Monday 23 June 2014

Plemont Headland---A Contrived Debate?




Next week the States will be meeting as per schedule and Members have over 30 propositions plus amendments to debate. Some years ago the States approved my proposition which was to publish a schedule of States Sittings in the summer for the following year and should States business not be completed on the scheduled Tuesday then business would continue through that week. The 2014 schedule was published on 15th July via R87/2013

The reason for my proposition was to help States Members with their diaries. They would know that whilst they could be in the States for some days in the scheduled week, there was good chance that they would be free the following week so they could arrange meetings, particularly those out of Island, with a degree of certainty. Therefore States Members had almost a year's notice that there would be a States meeting on 1st July which could sit for several days as there is always a build up in July.

Due to the large number of propositions the States has agreed to meet at 230pm on Monday 30th June for Question Time which will mean that debates on the propositions can get under way after prayers on Tuesday 1st July. Normally propositions are debated in the numerical order in which they are lodged. However if a good reason can be found it is possible with States approval for a proposition to be moved up or down the Order Paper.

On 3rd June Senator Philip Bailhache lodged yet another proposition on the Plemont Holiday Village. P107/2014. In his election manifesto he was critical of States Members stating " The reputation of the States in the Island has seldom been lower. Too much time is wasted by the discussion of trivial matters." He may be right but what is a trivial matter and how many times must a matter be recycled? There have been several States debates on Plemont and on 13th December 2012 the States debated P90/2012 lodged by Chief Minister Gorst which asked whether the States should buy the headland and sell it on to the National Trust for Jersey. The States by 25 to 24 decided against the purchase. Planning Consent has since been given and work is underway, however the friends/members of the National Trust have continued their opposition.

The latest twist in the saga is that the Developer, probably because he can not longer afford the time or money fighting the Trust's big guns is offering to sell the property to them. However not only is the price well over the top, see Treasury Ministers Comments in 2012 but is considerably more than the Trust can afford. However with friends in high places money is not a problem. The Developer is asking for just over £7 million pounds and to walk away leaving the States and the National Trust with responsibility for clearing the large site and returning it to nature.

What is alarming is that Senator Bailhache only lodged his proposition on 3rd June and it is being debated one month later with no Comments from the Treasury or Planning Ministers or the Council of Ministers, nor being subject of a review or Comments from the Scrutiny Panel. If the proposition had been lodged by an "ordinary" back bencher all sorts of obstacles would have been found let alone requests for deferment until the financial implications had been addressed. 

When a proposition is lodged the proposer is supposed to disclose the financial and manpower implications. If a particular proposal does have financial implications he/she must identify what savings can be made elsewhere to fund whatever is being proposed. Finding £3m can be difficult however Senator Bailhache is requesting that the Treasury Minister should identify the appropriate means of funding. Can you imagine what the Treasury Minister's response would be if a lesser mortal should make such a request?

To add insult to injury and to expose States Member's soft under belly they have not only agreed that Senator Bailhache's proposition should jump the queue but should be debated as the first item when the States sits on Tuesday morning. This will be really convenient for the Trust's supporters who are being encouraged to attend the debate. How is this possible and how could Members be so naive. The answer is simple and is explained below.

The Overseas Aid Committee has an annual trip to the UK to meet various bodies who have applied for Aid. It has had a year's notice that the States was sitting on 1st July and given the usual build up of propositions, the Sitting was likely to continue through the week. Senator Paul Routier who apart from being an Assistant Chief Minister is also Chairman of the Jersey Overseas Aid Committee and he should  have been aware that the States was likely to sit for several days. It should be noted that he and fellow members Connetable le Troquer and Deputy Labey all voted in support of the proposition to purchase the Plemont property in 2012, but unless Senator Bailhache's proposition was able to jump the queue all three members would be in the UK and unable to vote.

Normally it is the proposition's proposer who asks for a variation in the running order. However it appears that Deputy Labey was deputed to make the request. One can understand the request because it is likely that the proposition would have been debated later in the week when the 3 committee members were in the UK. In my view the States Members should not have supported Deputy Labey's request. The Overseas Aid Committee had ample knowledge of the States Sitting and should have avoided that week. Among the 30 proposition are matters which relate to a number of important laws which affect the well being of ALL Island residents and deserving the support of ALL States Members. To agree to the Plemont proposition jumping the queue is an insult to All Island residents and no wonder that the reputation of the States in the Island has seldom been lower with leader of the culprits being none other than the statement's author.

It should be noted that there were requests for P102/2014 Civil Marriage-same sex couples lodged by Deputy Sam Mezec and Maternity Leave- Rights of employees lodged by Deputy Geoff Southern to jump the queue but neither were approved and among those voting against were Senator Bailhache and Deputy Labey.

Supporting the proposition is short sighted. The Holiday Village is a brown field site where the Developer intends to build 28 homes which we are told are much needed. The cost to the States will be in excess of three and a half million pounds for these reasons. Building the homes will provide work for a large number of people who will pay income tax and social security and the sale of the homes will lead to a considerable amount of stamp duty to the States and 28 rate payers to the Parish of St Ouen. The Developer has said that he will give the States a large area of the headland which can be enjoyed by future generations. 

I submit that if the States has over £3m spare money it would be better spent on helping the Island's needy and vulnerable residents who probably have no idea where Plemont is and like the majority of Island residents are unlikely to visit the headland.

24 comments:

  1. It would seem that the Bailache boys like to get their own way, by hook or by crook and they seem to have little opposition in the house....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Philip certainly seems to be pulling the strings and has many puppets.

      Delete
  2. Your Quote:'I submit that if the States has over £3m spare money it would be better spent on helping the Island's needy and vulnerable residents who probably have no idea where Plemont is and like the majority of Island residents are unlikely to visit the headland.'

    Well said that man. I agree totally with what you say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I bet that there would be more people visiting the area when there are 28 houses on site than there would be if there is just open headland.

      Delete

  3. Thanks for that Bob. Funny that two people from Grouville are taking most interest in this. Where was PB they when the pottery was being sold and over-developed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You could also ask where the National Trust was when it was proposed to build on the playing field at St Martin's School.

      Delete
  4. Bob,
    Your Blog should be essential reading for all States Members who surely can't support the proposition. I bet they would not vote for it if it was their money, so why should they spend ours?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I understand there are foodbanks operating in Jersey. This must mean there are people who seek assistance to prevent starvation. The priority of the property owing classes is that the States find several millions to buy a headland. How the comfortable live.

    An excellent and astute piece by our Jacobite Deputy of St Martin "across the water".

    ReplyDelete
  6. As well as writing on here can I assume that you are rallying and lobbying your fellow politicians to block this terrible example of elitist aggrandisement and remind those that serve the tax payer that they would do well to remember that we rely on "our money" being used wisely and for the good of all islanders! there's been no effective "anti-NTJ" campaign, no hard questions asked about their finances, their plans, their restrictions to access etc we keep being told it's "for the people" but we don't know what this state sponsored, but ultimately private ownership really means?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am no longer a States Member, but I agree with you that a number of questions that need answers BEFORE the debate, but I bet they will not be asked.

      Delete
  7. What are the odds on development NEVER taking place if we just let the developer keep his site? I doubt he really wants to invest anymore time or money on these blades of grass. Will possibly be given back to 'the people' if we wait long enough

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the Developer is fed up with the States, The Trust and their supporters and is selling just to get a decent night's sleep.

      Delete
  8. If the National Trust get this land no doubt it will end up like other land they own, it will be restricted access only, and a very expensive piece of grazing land for sheep and goat heards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's another good reason not to buy the headland.

      Delete
  9. Bob as usual your arguments are perfectly reasoned and expressed in a clear and concise logical order. How any thinking, non glove puppet, member of our states could not find this compulsive reading and compelling logic to vote against would defeat me. We all know however that PB has at least half the house in his back pocket. My only hope is that some of those who might currently be sensing change afoot, as I doubt PB will get an easy ride or possibly even get in at the next election, might be prepared to make a stand. I doubt it though, its to far form election day for that, but I hope I'm proved wrong. The party whip will be working overtime on this I'm sure.

    What really irritates me though is that they are going to waste more of my hard earned tax money on this folly. I seriously think this is a done (behind the scenes) deal and another shining example of how things really work in Jersey. Perhaps my best chance with this is for an amendment proposing that this be done in the form of loan. Then they can charge the handful of dog owners that might get to use this land a fortune for emptying the dog waste bins to try and recoup some money to repay the loan. Whoops stupid me, I'll end up paying for the upkeep of this land in one or another I'm sure!

    Angry Bean

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Jelly is nailed to the wall:

      http://thejerseyway.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/statement-from-senator-bailhache.html

      Not a passing observation by the BBC journalist.
      Not the sound of a jaw dropping.
      Just an effective re-read of Bellyache's statement, almost as if he had already been furnished with it.

      Try the *** Spot the shyster competition ***

      www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJo9JbZ3z-o

      38,000 odd wrong answers at the last count !

      Islanders are stupid and history can only repeat itself.
      Your children deserve better.

      Delete
    2. The problem is that no one was aware or if they were the matter did not bother them. The same could be said of the States Members.

      Delete
    3. It could be another close vote, but logically if States Members voted against it last time, the latest proposition is to pay even more for the headland so there is no reason to support this latest proposition.

      Delete
  10. Bob, Call me stupid but why do members who speak on a subject more often than not tell the house how they will vote before they sit down, and also before others have put their thoughts forward to the house, i.e. they haven't heard all sides of the storey, its like telling the house on air what the cost of some new project is and then going out to tender, I hear that a certain states member is to table a same sex marriage compromise to the house, no disrespect to him, but can he speak on the subject, is there not a conflict of interest here?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Unfortunately there is block voting, particularly among the Connetables. They will say that they do not discuss which way they are going to vote but it is because they are pretty conservative with a small "c" that they generally support the Council of Ministers.

    The Plemont debate is about money and whether the public is getting value for money, most will say we are not so there is a possibility that the Connetables will be fairly split like they were last time.

    The debate should be short as there are few new issues but I expect that there will be a lot of recycled speeches.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Its fundamentally wrong to go into a debate with a set view on how your going to vote. You may have thoughts in one direction, but you should listen to the arguments put forward by others with an open mind. It seems all to often that some of our States members do not even give other members the courtesy of listening to their arguments. How some of them can spend time in the coffee room and still appear for the vote is beyond me. If you don't hear the entire debate you have no right to vote IMHO.

    JRCbean

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure that I can entirely agree with you. For example if I was still a States Member and given that I have looked at both sides of the argument I would need some convincing before I changed my mind.

      You are right to raise the coffee room scenario because it used to upset me to see some members leaving the Chamber before or during the period when the proposer was speaking in favour of his/her proposition.

      The same could be said about not being in the Chamber when the proposer summed up.

      I would recommend readers to read Tony the Profs two blogs on Plemont which can be found at the top right of my blog list. There are some alternate views which are well worth considering, however in my view they would not be sufficient for me to change my mind.

      Tony is right to say that the latest proposition is less flawed than the previous one, however it is still flawed and as such should not be supported.

      This response is being made at 740am but as yet no Comments have been lodged by the Treasury or Planning Ministers nor the Council of Ministers, why?

      This proposition is being rushed through without any scrutiny or any cost benefits being conducted. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

      Delete
    2. "I would need some convincing before I changed my mind." Absolutely, but you sir would be prepared to listen, just in case somebody added something significant one way or the other. that might have missed and could possibly influence your decision, that is the difference. My point was that some current states members go in with blinkers on, and ears plugged and not even prepared to listen.

      JRCbean

      Delete
    3. Thank for your Comment, I have just published another blog which should go some way in making States Members think before supporting Senator Bailhache.

      Delete