option in these kind of debates because any Member, if it was done by paper or in the Assembly, could abstain.

The Bailiff :

Yes.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I am not encouraging that by any means but I think just the proper process, Sir. Senator L.J. Farnham :

Sir, I presume if a Member wishes to abstain, they simply do not vote or would they write abstain in the chat, Sir? What would your advice be?

The Bailiff :

One moment, I am just making sure I understand exactly what the options are on the vote itself, one moment. In the circumstances and while we are waiting for Deputy Alves to return, it is an option not to vote but the Greffier informs me that we can add abstain to the voting options and are content to do so.

Deputy C.S. Alves :

I am back, Sir, thank you. The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Deputy . I see Deputy Alves has re-joined us. We will just wait then for the Greffier to make that slight alteration and then the link will be posted. Members may recall it has formally been ruled that in the event that a Member abstains or there are a number of abstentions, an abstention does not count as a vote cast for the purposes of assessing whether a sufficient majority of votes has been received by one candidate or another. Very well, apparently we are now ready and the link is in the chat. I open the voting and ask Members to vote. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that Deputy Alves has been elected: 31 votes for Deputy Alves and 12 votes for Connétable Jackson in the link and one vote for each of them in the chat.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Sir, as it is an open vote, can we have them read out for both candidates, please? Thank you. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

The abstentions, please.

The Bailiff :

Yes, they can be read out but of course is that necessary? Because they are all listed now, they have all appeared in the list in the chat but entirely happy to read them out if people want them read out.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

I am fine with that. As you say, it is an open vote, anyone can pick that up. I am fine, Sir, if that is okay with everyone else.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

The listening public

The Bailiff :

That is a fair point, could you please read out the votes? The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Those voting for Deputy Alves : Deputy Doublet , Deputy Pamplin, Deputy Labey , the Deputy of St. Martin , Deputy Alves , Senator Mézec , Deputy Ward , Deputy Perchard, Deputy Ahier , Deputy Higgins, Senator Vallois, Deputy Gardiner , Deputy Le Hegarat , Deputy Martin, Senator Moore , the Connétable of St. Helier , Deputy Pinel, Deputy Tadier , the Connétable of St. Ouen , Deputy Southern , the Deputy of St. Ouen , Deputy Young, Senator Pallett, the Deputy of Trinity , the Constable of Trinity , Deputy Morel , Deputy Ash, Deputy Maçon, Deputy Lewis , the Connétable of St. Martin and the Deputy of St. John. Those voting for the Connétable of St. Brelade : the Deputy of St. Peter , the Connétable  of   Grouville ,  the   Connétable  of  St.  Clement,  Senator   Gorst ,   Deputy  Guida,  the Connétable of St.  Saviour, the Deputy of   Grouville , Senator Farnham , the Connétable of St. Lawrence , Deputy Truscott, the Connétable of St. Peter and the Connétable of St. John . Those abstaining: the Connétable of St. Brelade and Senator Le Fondré.

Connétable J. Le Bailly of St. Mary :

Could I please note that, this is the Constable of St. Mary , I did try to vote for Constable Jackson but I was unable to get into the system.

The Bailiff :

Very well. Thank you, well that would not have changed the result, Connétable , but thank you for that. Connétable of St. Brelade , you indicated a desire to say something.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Yes,  Sir,  just  to  offer  my  congratulations  to   Deputy   Alves  and  pledge  my  support  for  her chairmanship of P.P.C.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Connétable . I congratulate the successful candidate of course and we now move on as yes, Deputy Alves , did you want to say something?

Deputy C.S. Alves :

Sorry, I just wanted to thank all Members for their support.

2. Appointment of the Chair of the Planning Committee The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Deputy . Following, again, the appointment of Deputy Labey as Minister, there is a vacancy for the position of the chair of the Planning Committee and in accordance with Standing Order 120AA, I invite nominations from Members for the office of chair of the Planning Committee.

Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade :

I am delighted to nominate the Connétable of Trinity for the position of chair of the Planning Committee.

The Bailiff :

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations for the chair of the Planning Committee? If there are no other nominations, then I invite the Connétable of Trinity to speak for up to 10 minutes, after which there will be questions for about 20 minutes in the normal way.

2.1   Connétable P.B. Le Sueur of Trinity :

Firstly, I would like to add my congratulations to Deputy Russell Labey on his recent appointment. He leaves some big shoes to fill and has done a sterling job as the chairman of the Planning Committee. While I do not share his stage presence, I will do my very best to continue the work of the committee. I would also like to thank Deputy Truscott for nominating me, as we both joined the Planning Committee shortly after we were first elected in 2014 when I served as the vice-chairman to Constable Juliette Gallichan. In November 2018 I was persuaded to re-join the committee by Deputy Russell Labey and have served as a regular member ever since. I have a genuine interest in the development of our built environment and the planning process, which is derived from my working career back when I had a proper job, which was entirely in the construction industry. I worked in many aspects of the industry, coming from a trade background, progressing through to senior management and during that time involved in all types of construction work, from new build to restoration projects with English Heritage and just about everything else in between, spending part of the last 20 years in Jersey working for a property development company. This has given me a real understanding of the construction process, design, interpretation of working drawings, through which I believe I can make a positive contribution to this role and the work of the Planning Committee. I have never made a secret of the fact that I will not stand by and see our historical assets and built heritage lost in the name of progress.

[10:45]

But by the same token I will take a pragmatic view in determining applications in whatever means I believe is for the best outcome for the whole of the people of Jersey. As a committee, we are not a rubber-stamping exercise and we do not always follow the officers' recommendations. Our role is to challenge those recommendations and indeed the applications before us. If it was simply a case of applications being approved, if they ticked all the boxes, then there would be no purpose of having a Planning Committee. Often the decisions we must take are particularly difficult and sometimes emotive, as they directly impact on people's lives. Often one party will leave a public meeting happy and the other party disappointed. We do not, however, take the easy option or kowtow to commercial blackmail but will arrive at a democratic decision in the very best interests of all. We are only part of the overall planning process. There is always the option to appeal a committee decision to an independent planning inspector and the final determination is always made by the Minister for Planning. I do not think there is any need for me to say much more at this point. There is a significant

backlog of work for the committee, which has not been helped by the COVID restrictions, but I look forward to taking on this role and, hopefully, have the confidence of the other members. I am in a position to nominate a committee this morning.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much indeed, Connétable . There is now a period of 20 minutes of questions and the time starts now.

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Could the chair-elect for this body state what his view is, that when the panel rejects a property with significant reasons and it is then overturned by officers within days, what is his view on that?

The Connétable of Trinity :

I do not understand the circumstances in which that would occur. Because if a matter has been brought to committee and the committee has determined, then that particular application is determined on the outturn of the result of the committee decision. If then the applicant reapplies and there are no grounds on which it needs to be brought back to the committee, I am afraid I cannot really comment because I am not aware of any particular circumstance where that has occurred.

2. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I might add that it has happened. Could I ask the candidate as well what his view is on preserving Jersey's historic houses and where owners convert them without permission? What sort of penalties does he think they should suffer?

The Connétable of Trinity :

I do not really think that that is a decision for the Planning Applications Committee. Our role is to determine the applications before us, not to comment on wider aspects of the bylaws and planning process.

3. Deputy J.M. Maçon:

May I congratulate the chairman-elect on this position? Obviously I have served on the Planning Committee with him and know he will be a great asset in that role. But can I ask the candidate, when members sit on the Planning Committee they are there in a quasi-judicial role and obviously they have to work within the parameters of the Island Plan and their decisions can be appealed through the Royal Court, as you have a tribunal system as well now? I wonder whether the candidate feels that because of that it would be appropriate to take this as an opportunity perhaps to promote the parameters of the committee to Members and the wider public, as we do not make purely political decisions on the Planning Committee.

The Connétable of Trinity :

I am not quite sure how to best answer that. I do feel that sometimes that by delegating the decisions to an independent planning inspector who is not necessarily resident in Jersey, that we are sort of dodging a bullet really. I think we should be more in control of our own destiny as an Island. I do not know if that answers the question adequately but

4. Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I thank the candidate for his response. I apologise, I will try and be clearer. Does the candidate think that this is an opportunity for him, as chairman, to better inform States Members and the public of the role of the Planning Committee?

The Connétable of Trinity :

Yes. As a committee, we will be producing our annual report, which is due in Q1 of this year and I will do my best to enhance and perhaps better amplify the work of the committee in that report.

5. Deputy R.J. Ward :

Can I ask the Constable and to congratulate him on his election, what is the role of Planning in the promotion of a more sustainable build, both in terms of the lived environment and in terms of our commitment to carbon neutrality and future builds that have to last long into the coming years?

The Connétable of Trinity :

As a committee, we sit to determine the applications that are before us. We can, as part of our committee role, make recommendations to the Minister but it is not for us to design or advise people on how they should apply the regulations and the bylaws, although I am sure that we will take the appropriate view when green initiatives come forward. I think it is beholden on all of us to support those initiatives.

6. Deputy R.J. Ward :

Does the chair-elect feel that the Island Plan coming forward could have more rigour in terms of its definition of sustainability?

The Connétable of Trinity :

I think that is straying away from the role of the Planning Committee. But obviously our Minister for Planning is committed to delivery of carbon-neutral strategies and I am sure that work will be embodied in the plan that is going to come forward fairly shortly.

7. The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Would the candidate outline to Members what his views are on the architecture of Jersey in that does he prefer a particular vernacular style or could he just outline his views in general?

The Connétable of Trinity :

Again, it is not really for the committee to say whether they like something or not. It is whether it is right in its particular context. I obviously come from a traditional background but I still enjoy modern and innovative architecture, as I am sure with many people. All I would say is that every scheme has to be judged on its merits and set within the context of which it has got to live.

8. Senator K.L. Moore :

Given the chair's comment about the role of independent inspectors in the planning process, does the chair consider that the Planning Committee should have a greater role in determining any application made to build our hospital?

The Connétable of Trinity :

No, I think that the hospital is such a major project that it would be unwise to take it to a local Planning Committee. I think it is a much bigger scheme and I think in that circumstance it should go to an independent inspector to advise the Minister. I am more inclined when it is the smaller domestic type situations, where we are not as much in control of our own destiny as I would like to see us.

9. Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier :

We have seen a number of times this term where a planning application has been approved by officers, by the committee, by an independent inspector, only to get to the Minister who unilaterally decides the opposite to everyone. Do you think that the Minister, before overturning such decisions, should speak to the committee to hear why they chose the decision they did as a committee, rather than as an individual, before overturning such applications without visiting sites?

The Connétable of Trinity :

I thank the Deputy for his question and, yes, I think my initial thoughts are that that would be a good idea and is perhaps something that the committee could put in their next report to the Minister on where we think we should be going and how we should perhaps be changing our protocols.

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

The committee is advised at the decision-making process by an officer from the Planning Department, an officer who very often has already been involved with the application before the committee. Does the chairman believe that the committee should be able to take independent advice, rather than that of an officer from the department?

The Connétable of Trinity :

No, my experience is that the advice that the committee is given is usually very objective and based on the planning policies. I have never felt the need, in my time on the committee, to step outside of that to get further additional advice.

The Bailiff :

Are there any other questions for the Connétable of Trinity ? If there are no other questions, then I draw the period of questions to an end. There were no other nominations. The speech and period of questions have been completed. I confirm that the Connétable of Trinity has been selected for appointment.

The Connétable of Trinity :

Thank you, Sir, and I thank Members for their support. I am in a position to nominate a committee. I do not know when we would like to take that.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Connétable . I was next going to ask you that question and you have confirmed the answer. Deputy Alves , are you in a position to nominate a committee?

Deputy C.S. Alves :

Not quite at the moment, Sir, but I probably will be after lunch. The Bailiff :

I was going to suggest that we dealt with the nomination of committees as the first thing after the luncheon adjournment. Would that suit you, Connétable of Trinity ?

The Connétable of Trinity :

Yes, Sir, that will be fine. Just while I am speaking, I would advise the Assembly that I will have to disappear at around 2.45 p.m. for a medical appointment.

The Bailiff :

As I say, if we deal with the appointment of your committee first thing at 2.15 p.m., then that will presumably work.

The Connétable of Trinity : Thank you.

The Bailiff :

A point of order from Deputy Tadier before we finalise those arrangements. Deputy Tadier , did you have a point of order?

Deputy M. Tadier :

Yes. Sir, I do not know if it is order or something I would like to propose, is that given the argumentation that the majority of us agreed on yesterday, that there should be time for the new chair of each respective panel or committee to I think it is best that we have some time to decide who might want to serve and put themselves forward on those panels. Because we did not know who was going to get elected, we cannot take anything as read and so we do not know whether we want to put our names forward for that, as until we know who has been elected. Can I ask that we do not take it after lunch but we take it either tomorrow, if we are still sitting or at the next meeting, please?

The Bailiff :

You are proposing that, Deputy Tadier . Deputy M. Tadier :

Yes, please.

The Bailiff :

The States, as I say, can regulate its own timing and its own procedure. Obviously the view of the respective chairs will be of significance but that is, nonetheless, a matter for the Assembly. Is that proposition seconded? Is the proposition to defer the matter seconded? [Seconded] It is seconded. Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition that the setting up of the committees are deferred until tomorrow, if we are still sitting or until the next meeting, if we are not?

[11:00]

Deputy J.A. Martin:

I absolutely understand where Deputy Tadier thinks he is coming from. If he had listened, obviously he did listen to what the workload of P.P.C. is, the new Planning chair said that he absolutely can go and Deputy Alves has said she will be in a position this afternoon. She already said in her speech she is probably going to keep or ask, and they have already probably committed, to do the final 15, 16 months on P.P.C. We have no guarantee we are sitting tomorrow, we are on a 3-week cycle, we cannot go and put this back. People know whether they want the job, I would suggest to Deputy Tadier , and I do not think he is doing Deputy Alves any favours. I am definitely voting against this; we do it this afternoon.

Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John :

We heard yesterday how important it was that the Planning Committee with its workload is set up as quickly as possible. That was agreed and I would please urge Members to support our new chair of the Planning Committee so that they can hit the road running and get moving straight away because it is unfair on planning applications that have been waiting for some time to be heard that there is any delay in forming a committee. Can we please respect the new chairman?

Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter :

I just have to remind Members, I declare an interest. I have a planning application outstanding that has to go to committee and, therefore, should this go to a vote, I will be voting solely on the basis of P.P.C. because I would obviously withdraw from my vote from the putting together of the Planning Committee.

Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade :

There is no question that the appointment of the Planning Committee as soon as possible is really important. There does not seem to be any issue, frankly, any reason why we should not do that, as the new chairman says. But I do think there might be an issue with the P.P.C. because I did not hear the chairman of P.P.C., Deputy Alves , to be quite clear; she said she thought she would be in a position this afternoon. So can I suggest that we should go ahead absolutely after lunch with the immediate appointment of Planning members and then only if the chairman of P.P.C. can be very clear that she needs no more time to do that.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , that would happen in any event. If the Assembly says we go ahead this afternoon but Deputy Alves this afternoon is not in a position to go ahead, she will simply say to the Assembly she is not in a position to go ahead and it will have to come back when it next comes back. I hope that helps the Assembly but I ..

Deputy J.H. Young: Thank you, that clears it up. The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition? If no other Member wishes to speak on the proposition, I close the debate and ask Deputy Tadier to respond.

Deputy M. Tadier :

First of all, to address Deputy Martin, well I am not trying to do anybody any favours. She said it is not going to do Deputy Alves any favours to delay it to tomorrow, but was she trying to imply that simply because I am the same party as the chairman that I might wish to do some favours? What concerns me in all of these processes, and why I raised these issues, is that my concern is that thinking independently from an original Rawlsian position, if you like, about how I would like to see the Assembly operate along completely fair lines irrespective of who the chairs or who the Ministers, et cetera, are, is that process is vitally important because it sets precedents. If we are going to argue yesterday that we should not have an election for these key roles because some people might not be ready to put themselves forward, which is absolutely valid and correct, then similarly we should also have a process in place whereby we have time to digest who has been appointed, who they might wish to put forward as a slate for their committees. But I remind Members that it is not the chairs who appoint or elect the committees, it is the Assembly who elects the committees and nobody else. We are not here simply to rubberstamp their selection either. There might be some people who think: "Well I do not necessarily want to put myself forward for that committee but I need to know that as an Assembly I feel we are in good hands with the committee that has been selected." If you think that the slate that has been put forward is not balanced or does not represent the best that the Assembly could do, then you may wish to put yourself forward after that. So I think I know how the wind is blowing today, and it is not because these positions are not important, it is because they are so important, and it is not just the chairs who are important but it is the whole panels that are important, that we do have a proper process in place. So even if this vote does not win today - we do not know if we are coming back tomorrow, I accept that is part of the problem - I would urge P.P.C. and the new chair and the new committee to look at this because I think there does need to be a break. In future, we should be coming back, leave 24 hours as was suggested by the Deputy of Grouville , perhaps allow the committee chairs to put their nominations forward, for that to be circulated and then for other nominations to be forthcoming the next day. If that is not the case, that is fine, there will not be an election, but if there is then the democratic process is respected and that is why I put these things forward. It is not because I have a penchant for pedantry but parliamentary process is vitally important and we cannot just make things up on the hoof because it is convenient for us to do so. I think we have to have processes in place irrespective of who in the future might be taking these roles up, so I do maintain the proposition even though it may be doomed to failure.

The Bailiff :

I ask the Greffier to put a vote into the link. A vote pour would be to defer the appointment of the panels to tomorrow morning if we are still sitting or until the next sitting of the States Assembly if we are not sitting tomorrow. I open the voting and ask Members to vote. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The proposition has been defeated: 3 votes pour, 39 votes contre in the link and one further vote contre in the chat.

Deputy I. Gardiner (H)

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Those voting pour: the Deputy of Grouville , Deputy Tadier and Deputy Perchard. The Bailiff :

We will then deal with the elections at 2.15 p.m. As I say, if either of the chairmen are not able to proceed at that point and wish for further time, it is more than open to them to inform the Assembly at that juncture but otherwise we will deal with them then.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

3. Residential Properties  in  the  Waterfront  Development  (P.165/2020)  -  as  amended (P.165/2020 Amd.)

The Bailiff :

The next item of Public Business to be dealt with is the Residential Properties in the Waterfront Development, P.165, lodged by Senator Mézec . An amendment has been lodged by the Council of Ministers. Senator, do you accept that amendment and wish the proposition read as amended?

Senator S.Y. Mézec : Yes, that is right, I do. The Bailiff :

Do Members agree to have the proposition read as amended? If anyone does not, could they just indicate in the .. very well, I ask the Greffier to read the proposition as amended.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion that in the proposed development of the Waterfront (defined as Key Opportunities Sites 1, 2 and 3 in the South-west St. Helier Development Framework) by the S.o.J.D.C. (States of Jersey Development Company) (a) no residential properties should be sold by the S.o.J.D.C. to foreign buy-to-let investors; (b) to request the Council of Ministers to present a report to the States Assembly by 30th April 2021 which provides guidance to be used by S.o.J.D.C. with the aim of maximising the proportion of affordable units allocated through the Housing Gateway, together with a range of other residential accommodation of varying prices, types and  tenure,  to  help  meet  the  housing  aspirations  of  other  Islanders  within  the  Waterfront Development, while maintaining the overall viability of the scheme including all public realm improvements and other community and leisure uses; and (c) to request the Minister for Treasury and Resources, as shareholder representative, to instruct the S.o.J.D.C. accordingly.

3.1  Senator S.Y. Mézec :

Can I start by saying I am grateful to Deputies Pinel and Ash for meeting with me recently to discuss ways forward on this and I was pleased to be able to contribute to the report that accompanied their amendment, so I guess I hope that means this might be a relatively short debate. The intention of my proposition was to ensure that a mandate is given by this Assembly to the S.o.J.D.C. that whatever they plan for the Waterfront must play a direct part in addressing the housing needs of the Island rather than a less tangible indirect part by supposedly raising profits to channel elsewhere which is a dubious strategy, in my view. I propose that no properties should be sold to foreign investors who would take advantage of a Government-backed scheme to profiteer, funnel money out of our economy and risk damaging our local housing market by contributing to rental inflation and I am pleased that the Government has accepted this. I also propose that there ought to be a 50:50 split in the housing that is created with half being allocated through our established Affordable Housing

Gateway, which basically means it would be for first-time buyers who cannot afford to purchase on the open market or for social renters. The Government's amendment takes out a specific commitment to a 50:50 split but instead it accepts that the proportion of affordable housing should be maximised, and "maximised" is the key word there, while maintaining the viability of the whole plan, including the community facilities and public realm improvements. They say that that work should be done to define this balance more clearly and then presented back to the States in the coming months. So since our principles are aligned there in wanting to maximise the proportion of affordable housing, then I think it is worth accepting that. I do not think there is use fighting over a specific 50:50 split when the optimum could be something else. If it turned out to be a 51:49 split or anything that can be defined and justified, then I say that is something to welcome and it takes us in the right direction. I have to say that I do take particular gratification at this meeting of minds, given that when I proposed this radical notion that publicly-owned developers working on publicly-owned land should be providing a public benefit, I was accused by commentators in the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) of being "economically illiterate" and a "muddle-headed left-winger". In actual fact, this proposal's strength is its economic literacy. The raison d'être is to provide a targeted supply of housing to people who need it so that they are able to establish their lives around the stability that provides, to be happier and more productive and able to spend more in the local economy because they are not sending half of their hard-earned wages to some faceless investor somewhere else in the world. When interest rates are so low and the Government acts as guarantor to our government-owned developers, it simply does not make sense to try to profiteer out of our land to cross-subsidise a scheme on land we would have to buy elsewhere when this scheme will pay itself off anyway with the rental income over a planned period.

[11:15]

Some detractors were also making what I thought were quite nasty suggestions that a nice view was something that poorer people should never be entitled to and I am glad that that view is rejected. Jersey faces a housing affordability crisis. Home ownership is growing further out of reach for many as house prices have consistently increased at a greater rate than earnings, while the numbers of those living in rental stress goes up and up. The cost of housing is the single biggest contributary factor for causing relative poverty in the Island and we need to take action to deal with this. Some say that the solution to this is simply to increase the supply of housing, and I do not completely agree with that, because I think it is more complicated than just building new homes. We could continue building new homes but if they all get bought up by the wrong people for things like lock-up-and- leave then we will not be doing anything to address housing need. We need to get the right type of homes to go to the right people and we need a more targeted approach. On an Island with not a lot of space to be building homes, we need to take advantage of every opportunity we get and that is why I say we need to make the most out of this particular opportunity. I think you would probably struggle to find anyone who believes that our waterfront is currently meeting its potential, so it is welcome that the S.o.J.D.C. want to deliver on a visionary scheme there and make it something that we can all be proud of and that is a prospect I am quite excited by. But this proposition says that this should not come at any cost. If it is purely to be a money-making scheme then we will have to live with the legacy of that for decades to come and a better legacy would be a Waterfront Development that balances out the need for new facilities down there and produce targeted housing for people in Jersey who need it. This is perfectly financially feasible, we just need to do the work to demonstrate how and that is what this proposition now will do with the amendment from the Council of Ministers. If any of what I have said makes sense to Members, and I apologise if they think that they might get tarred with a muddle-headed left-wing brush as well, but I hope that they can put that aside and support this and help us take a step towards getting a waterfront that we can be proud of as an Island that plays a huge role in contributing to the housing needs of our constituents. For those reasons I make the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Deputy Young, you have a question for the Attorney General.

Deputy J.H. Young:

Yes, I see that the Minister for Treasury and Resources wanted to speak; I am happy to do my question after Deputy Pinel has spoken if that helps. I can ask it now. I did give notice to the A.G. (Attorney General) if you prefer.

The Bailiff :

Yes, I think you could ask it now. I think that is appropriate. Deputy J.H. Young:

What I am hoping I can do, I can ask the question without speaking, as it were, and then decide to speak later if I need to.

The Bailiff :

You can if you limit it to the question alone. Deputy J.H. Young:

Part (a) of the proposition proposes that no residential properties should be sold by S.o.J.D.C. to foreign buy-to-let investors. I have been raising for a very long time the issue of the legal devices which are used by development companies to sell residential properties. The last lot of figures were: there was about 62 per cent of the flats and so on are sold through share transfer. The specific question is: can the sale of shares be restricted to people who do not hold local residential qualifications and can that be done at the start or can that be controlled as far as onward sales after that? Can it be put in the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company, various things, I would very much value an opinion on that.

The Bailiff :

Mr. Attorney, are you in a position to assist the Assembly at this point? Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

Yes, I am grateful that the Deputy has given me some notice this morning of his question, so I am in a position to answer it now. Essentially, yes, share transfer properties do pose some challenges in relation to trying to control ownership of property because they are not immoveable property, they are moveable property, and that creates some difficulties in controlling transfer of ownership of those shares. But having looked at the Control of Housing and Work Law, in my view, Articles 15 and 20 do provide some ability for the Minister to impose some conditions in advance on the ownership of those properties. As far as I am aware, they have not been tested before but my preliminary view is that they could be used in these circumstances to impose control right from the start and specify perhaps that these are not to be share transfer property developments. So, I have also given consideration to whether or not use of these powers might result in a form of discrimination on the basis of race, direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of race, as it would mean that a certain racial profile has perhaps more access to these properties than others but in my view I think the provisions of the Discrimination Law are sufficient to discount the possibility of a successful claim. So my preliminary view is that our existing laws do allow the sort of controls that are contemplated in Senator Mézec 's proposition as amended.

1. Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement :

As indicated by the proposer at the beginning of his opening remarks, we conducted very helpful and constructive discussions about the proposition with Senator Mézec and I just wanted to thank him on behalf of the Council of Ministers for accepting the amendment.

2. Deputy L.B.E. Ash of St. Clement :

I am happy to follow Deputy Pinel there and echo those sentiments. I have enjoyed working with Senator Mézec , not only on this, but in my capacity with Andium and S.o.J.D.C. when he was Minister for Children and Housing. I would say that we shared many .. well, we had common ground on many issues. We both felt people should have houses: I felt they should pay for them, he did not. Sorry, I jest there, I do not want the J.E.P. to run with that story and Senator Mézec be swept to power with a massive common mandate. No, we shared a lot on this and that is why I am glad that he has brought this forward. But I do think, and it is one of the reasons I wish to speak on this topic, it is an important issue. It is one of the most important issues that face us in this Assembly. Obviously many of our important issues have been swept to the back slightly - not even slightly, majorly - by the COVID issue but housing is a major issue. There is a general acknowledgement that we have a shortage of housing and that something needs to be done about it. This will probably have cued much sage nodding of virtual heads. There are also too much "love" solutions that are put out there. Firstly, one of the solutions that people love to put forward is to stop people coming in. Stop people coming in, stop immigration, freeze population, we are fine. This is obviously much loved by the populists because they know it plays very well with Hedley and Snow down at the Pétanque Club. But in theory it is much harder to do and even if we froze the population here, we are still very, very short of housing. The second, which is perhaps the more obvious one, is to build more accommodation. There of course lies your answer, it is blindingly obvious, staring us in the face: off we go then; problem solved. Although it is not, is it? This is where Senator Mézec and myself shared a lot of common ground. Because when we try to build anything anywhere any time, and we have seen this with the amount of places that Andium could be building on now but is still stymied in doing so, all the States Members suddenly receive 5 or 6 communications stating: "I cannot believe that Senator Structure is putting up this monstrosity in St. Somewhere" and, bingo, we end up with gridlock, the States get cold feet. Now if this housing problem is to be solved, it will need more things such as this that are brought by Senator Mézec . It will need this Assembly in short to show true leadership, the sort that can make you unpopular, can make the Assembly unpopular, the sort of leadership that we saw in the past when we flooded Queen's Valley, 22,000 signatures were against that - 22,000 - and that was in the days when one needed a paper and pen to sign a petition, not merely press a button. But people had the courage to make that decision then that I think few would now doubt has benefited the Island hugely and in an ironic sort of way has also created a magnificent spot in replacement for what was already a great beauty spot. So that is what we need, we need leadership, proper leadership. Not the leadership to lead a mini revolution of keyboard warriors proposing any substantial change; no, proper leadership. We have seen outbreaks of that courage in the Assembly this term, most notably with COVID and the hospital to name but 2. In the hospital's case it will require still more if that holy grail that has eluded our predecessors is to fall into the Island's grasp. This move by Senator Mézec , as I said, is an attempt by him to make housing more available which I and S.o.J.D.C., the Minister and, I hope, the Council of Ministers have all discussed prior to this being brought. My problem now is that many will think: "Okay, lovely, that is sorted." Well it is not and it will not be unless it is taken on. To that end, I was very heartened by what Deputy Labey , the new Minister for Children and Housing, said yesterday about how he intends to do that. If we look at what Senator Mézec has brought to us, one of his main bits, I agreed with him, I was happy to agree with it, but it really does not cut much ice, and that is the non-purchase of properties by foreigners, for want of a better word, non-locals, to be rented out. Because much of our housing is not rented out by non-locals but by locals and it will not stop local purchasers buying it and renting out these properties. If you are one of the people having to pay high rents and you are shelling out in excess of £1,000 a month for a one-bedroom flat, do you think people are sitting there consoling themselves with the fact that it is not going to a Vlad, it is going to a Vibert ? I do not think they care less. It is merely a populist move by the Assembly. It solves nothing as far as the rental prices, I do not think, it is just a "nice to have". If you want to look at sky-high rents, have a look at the retail

sector. Are they caused by foreign buy-to-lets? Not really. They are caused by people who have owned those properties for years and years and years and have benefited greatly from doing it. The blame of the foreigner is an easy one if we wish to deflect difficulties nearer to home that we have to tackle. In closing, I would say that the former Minister for Children and Housing and myself, I am so pleased that he accepted our amendment because, as he said himself in his speech, it widens the scope available from what he had set out initially. This allows, as the current Minister for Children and Housing said yesterday, us to look at real change in a development such as this. First-time buyers, shared equity, downsizing, it opens up a whole different gamut of possibilities and I think it is really something we should do. If we do it properly, we could have a truly mixed project. With the backing it deserves from this Assembly, it could become an iconic development for Jersey and I hope it is.

The Bailiff :

Deputy of St. Mary , you have a question for the Attorney General? The Deputy of St. Mary :

It rather follows on from the answer he gave to Deputy Young who stole my lines so far as the original question was concerned. I thank the Attorney for his reply but could he just clarify that it relates to the basic question as to the ability to prevent a foreign owner acquiring one of these properties.

[11:30]

Could he just clarify that under the Articles of Association as are now in force, no such restriction could take place and it will therefore mean that the Articles will need to be amended to prevent a foreign entity acquiring a unit? Secondly, could he perhaps elaborate on the point that the Articles could be so amended to prevent an onward sale as to which in fact S.o.J.D.C. would have little control and on what basis would S.o.J.D.C. be able to satisfy themselves that there is no foreign involvement in any such onward transfer? I would appreciate his views on both those points.

The Bailiff :

Are you able to assist, Mr. Attorney? The Attorney General:

Yes. I think the questioner slightly misunderstood my answer. The powers in Articles 15 and 20 of the Control of Housing and Work Law are directed at giving any jurisdiction for the Minister to impose conditions on ownership of property in the first instance. Those powers could be used to impose a condition that the property is not to be owned by someone who is not resident or does not have entitled or licensed status in Jersey. In terms of whether they could further be used to go on to amend the Articles, I am not sure whether that is necessary in terms that there is a ministerial condition that sets out that the property needs to be subject to a ministerial condition that it is to be owned by someone with entitled or licensed status. There is a supplemental power in Article 20 which I think can also be used to similar effect. To my knowledge, they have not been used in Jersey previously, so I think we would need to devote further thought to how exactly they would be used in relation to this particular development but one option is to say that the property is not to be owned by way of share ownership but is to be owned by way of a flying freehold under the 1991 law. That is another possible way of achieving the object of this particular proposition. So, I think my answer is basically in principle. I think that there are powers under Articles 15 and 20 of the Control of Housing and Work Law which can be used to achieve the effect of this particular proposition but I think there would need to be some work done as to how exactly they would be used in this particular case. As I understand it, this is an in-principle proposition and it requires, whether it is the Minister or the Council of Ministers to come back with a report. It may be that this point can be dealt with in more detail in that report. So I hope that answers the Deputy 's questions.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Yes, I thank the Attorney General for his reply which does indeed highlight the fact that further work does need to be done on this to arrive at what we will say to somebody ..

The Bailiff :

Are you now making a speech, Deputy of St. Mary ? The Deputy of St. Mary :

No, I thank the Attorney for his reply. Thank you.

3. The Connétable of St. Helier :

I realise that this proposition before us is on the relatively narrow subject of who should be able to buy new properties that are built on the Waterfront. However, given that the Senator in his opening remarks referred to the housing needs of the Island, he referred to the risk that profits from the Jersey Development Company will be funnelled or syphoned, I do not recall which word he used, those profits will be passed elsewhere. He also said that the public are generally unimpressed by the Waterfront Development so far. I hope that I will be given some latitude in the comments that I wish to make on the proposition. First of all, and this is something that I was pursuing through question time yesterday, it is inescapable that the Parish of St. Helier is being asked to take on the majority of the housing needs of the Island both now and in the coming decade. That is a matter which makes of course perfect sense, and I have said this often in the Assembly, it makes sense because it reduces the need for travel, people will be close to the schools and their workplaces if they live on the Waterfront and that of course is good for the Island. It saves us building on greenfield sites because generally the density that can be achieved on the Waterfront will be higher than in the rural Parishes, therefore, preserving the Island's countryside and coastline for everyone to enjoy. That is, of course, not just the people who are lucky enough to live in those places but those who are living in town, who are living on the Waterfront who want to enjoy an unspoilt Island when they visit. So I think the caveat which I always make, and I think it is important I make it today, is that it is only right that St. Helier is asked to take on - I will not call it a burden because I think people are good for town, that they add to the vibrancy and the life of the town 24/7 - but if St. Helier is taking on all these thousands of extra units, even on the Waterfront, then there must be that compensatory provision of open space, community and leisure facilities, all the things that these St. Helier residents are going to need to enjoy their new homes. Parking, of course, will also be important and it is a matter of concern to me that increasingly these developments are pricing their parking out of the hands of the people who buy the units. The parking will be an expensive add-on which many of the people who buy these flats, whatever their tenure, will be unable to afford and that is a matter that I believe the Island must return to when the long-awaited transport strategies are presented to the States for debate. I also mentioned yesterday my belief that the co-ordination of these new housing developments in town are being left in the hands of the Regeneration Steering Group on which I sit is not achieving the holistic approach to the planning of the whole town and the funding of these kind of amenities that we need and that I will be coming forward to the States with a proposal that we have an urban renewal or regeneration body which brings together all the key players, including Planning, and of course the Minister for the Environment is not even given a seat at the table of the Regeneration Steering Group. I think it is vital going forward that these homes in the Waterfront, whatever their tenure, give their occupants the full range of services that they would expect to have a comparable quality of life to those people who live in other parts of the Island. I cannot help but mention in the light of the election of the chair of P.P.C. and my questions to the candidates that it is ironic that whatever category of units the residents on the next phase of the Waterfront are, they will have less influence at the ballot box than if they were buying properties in, for example, St. Mary . I am not sure that I agree with the notion that Waterfront properties should be mixed up in the way that the Senator is clearly hoping for, he has removed his requirement that 50 per cent should be for social

rented, because I think that the key point is that the money that is made from the development needs to be used in the best possible way. If the Jersey Development Company can build more homes by allocating the units in certain ways, then surely more homes must be the key criteria that we select. The constituents that I talk to are not so concerned about whether they have a view of the sea, about whether they have a property on the Waterfront, they are much more concerned about how warm their rental homes are, whether they are watertight, whether they are big enough, whether the rooms are big enough, whether they have parking, whether they have a garden or a balcony or access to a park. These are the key things and the more homes we build that tick those particular boxes the better and I would not want us to be in a position where we are building fewer homes just because we have to provide some of them in a position which is expensive to build on. I also want to refer to the 2 other remarks made by the Senator: one was that the development company might funnel their profits elsewhere. I have to say that I think one of the functions of the Regeneration Steering Group that needs to be more widely broadcast is that it is that body which is responsible for allocating the profits of the Jersey Development Company. The offer which I mentioned in a question to the Minister for the Environment yesterday that up to £70 million from the Waterfront development and the Esplanade Quarter development should be going into regeneration is a matter which I believe must be pursued because there are few Members in the States today who remember the Minister for the Environment making that promise to the Assembly. I think that is a matter of concern and it is something that again needs to be refreshed. I also cannot agree with the comment that the majority of Islanders are unimpressed with how the Waterfront is developing. It is a work in progress but many parts of the Waterfront are really very fine and I think certainly the more recent developments, the Financial Services buildings, the new square that has been provided, Trenton Square, and the plans for the future which will have a range of cultural and community and amenity spaces are very exciting indeed. I do not think we should share in any kind of view that things are not going well. I think things are moving in the right direction, even if some of the initial buildings that were put on the Waterfront, and I will not name them to spare their blushes, but clearly those do need to be reconsidered in future. So I think it is a good proposition now that it has been amended, and it is something that I can support, but I do want to raise these concerns so that they are not forgotten and so that they are pursued by the various Ministers and bodies responsible for housing on the Island.

4. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I shall be supporting this proposition but I believe it does not go far enough. Foreign direct investment by overseas investors is, and has been, a problem. It has caused property prices to be at least 30 per cent higher than they would otherwise be as foreign demand is being added to domestic demand. It also causes rental prices to be higher than they need be as the tenant is covering the purchaser's borrowing, maintenance, costs and profit. They are also making social housing to be more expensive due to the States requirement that social housing rents should be 90 per cent of the market rate, which in turn causes income support for rent to be higher than it would otherwise be. I think that the 90 per cent needs to be looked at and should be looked at before the next election. However, foreign investment purchasers are only part of the problem, as we also have internal investors, perhaps some of our 2(1)(e)s who we give special tax status to who may be purchasing numerous properties and building up substantial property portfolios to rent out and we will not know this until we have our digital property register. Remember, every property they purchase means less properties at affordable prices that are available to purchase by local residents wanting to buy their own homes. Now I have no problem with these investors investing themselves in constructing new- build homes for those who wish to rent but oppose them buying up homes in other developments for purchase which they then rent out because that is not helping the situation. Just 2 other comments: Deputy Ash mentioned that the retail market is due not to foreign investors but to historical local owners but the truth of the matter is we do not know and we will not know until we have the digital property register that the States has agreed to be established by the end of this year. If the Government does not get its skates on and treat this as a priority, we will not have it by the end of

the year and their failure to do so will become an election issue. Just one other comment and that is to do with the A.G.'s comment regarding discrimination.

[11:45]

I would point out that Guernsey has a 2-tier housing market, one open to all and one restricted to locals, so I do not believe that would be insurmountable. I am also sure that with Jersey's inventiveness we can come up with, even if the existing ownership team for these properties do not deal with the matter, we can come up with an alternative which could perhaps achieve what we want. Anyway, I will leave it there. Thank you very much.

5. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence :

Just a question really and then maybe a comment. I would be really pleased if Senator Mézec , in his response, could just confirm his definition of "foreign". In my mind it means anyone, any corporation which is not Jersey, and I just wanted to check that is what he means; so other Channel Islands, the U.K. will be deemed as foreign. I just wanted to get that confirmation from the Senator if possible. Just another brief comment. It is clear in the report that when he was Minister for Children and Housing, Senator Mézec was not consulted about the plans for the Waterfront and I remember the Minister for the Environment also saying that the first he knew of the plans for the Waterfront was when they were published in the J.E.P. Really, it is just a comment to say that this lack of consultation is appalling by the part of the S.o.J.D.C. It shows a lack of being joined up. I think one aspect is in culture, is talk of a national gallery, yet we have no known need for such a thing at the moment. We have an art strategy going through government at the moment, should be published in a few months' time, and that will be the place to decide whether or not a national gallery is needed, not just because S.o.J.D.C. decides that it is needed or the Regeneration Steering Group decides that it is needed, so a much more joined-up approach. I would appreciate if the Minister for Treasury and Resources would ensure that that is the case. But my question for Senator Mézec is: exactly what does he mean by "foreign"?

6. The Deputy of St. Peter :

It is clear, given the overwhelming evidence we have today, that we need more housing, especially social rental and affordable housing. I fully and totally support this and, let me say at the outset, I will be supporting this amended proposition. What we also know is that we have finite resources, finite land. We are due an Island Plan to determine how we can best use our land; however, we should make sure we maximise the returns from these cherished assets. The land on the Waterfront has the highest value in Jersey and the subsequent potential sale value realised from these residential units will reflect that. I feel, and while Senator Mézec argues very well to the contrary, that we should be looking to - and please forgive this expression - sweat that asset without compromising on the planned outcome and the overall benefit to the Island and ensure a significant amount of the profits are carved out to develop affordable and social rental homes elsewhere. Now, if only for comparative purposes, I would like to see that option modelled in the Council of Ministers' report, not just for us and the Constable of St. Helier who expressed similar concerns but all Islanders who need to be assured our money is being well spent. The objective, and let me be clear, is to try and achieve more homes for the safe financial investment on our limited space.

7. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Just very briefly, I just wanted to say although I do not always agree with everything that the proposer, Senator Mézec , says all of the time, I do thank him for his constructive approach on this. Obviously we have come to a mutual position which I hope is deemed a constructive way. It does show that, obviously if Members do produce propositions, if we can work together on these, sometimes we can come to - sometimes it is compromise - but hopefully we can come to a position that is a constructive way forward. So I do thank him for his approach on that and hopefully we will all continue in that

same spirit. What I was also going to say is just in relation to part (a) just to re-emphasise the point the reason we did not have any problem with it particularly was that essentially it had been implemented through S.o.J.D.C. back in August 2019, as is noted in the report to the amendment, is consistent with concerns that were raised in the last election. We probably should be doing more in that area, at least trying to understand it, but it is a start. Again, obviously to re-emphasise the point that really, because of COVID, and which we are still dealing with, it has caused a lot of delays in a number of the areas that we would love to be addressing. Hopefully as we progress through the year we can start re-focusing a greater attention in those areas. I just really wanted to say, there are a couple of points, to thank Senator Mézec for his approach on this and obviously will be supporting the amended proposition.

8. Deputy M. Tadier :

I will keep it relatively brief. I wanted to talk about the issue from buy-to-lets by giving a tangible example. There was a fire in St. Aubin in December last year, just before Christmas. It was particularly bad timing, not just in terms of the seasonal aspect of it, but also the fact that it happened during a pandemic which further complicated what would have already been a bad situation for 6 households who were renting in a block of flats down there. The block of flats in question was owned by a Guernsey company, a trust company. One of the issues with buy-to-lets in general is not just the fact that it has an economic impact on the Island and that profits are going out of the Island which could be remaining in the Island, it is the fact that there is not that relationship that you might expect between landlord and tenants in terms of the accountability. I raised this during question time with the new Minister for Children and Housing. One of the issues that they are facing still is that you would normally expect some kind of duty of care between a landlord and a tenant. Indeed, the new Minister for Children and Housing said that he owns property in the U.K. and he likes to try and keep the same tenants there for as long as possible and as an incentive to be a good landlord because you want to keep the tenants there, and I would suggest that it is exactly the same in a small Island. If you are going to come face to face with your tenants, or you are a tenant and you are going to come face to face with your landlord when you are walking down King Street or if you are going to church or if you are going to the Parish fête, you want to make sure that you are doing the right thing, hopefully because that is the way you operate anyway, but also because there is a social accountability there and a social interaction. That simply does not exist when you are dealing with a faceless company that - I think Deputy Morel raised the question - yes, it would include Guernsey companies in my mind. I have always found it slightly strange that we have a residential qualification for living in Jersey and for buying property and living in it but yet we have lots of people who, for whatever reason, cannot yet buy their own home, they might not be able to afford the deposit. You have got people who have not yet got their residential qualifications but they are very much firmly Jersey residents. They might have been here for 5 to 9 years and made their homes here and give a lot socially, economically as well, contribute in many ways to our communities, yet, they can live here but they cannot buy their own properties. But somebody, or a construct company, a corporation that does not have any presence in Jersey or, indeed, any interest in Jersey, can buy up property and then rent it to people who do live here but who, for whatever reason, are not allowed or cannot afford to otherwise own their own properties, and it seems a complete contradiction. So I think this is moving in the right direction and I hope it will focus the minds of Ministers and everybody concerned about how we deal with issues of housing. These are homes we are talking about, homes for people. Whether or not they end up owning those properties or whether they rent them, they are homes. We should not simply be thinking about assets. I was disappointed by the comments of the Constable of St. Helier , and I have heard them previously, they are effectively saying the Waterfront is too good for social housing. I think he said if we can realise more money from the Waterfront and then use it to spend elsewhere, we can produce much more housing elsewhere but not in prime locations. I find that personally disgusting as an attitude if anyone does espouse that because we should be saying that things like the Waterfront, things with a view which are sought after, and of course they have a

premium value economically, that is because they also have a premium social value and social status. I would say what is wrong with giving poor people, poor families a sea view? I think it is really important that we do have quality builds right across the Island and that we have mixed communities. It becomes very divisive when we have any kind of, I think, ghettoisation potentially going on. I have certainly dealt with many constituency cases as well as social interactions, for example, in Le Marais flats and it has to be said that they are remarkably well built. Those high-rises which may not look particularly attractive from the outside are, I think, both functional and they are well built. They are spacious and they have got sea views and why should they not? People are paying, nowadays especially, quite high rents to live. Often these are people who are hard-working as well. They may not be unemployed people and, even if they are, that is still money that is theirs that is going out paying for rents which are quite high and which would probably get them premium places, were they living elsewhere. So to get back to my initial story about the foreign buy-to-lets and the St. Aubin's case is that you have a scenario where there is a fire and the landlords basically say: "I am sorry, you are out on the street now. You are going to have to house yourselves. Our responsibility under the law is simply that we do not charge you rent but we have got absolutely no legal responsibility to provide you with alternative accommodation. You are out on your ear, mate, even though you might have been living here 15 or 20 years." I think that is a disgraceful way to treat anyone but that is what the law is. But you would think that is probably not going to happen if you have got a local landlord who knows the people who are living in his or her apartment and that there is a duty of care there as well. So of course there is legal responsibility but I think there is social responsibility and this is about: what kind of Island do we want to see; what kind of Island do we want to live in? I do echo the words of the new culture Minister that it is really important the waterfront is vibrant and that it is not simply what we might have seen - I do not know if there are any South Park afficionados out there - but they parodied it quite well about what can happen in a part of town where there seeks to be gentrification but in fact it is not done very well and it just becomes a part of town which nobody really wants to go to. It is just another generic branded U.K. or U.S. (United States) offering which has no soul of its own and which will be shunned by the spirit of the community because they do not feel part of it, so I think it is really important that the key players there are not simply Treasury. It is crazy that in the past the Minister for Children and Housing, the Minister for the Environment, the cultural representatives of the Government have not been kept in the loop of making what has got to be one of the key areas in St. Helier and at the heart of our Island, so I do obviously welcome this proposition as well.

[12:00] The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition? If no other Member wishes to speak, then I close the debate and call upon Senator Mézec to respond.

9. Senator S.Y. Mézec :

Thank you to all the Members who have spoken in this debate. I will not do a very lengthy closing speech because I think some really good points have been made and the questions to the Attorney General at the start were helpful as well just to underline that part (a) certainly is practical and can be done. In response to Deputy Morel 's question about the definition of foreign buy-to-let in this, there is no legal definition, so it is about applying what definition meets our aims here. From my perspective, the aim certainly does mean to exclude any off-Island investor. You could perhaps say off-Island investors rather than foreign investors, if that is easier to understand the point there. I totally agree with what he said as well about the lack of consultation here. The first I heard about this proposal was when it was on the front page of the J.E.P. and I was Minister for Children and Housing at the time, reading an article saying: "We are going to deliver 1,000 new homes on that site" and the media asking me for my response and me having to say: "Well I do not have a clue what is on the table here", which is undemocratic and unacceptable in my view. That is why it is important

to have this proposition on the table that requires the Government to go and produce some work to outline what housing need specifically will be addressed in this development. When they come back with that report, if we do not like it, we can bring subsequent propositions to the States Assembly to provide other directions to them instead. That is a more democratic way forward. I thought that the speech from Deputy Ash at the start was particularly good and he identified a lot of the right issues here. In particular, he spoke about the issue of population policy. I see this all the time, people saying: "The housing would be solved in Jersey if only we had a population cap." That is complete nonsense. We could go to net-zero growth in immigration, or population from inward migration, today. We would still have an increasing housing need over the next 10 years. There is no sense in believing that we can hold back on housing developments and simply institute a population policy and everything will magically find its own equilibrium and everyone will have the home they need. That is just not the case. It is more complicated than that. That is why it is right, when we have an opportunity on Government-owned land, with a Government-owned developer, it is not purely about raising money. It is about addressing specific housing need. We have all the statistics we need to know what that need is going to be. The Objective Assessment of Housing Needs Report provides a really helpful breakdown on that. That examined different immigration scenarios as well. So it gives you different models to work from. We have all the statistics we need. So it is disappointing when I hear comments like that from the Deputy of St. Peter , and the Constable of St. Helier raised this as well, about making money on this prime site so that we can deliver homes elsewhere. It misses the point for 2 reasons. Firstly, it is possible to build housing that is counterproductive. If we are building homes purely for investors to profiteer out of and get as much money as possible out of it, you can end up contributing to rental inflation. Because, while we are spending time delivering on that scheme, we are not spending time delivering an alternative affordable scheme at that moment. While there is a need, you will end up with people moving into those homes because they simply have no other option, paying through the roof all their rent when they cannot really afford it. There are negative economic consequences from allowing that. Whereas, if our focus is purely on the more affordable options, we mitigate that. So it is an opportunity, and an opportunity we should take. More importantly, it misunderstands how we fund the building of social housing and affordable housing elsewhere. It simply makes no sense, when interest rates are so low, to say we are going to build a big profit-generating scheme and use those profits as grants to build affordable housing elsewhere. Why would you do that when it costs so little to borrow? It is a wasted opportunity because they will build homes for affordable purchase or for social rent that will make money. The Government acts as guarantor. The banks love giving money in that situation because it is safe. They know they will get it back. They will plan to pay it back over several decades, no problem. To do it on a grant-based model is a waste of opportunity and a waste of time. I would say to the Deputy of St. Peter and the Constable of St. Helier that my experience, when I was Minister for Children and Housing, in my engagements with the social housing providers, they were not coming to me to beg for grants to deliver new schemes. They were coming to me to beg for sites, places to build their homes, because they knew that they could get the financing to do the development. They just need the place to do it. That was where they found their difficulty. So the contributions from those Members misunderstood how we can deliver more affordable housing. But the Constable of St. Helier 's contribution was particularly disappointing because he just frankly misquoted me on multiple occasions. It was on 2 occasions he referred to me saying that Islanders were unimpressed by the Waterfront. I just did not say that. What I said is that most people would say that the Waterfront does not meet its potential. That is a different thing. By the sounds of it, the Constable of St. Helier agrees that it does not meet its potential because he says it is getting better over time and will continue to get better over time. Great, I hope that is the case, but that does not mean we are coming from a different perspective there. He was wrong to attribute those words to me. He then also said I have referred to the S.o.J.D.C. funnelling money elsewhere. "Funnel" was the key word there. Again that is a misquote. I did not use the word "funnel" when referring to the S.o.J.D.C. and it is using the profits it makes to cross-subsidise other things, like public realm improvements. When

I spoke of the S.o.J.D.C., I said cross-subsidise, not funnel. When I said "funnel" I was referring to off-Island investors who funnel money out of the Island for it never to come back here again. Leave here, often by putting people in rental stress, taking out the money that they earn through their hard work every day, to somebody, who we will never know who they are or what they do with that money, and it will never come back and benefit Jersey by swirling around our economy. It just leaves instead. So I wish he had paid more attention there because he would have understood the points I was making there better. Deputy Higgins said that this proposition does not go far enough. I agree with him on principle. We do need to take much tougher action across the board on these issues. But the reason I have gone for this proposition quite simply is because it felt like low-hanging fruit. Because we own the S.o.J.D.C. we can tell them what to do and we do not need to change any laws to enable us to do that. We do not need to introduce legislation, which bans foreign buy-to-let investing in this scheme. We can just tell the S.o.J.D.C.: "Do not sell any to foreign buy-to-let investors" and they will have to do that. So work does need to go across the wider housing market but, in accepting this proposition today, on a big upcoming scheme, we can make sure that it meets the needs of Islanders and we get the most out of this opportunity. That is why I was pleased to bring this proposition and accept the amendment from the Minister for Treasury and Resources and Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources. I hope that this Assembly will now back it wholeheartedly. So I call for the appel.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Senator. I ask the Greffier to place a voting link into the chat. I open the voting and ask Members to vote. Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes. Then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The proposition has been adopted: 39 votes pour, one vote contre, no abstentions in the link, and a further one vote pour in the chat.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Deputy Guida voted contre.

4. Draft COVID-19 (Island Plan) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.168/2020) - as amended (P.168/2020 Amd.)

The Bailiff :

We now come on to the Draft COVID-19 Island Plan (Jersey) Regulations, P.168, lodged by the Minister for the Environment. The main responder will be the chair of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel. I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft COVID-19 (Island Plan) (Jersey) Regulations 202-. The States make these Regulations under Article 2 of the COVID-19 (Enabling Provisions) (Jersey) Law 2020.

Deputy J.H. Young:

I did lodge an amendment. Can I ask for it to be taken as amended please? The Bailiff :

You can. But the amendment was to the individual Articles and what we are dealing with are the principles. But thank you for indicating to Members that, when we come to deal with the Articles, you will take them as amended.

1. Deputy J.H. Young (The Minister for the Environment):

Thank you very much. Members will know that the main task that falls within my ministerial team in the time this Parliament has left before the elections is the Island Plan. The work has proceeded apace by the officers team. An incredible amount has been done since, Members will recall, in-

committee debates, which we had in July. We made it plain, as part of that work, in order to be able to deal with the processing of the draft Island Plan, it would have to be done in a different way. That is defined in law. What these regulations do is to enable that process to happen. It is using the emergency powers to change the key provisions in the Planning and Building Law. I do not know how long, Members may be concerned that these look quite complex, but I am going to try to take a simplistic approach, if I can, to try to reduce the amount of time. But of course if Members want to go into more detail I am prepared to. What I would like to cover is why we need them, which I have covered, what the regulations do and what effect it has on the public and States Members and indeed the Ministers' roles themselves. Just to show, of course, these are finite and temporary changes. Because the changes, the underlying law for future Island Plans will remain, but this enables us to do this changed procedure for these COVID circumstances. Under the current rules, an initial draft plan is published for public consultation well before the draft Island Plan is lodged formally with the Greffier. That then, at that point, States Members are able to lodge amendments before the debate.

[12:15]

Of course, that timescale cannot be and so the regulations here see an initial draft Island Plan lodged in the States at the same time that it is published for public consultation. We are now weeks away from that. The latest target I have been given is mid-March. So, in other words, it will be a plan for a shorter period, which is 2022 to 2024. Of course, current legislation proposed 2011 to 2020, which is why the current plan expires. Then of course it will be 2025 to 2034 for the next one after that. But one thing I want to be clear on, this will be a comprehensive Island Plan. It will provide a framework for very much the longer term in a number of areas. What effect will these regulations have? They will not affect the ability of the public to engage with and submit representations to the Island Plan. That absolutely remains. It will have no effect on the ability for the necessity for an independent examination in public. In other words, a planning inquiry before inspectors. On the current information I have, it is likely to be a team of inspectors because of the scope of the plan and the timescale. Of course, it is likely now, it is difficult to predict whether that will be virtually or physically, but either way the preparations with the inspectors are well-advanced as to how that can be done in either event. The current Island Plan Order prescribes a minimum period of not less than 8 weeks for the public. Here we are in fact, under these regulations, we are proposing 12 weeks. So, if you like, that is an improvement. Also, for States Members, as I explained under the current law States Members would lodge their amendments to the draft plan right at the end of the process, after they have gone through public consultation and what have you. Now, States amendments would be lodged at the same time. So there is a twin-tracked approach. So that will increase the time that Members have under the current law. At the moment it increases, at the current time it is 4 weeks for amendments and of course under this arrangement it would be 12 weeks. So that will provide a process leading up to the Planning inquiry. Now, obviously things are likely to change at that point, either as a result of things said in the inquiry or information coming out and indeed the inspector's report. There does need to be procedure and these regulations provide for that, for amendments, then to put forward further amendments once the independent planning inspector has published the report. So Members will get 3 opportunities to state their views, during the public consultation in the 12 weeks, during the public inquiry and after the inspector's report. The law sets down the timescales, which has been the trickiest part of this legislation to get right. That is why I am grateful for the work we have been able to do with the Scrutiny Panel - I thank the chairman for that - and the officers and the legal advice. Because it has been quite tricky to try to provide an accommodation in there that is practical. Because the Island Plan debate has to be manageable. I am grateful for the Greffier as well who has given the team an enormous amount of help to produce workable proposals. For the Minister, there is this provision that the Minister can lodge an amendment after the publication of the inspector's report and not later than 2 weeks before a debate. That allows the Minister to respond to the inspector's report. So, for example, if an inspector says something should not be done or something is not recommended, then the Minister can at that point remove it. There is also a

provision, which is a very exceptional one, which is about a provision for dealing with unforeseen issues that emerge during a debate, where the Minister can put forward an amendment with the permission of the States. This is really designed to iron out what you might call technical difficulties. Because the Island Plan debate can get quite complex because obviously the amendments that Members have are on the table for debate. We will then have probably amendments to amendments. Sometimes, with the complexity of the Island Plan, there is a danger that mistakes can be made. That provision would enable that to be sorted out. So that is the very high level. Obviously, the Scrutiny Panel have published a report, we have discussed it with the panel at length. The Island Plan process will be comprehensive. The report produced by the panel really gave us the flavour of the issues that are going to be coming out of the plan. So it is a good helpful lead-in to the publication of the plan. With the opportunities there are for all of the amendments, as I have said, and the opportunity for Members to bring amendments, the plan that is likely to come forward, which will deal with affordable housing, the use of public land, supporting  Parish communities, affordable homes, protecting our coast, countryside and marine environment, a plan for town, protecting public open space and play space for children, and particularly infrastructure and Our Hospital. That vital project. As Members have said, dealing with climate change. So it is an ambition but the team have done fantastic work. I am delighted with the work that has been done so far. I will promise to see this through. So there is no escaping it, these regulations are necessary because without it there is no legal framework to do what we agreed to do in the in-committee debates and adopt the interim Island Plan. So I ask Members please, I make the debate on regulations in principle. I have tried to keep it simple to save time. But I will respond to detailed Members' points if they have them.

The Bailiff :

Are the principles seconded? [Seconded]

1. The Connétable of St. Brelade :

I commend the Minister for bringing this 3-year bridging plan to the Assembly. In the light of COVID restrictions it would appear to be the right thing to do. We must, however, be cognisant that there is a real risk that not much will be achieved in this condensed period of 3 years. My panel considers that there may be a significant scaling-back from a 10-year plan and I would ask the Minister which areas he would think most at risk. One of these risks is that it may be perceived as a plan driven by Government without the support of the general public and key stakeholders. They are vital to delivering the outcomes of the Island Plan. It is evident from the panel's findings that meaningful consultation and clear communication with stakeholders is key to securing the plan's success. It is crucial therefore that the Council of Ministers puts forward the plan that States Members and the public can have faith will successfully deliver on its aims in the short timeframe. It is clear that prioritising and addressing the shortage of affordable homes will be a key element in the bridging Island Plan and we are reassured to note there is some degree of known certainty within planning assumptions for this element of the plan. Approval of this proposition will enable the proposed changes in process that are required to lodge and debate the bridging plan. While it is appreciated that an extended lodging period of 12 weeks will be provided for, there are concerns in respect of public consultation running at the same time as the lodging period. This may be unsatisfactory to States Members, who may wish to bring amendments based on feedback gained from public consultation. The panel's review also found that there was a lack of clarity and assurance as to how a shorter bridging Island Plan will interlink with the subsequent 10-year plan to ensure the sustainable longevity of developments as they go through the design and build lifespan of the project. I refer Members to our review S.R.3/2021, which makes a number of recommendations on page 9, in the interests of providing some positive feedback and help in mitigating any potential implications, should Members agree to adopt this proposition and the subsequent draft bridging Island Plan.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the principles? If no other Member wishes to speak on the principles, then I close the debate and call upon the Minister to respond.

2. Deputy J.H. Young:

I thank the Connétable for his support, but really important questions. Starting with the issue of public consultation, it is fundamental that we manage to achieve it. That has to be that no plan can succeed, and I personally would not expect it to be approved by the States Members, if the situation arises where for any reason we fail to achieve that. We have an excellent team. We have a very well-resourced team, thankfully to the budgets provided, with external partners. So we are not in the usual position where one is having to cut our cloth, as it were. We can use every way we can of being able to engage in the public, we will. This is where I am strongly relying on our comms team, on all the expert partners and so on. I will, as Minister, have to monitor that, as I am doing already on the work so far. I ask Members to have faith with myself and my ministerial team, my colleagues, that if we feel that is not being successful, we will make sure we put that right before things advance too far. When you ask about areas of risk, I do not believe there is a risk that there will be a key subject omitted from the plan. If anything, the work has been very comprehensive. That links into the other point the Connétable made about how the plans for the 3-year period will mesh with longer- term. I am very clear, from again the work I have seen, those policies that are coming forward and the work being done is setting the context as well for the longer term. For example, in the case of housing, even though it is a 3-year plan, what we have had to do is to adopt all the targets and the policy drafts for 5 years. The reason for that is logical. The cycle from identifying a site to procuring and seeing that housing implemented is certainly longer than 3 years. So that is why we have adopted the 5-year. Also, when it comes to issues like the infrastructure and provisions where we have taken a much longer view, because you cannot avoid issues like water supply and mineral supply and all those type of things, dealing with them in just a 3-year period. So those are examples. But, obviously, in population we have had to make a best-informed planning assumption. If migration exceeds the assumption numbers, then we will underachieve. But, if it is less, then we will overachieve. Of course the draft plan as we have published, it is a strategy statement, we published it a couple of months ago.

[12:30]

That information is all set out in full in that document. At the moment I have not had a lot of feedback on it, but it is there. If Members read that, you will be able to find that the longer term links in. I agree, and I did make this point earlier, Members may prefer the current process whereby Members can effectively observe what happens during a public consultation process, albeit one that is shorter, only 8 weeks, and then put their amendments in. Now we are asking Members to do it concurrently and that is why we have put out a longer period. But of course there is the second bite of the cherry after the inspector's report where I am proposing that amendments can be brought and the intention is to relate those amendments to things that have already been put forward, matters considered by the inspector, and the opinions and the content of the inspector's report. Of course, this time the other gain there is that all Members' amendments now will be subjected to the public inquiry process. Where, previously, they were not. That is an important situation because, in the past, there has been a risk that a last-minute amendment can be made, which is very material, and has not been subject to an inspector's independent review. Now of course that risk has been reduced. Of course, it does mean the inquiry will be bigger and that is why we have had to talk about 2 or 3 inspectors. Therefore, it has put everybody on their mettle in terms of the resources that we put into that. But I have to say, we have had some good response and we have a good team there and I really believe that is all very doable. I think I have picked up the points that the Connétable raised and I again thank him for his work. I can assure him that the team will keep the Scrutiny Panel fully apprised on process issues. Even though of course members of the panel may have substantive issues as we go through, no different to any other Members, which is absolutely right and proper that happens. The process here

will enable all that to do the job that we hope of it. I hope with those comments that I can propose the regulations in principle and ask for the appel.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Deputy . I will ask the Greffier to place a vote into the chat. The vote is on the principles of the regulations. I open the voting and ask Members to vote. Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes. Then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The principles have been adopted: 41 votes pour, one vote contre and no abstention in the link and a further 3 votes pour in the chat.