Plemont 3------A Pyrrhic Victory???

I know a number of people who are members of the National Trust for Jersey (NTJ) and understandably they are delighted with yesterday’s result. Many are single minded and dedicated in safeguarding our heritage. I have no problem with that, but ask where were they when the applications were being considered to build on the St Martin’s School playing field or the monstrosity at La Coupe Bay in St Martin. I hope they will show the same commitment and diligence when the next contentious application comes along irrespective of who ever are making the application. 

I called my first Plemont blog “a contrived debate” because of the way in which the proposition was conveniently moved up the Agenda so that certain States Members could be present for the debate.

Yesterday’s debate was again a contrived event. The proposition was to request the Treasury Minister to identify the appropriate means of funding a grant however before the States had agreed to the request the Minister, Senator Ozouf had already identified a source even though in many people’s eyes the source, the Criminal Offenders Confiscation Fund, was not intended to finance the purchase of land, no matter how important the land was.

It could be said that the NTJ had further support in the Chamber via three unelected members, the Deputy Bailiff, the Solicitor General and the Dean who all played an interesting and supporting role.

In most democracies the Speaker is a servant of the Members in the Chamber, in Jersey this is not so. Our Speaker not only approves the wording of every proposition, amendment and question that is lodged but also dictates who speaks and what is said.

Yesterday it was evident that he wanted to hurry things along and was in no mood to allow any dissenting speaker to question the advice given by the Solicitor General even though there appeared to be no logic in his answers.

The Confiscation Fund allows for money to be spent “(i) in preventing, suppressing or otherwise dealing with criminal conduct,  (ii)  in dealing with the consequences of criminal conduct, or (iii)  without prejudice to the generality of clauses (i) and (ii), in facilitating the enforcement of any enactment dealing with criminal conduct;

Senator Ozouf had an amazing and some may say convenient memory lapse yesterday when he was unable to recall how much money was in the Fund when monies were being requested to build the new police station. Had he looked no further than the answer he gave to Senator Le Gresley in February 2011 he would have remembered that there was well over £8 million in the Fund and that money is still unspent?

Therefore one may ask why money from the Confiscation Fund was not allocated to build the police station in the first place.  I submit that the answer is simple, the Fund was never intended to build police stations and that is why the money was not allocated.

The debate kicked off with Senator Bailhache hardly needing to break into a sweat, he had the expected supportive packed gallery, the money had been found, there was no need to compulsory purchase the headland and there was a fixed price. This was get out of jail card which was used by so many members who were looking for a reason to change they voted last time.

Deputy Duhamel the Planning and Environment Minister spoke next, but he gave the appearance of a dead man walking or should it be talking? He late claim that an eleventh hour buyer had turned up, rightly cut no ice particularly as he had omitted mention that point in the Comments which he had lodged some few hours earlier.

Deputies Mike Higgins and Judy Martin were the true stars in the debate and made it abundantly clear that the device/mechanism that Senator Ozouf was adopting to obtain funding was ultra vires.  One may ask how was it possible for the Solicitor General to say that Senator Ozouf’s actions were in order, but then again one has to look no further than the part he played in the Curtis Warren trial.

Senator Ozouf may well claim that his actions were transparent and legal but in my book they say little about his ethics and integrity. Taking money out of one fund and putting it in another fund and then moving it to another fund looks very much like money laundering to me, but then again I am a simple soul who sees things in black and white and not in shady grey.

Immediately after Senator Ozouf had spoken, the Dean rose. As the custodian of what is supposed to be good, one would have hoped that the Dean might have spoken on the morality of the funding and perhaps have quoted from the scriptures and asked the Senator and others what shall it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?

Sadly the Dean complimented Senator Ozouf on the way he had found the funding, so much for morality. He made no mention at all of the States failure to spend money from the fund to help those who have suffered as a consequence of crime and those criminals who need help in being rehabilitated. Interestingly today the States was debating a proposition to provide funding for disabled people, but the Dean had nothing to say.

Money was found to buy land, yet today the very people who were happy to spend it yesterday were today opposing money being spent on our disabled, where is the morality?

Yesterday was a land mark day for the NTJ and Members were constantly reminded that the headland would for the benefit of our children, their children and generations there after; however it will come at a price far greater than £3.5m and may be a Pyrrhic victory. 

Precedents have been created and money can be extracted from the Confiscated Fund and used for a purpose it was never intended for. Also if money can be found for land then money can be found for a whole host of more worthy causes?  The bench mark is now set at an all time low and we are in for an interesting time as Ministers attempt to justify withholding funds from the Island’s many disadvantaged.

For the benefit of Readers who might want to read Plemont 1 please click here

To read Plemont 2, please click here

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.