STATES OF JERSEY
OFFICIAL REPORT
TUESDAY, 14th JULY 2026

Senator L.J. Farnham (The Chief Minister): .................................................. 10 Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South : ...................................................... 10 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................ 11 Deputy H.L. Jeune : ........................................................................... 11 Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central : .................................................. 12 Deputy F.G. Voisin of St. Helier North : ...................................................... 12 Senator L.J. Farnham : ........................................................................ 12

PUBLIC BUSINESS ............................................................................. 14

1. Reduction of lodging period ............................................................ 14

1.1   Deputy T.A. Coles : ..................................................................... 14

1. Senator L.J. Farnham :.................................................................. 14
2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : ...................................................... 14
3. Deputy T.A. Coles : ..................................................................... 15

2. Take No Action on the Draft States of Jersey (Ministerial Offices) Amendment Order 202- (P.62/2026).................................................................. 16

2.1   Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South : ................................................ 17

1. Senator L.J. Farnham :.................................................................. 19
2. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :............................. 20 Mr. M. Jowitt K.C., H.M. Attorney General: ................................................ 22
3. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement : .................................................... 24
4. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : ................................................ 25
5. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin : ........................................... 26
6. Deputy M. Tadier : ...................................................................... 26
7. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John :.................................................... 29
8. Senator M.R. Le Hegarat : .............................................................. 29
9. Deputy T.A. Coles : ..................................................................... 31

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS ..................... 33

3. Appointment of the Minister for Planning and Regulation .......................... 33

1. Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :................................................................ 34

1. Deputy B. Ward of St. Clement : ....................................................... 36
2. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :............................. 36
3. Deputy H.L. Jeune : ..................................................................... 36
4. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement : .................................................... 37
5. Deputy A. F. Curtis : .................................................................... 37
6. Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South : ................................................ 37

7. Deputy T.A. Coles : ..................................................................... 38
8. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central :............................................... 38
9. Deputy C.S. Alves : ..................................................................... 38
10. Connétable M. O'D. Troy of St. Clement : .......................................... 38
11. Deputy V. Li of St. Helier North : ................................................... 39
12. Deputy V. Li : ........................................................................ 39
13. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : ............................................. 40
14. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet : ............................................................ 40
15. Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement : ............................................... 40
16. Deputy K.M. Wilson :................................................................ 41

2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : ...................................................... 41

1. Deputy B. Ward : ........................................................................ 44
2. Deputy A.F. Curtis : .................................................................... 44
3. Deputy A.F. Curtis : .................................................................... 45
4. Deputy H.L. Jeune : ..................................................................... 45
5. Deputy H.L. Jeune : ..................................................................... 45
6. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet : ................................................................ 46
7. Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée of St. Helier South : .................................... 46
8. Deputy C.S. Alves : ..................................................................... 47
9. Deputy V. Li : ........................................................................... 47
10. Deputy K.M. Wilson :................................................................ 48
11. The Connétable of St. Clement : ..................................................... 49

4. Appointment of the President of the Scrutiny Li aison Committee .................. 50

4.1   Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement : .................................................. 51

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : ...................................................... 51
2. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : ................................................ 52
3. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet : ................................................................ 52
4. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................ 52
5. Deputy K.F. Morel : .................................................................... 53

5. Appointment of the Members of the Privileges and Procedures Committee ........ 53

1. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ............................................................................ 53
2. Deputy C.S. Alves : ..................................................................... 53
3. Deputy C.S. Alves : ..................................................................... 54

6. Appointment of the elected Members of the Public Accounts Committee .......... 54

6.1   Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement (Chair, Public Accounts Committee): .......... 54

7. Appointment of the Members of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel............ 54

7.1   Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central (Chair, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):

 .......................................................................................... 55

8. Appointment of the Members of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel ...................................................................................... 55

8.1   Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South (Chair, Economic and International Affairs

Scrutiny Panel): ........................................................................ 55

9. Appointment of the Members of the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel ........................................................................... 56

9.1   Deputy V. Li of St. Helier North (Chair, Children, Education and Home Affairs

Scrutiny Panel): ........................................................................ 56

10. Appointment of the Members of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel: .......................................................................... 56

10.1   Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity (Chair, Environment,

Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel): ........................................... 57

11. Appointment of the Members of the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel ... 57

11.1   Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée of St. Helier South (Chair, Health and Social Security

Scrutiny Panel): ........................................................................ 57

12. Appointment of Members of the Planning Committee ................................ 58

12.1   Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement (Chair, Planning Committee):..................... 58

13. Appointment of 2 States Commissioners of the Jersey Overseas Aid Commission . 58

1. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville and St. Martin (Chair, Jersey Overseas Aid Commission): .......................................................................... 58
2. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John :.................................................... 59

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................ 59 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT ................................................................ 59

14. Appointment of 2 Members of the States Employment Board ....................... 61

14.1  Senator L.J. Farnham (Chair, States Employment Board): ............................ 61

15. Election of a Member to represent the States of Jersey in the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly ................................................................ 61

1. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South : ................................................ 62
2. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central : ............................................ 62

16. Appointment of Members of the Bailiff 's Consultative Panel. ....................... 62

1. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John :.................................................... 62
2. Deputy M.R. Ferey of St. Saviour : ..................................................... 62
3. Senator H.M. Miles : .................................................................... 63
4. Connétable I. Gardiner of St. Helier :................................................... 63
5. Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement : .................................................. 63
6. Deputy R.E. Binet of Grouville and St. Martin : ........................................ 63

17. Election of an Associate Member to represent the States of Jersey in the British- Irish Parliamentary Assembly .......................................................... 64

1. Connétable M. O'D. Troy of St. Clement : ............................................. 64
2. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central : ............................................ 64
3. Deputy P.J. Romeril of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ........................... 64

QUESTIONS...................................................................................... 64

18. Written Questions ....................................................................... 64

1. Deputy R.S. Kovacs of St. Saviour of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the Strategic Reserve Fund, including investment income, withdrawals and allocations to the new health facility. (WQ.86/2026).................................. 65

2. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North of the Minister for Social Security regarding Jersey Employment Trust and additional funding arrangements beyond 2026. (WQ.87/2026) .................................................................... 69
3. Deputy K.M. Wilson of the Chief Minister regarding fuel stock levels, supply continuity and fuel contingency planning. (WQ.88/2026) ............................. 70
4. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding trees on private land falling onto public roads or footpaths. (WQ.89/2026) .......................................................................... 70
5. Deputy C.D. Curtis of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) assessments. (WQ.90/2026) .. 73
6. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier North of the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs regarding visa vignettes, wet ink passport stamps and EU Settled Status confirmation letters. (WQ.91/2026) .................................................................. 77
7. Deputy C.D. Curtis of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Education and Li felong Learning regarding the use of additional Budget funding to increase teachers' planning, preparation and assessment (PPA) time. (WQ.93/2026) .................... 78
8. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North of the Minister for Social Security regarding the transfer of funds from the Social Security Reserve Fund to the Social Security Fund in 2026. (WQ.94/2026) .......................................................... 78
9. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North of the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development regarding Jersey's technology industry. (WQ. 95/2026) ................ 79
10. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North of the Minster for Housing regarding potential changes to the affordable housing rental cap and the impact on Andium Homes' business model. (WQ.96/2026) ............................................... 81
11. Deputy R.S. Kovacs of St. Saviour of the Minister for Children and Families regarding the review of statutory youth service provision. (WQ.97/2026) ....................... 82
12. Deputy R.S. Kovacs of St. Saviour of the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development regarding the DFDS service disruption following the Tarifa Jet collision. (WQ.98/2026) .......................................................................... 83
13. Deputy R.S. Kovacs of St. Saviour of the Chief Minister regarding the establishment of electoral registers. (WQ.99/2026) ................................................... 85
14. Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South of the Minister for Treasury and Resouces regarding efforts by the ports of Jersey to attract additional freight forwarding companies to the Island. (WQ.100/2026) .............................................. 86
15. Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South of the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development regarding actions being taken to attract an additional freight forwarding company to Jersey. (WQ.101/2026) .................................................... 86
16. Deputy C.D. Curtis of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Education and Li felong Learning regarding the Jersey Graduate Teacher Training Programme. (WQ.102/2026)  87
17. Deputy C.D. Curtis of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) assessment provision in Jersey (WQ.103/2026) ......................................................................... 88
18. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs regarding jury service in Jersey. (WQ.104/2026) ...................................... 88
19. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Minister for Education and Li felong Learning regarding measures in schools to encourage and facilitate voting by eligible students. (WQ.105/2026) ......................................................................... 89

20. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development regarding correspondence with DFDS following the Tarifa Jet collision and any contractual implications. (WQ.106/2026)..................................... 90
21. Deputy C.D. Curtis of St. Helier Central of the Minister for the Environment regarding prosecutions under the Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Jersey) Law 2018. (WQ.107/2026) .................................................................. 91
22. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North of the Chief Minister regarding the projected increase in the Government deficit in 2026. (WQ.109/2026) ............... 91
23. Deputy C.D. Curtis of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Children and Families regarding progress towards introducing internet filtering requirements to protect children from harmful online content. (WQ.111/2026) ................................ 92
24. Deputy C.D. Curtis of St Helier Central of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding progress in reprioritising funding for Le Rocquier School and community sports facilities. (WQ.112/2026) .............................................................. 92
25. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Chief Minister regarding the performance of DFDS services and actions being taken to secure improvements. (WQ.113/2026) .... 93
26. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement of the Minister for Housing regarding restricted tenure properties data. (WQ.114/2026) ................................................ 94
27. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the Westward development at South Hill. (WQ.115/2026) ................. 95
28. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North of the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development regarding Jersey's ferry service. (WQ.116/2026) ....................... 95
29. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding the condition of Jersey's road surfaces. (WQ.118/2026) .............................. 96
30. Deputy V. Li of St. Helier North of the Minister for Education and Li felong Learning regarding SEND and inclusion funding. (WQ.119/2026) .............................. 97
31. Deputy V. Li of St. Helier North of the Minister for Education and Li felong Learning regarding the Childcare Funding Scheme. (WQ.120/2026) .......................... 100
32. Deputy A. Maltman of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding Li bertyBus fleet renewal. (WQ.121/2026) .................. 101
33. Deputy A. Maltman of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding swimming safety measures at Victoria Marine Lake. (WQ.122/2026) ........................................................................ 101
34. Deputy A. Maltman of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter of the Minister for the Environment regarding Les Mielles Golf and Country Club site. (WQ.123/2026) .. 102
35. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding the coordination of roadworks, road closures and traffic management arrangements to minimise congestion. (WQ.124/2026) ................................................ 103
36. Deputy A. Maltman of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding public transport access to the new hospital. WQ.125/2026)

  105

37. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central of the Chair of the Comité des Connétable s regarding coordination of roadworks, road closures and traffic management arrangements between the Parishes and Government. (WQ.126/2026) .............. 106
38. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South of the Minister for Social Security regarding a comprehensive review of the Long-Term Care Scheme. (WQ.127.2026) ............ 107
39. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South of the Minister for Education and Li felong Learning regarding consultation and planning for the proposed new town school on the former Jersey Gas site. (WQ.128/2026) .......................................... 108

40. Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South of the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development regarding RNLI lifeguard rescue and first-aid incident data. (WQ.129/2026) ........................................................................ 109
41. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South of the Minister for Social Security regarding analysis of the operation, costs, effectiveness and public understanding of the Long- Term Care Scheme. (WQ.130/2026) .................................................. 111
42. Deputy L.D. Carpenter of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the financial and distributional impact of reducing excise duty on road fuel. (WQ.131/2026) ............................................................ 112
43. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development regarding free admission to the Jersey Museum. (WQ.132/2026) .... 112
44. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity of the Minister for the Environment regarding the financial implications of creating a Minister for Planning and Regulation. (WQ.133/2026) ...................................................... 113
45. Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement of the Chief Minister regarding the development of individual Ministerial Plans and engagement with Scrutiny on Government priorities. (WQ.134/2026) ............................................................ 114
46. Connétable I. Gardiner of St. Helier of the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs regarding the transfer of prisoners from H.M.P. La Moye to United Kingdom prisons. (WQ.135/2026) ........................................................................ 114
47. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour of the Minister for Children and Families regarding progress in responding to United Nations recommendations on tackling child poverty in Jersey (WQ.136/2026) .............................................. 115
48. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour of the Minister for Children and Families regarding plans to improve access to children's sport and active play opportunities. (WQ.137/2026) ........................................................................ 116
49. Connétable I Gardiner of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding eligibility criteria and discretionary support arrangements for the 2026 Back to School Bonus. (WQ.138/2026) ............................................................... 117
50. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity of the Chief Minister regarding ministerial responsibilities following the creation of a Minister for Planning and Regulation. (WQ.139/2026) ...................................................... 118
51. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity of the Chair of the States Employment Board regarding trainee nurses and other public sector trainees. (WQ.140/2026) ........................................................................ 119
52. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding assessments of infrastructure upgrades required across the States property estate to prepare for future heatwaves. (WQ.141/2026) ........................................ 120
53. Deputy L.D. Carpenter of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the cost and household impact of removing GST from food and essential grocery items. (WQ.142/2026) .............................................. 121

19. Oral Questions .......................................................................... 122

1. Connétable I. Gardiner of St. Helier of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding the Victoria Marine Lake. (OQ.58/2026) ............................................. 122

Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade (The Minister for Infrastructure): ........................ 122

1. The Connétable of St. Helier : ...................................................... 122
2. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ........................ 122
3. Connétable A. Howell of Trinity : .................................................. 123

4. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ........................ 123
5. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central : .......................................... 123
6. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central : ........................................ 124
7. Deputy L.V. Feltham : .............................................................. 124
8. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : .................................................. 124
9. Deputy M. Tadier :.................................................................. 125
10. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement : .............................................. 125
11. The Connétable of St. Helier : .................................................... 125

2. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding the Automatic Voter Registration Project. (OQ.53/2026) ............................... 126

Senator L.J. Farnham (The Chief Minister): ................................................ 126

1. The Connétable of St. Martin : ..................................................... 127
2. Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South : ............................................ 127
3. Deputy T.A. Coles : ................................................................ 127
4. Connétable I. Gardiner of St. Helier : .............................................. 127
5. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John : ................................................ 128
6. The Connétable of St. John : ........................................................ 128
7. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central : ........................................ 128
8. Deputy L.V. Feltham : .............................................................. 128

3. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding charging a separate stamp duty on residential mortgages from the stamp duty charged on property purchases. (OQ.56/2026) .. 129

Senator A.J.H.M. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ................... 129

1. Deputy H.L. Jeune : ................................................................ 129
2. Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South : ............................................ 129
3. Deputy T.A. Coles : ................................................................ 129
4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : .................................................. 130
5. Deputy M. Tadier :.................................................................. 130
6. Deputy H.L. Jeune : ................................................................ 130

4. Deputy V. Li of St. Helier North of the Minister for Children and Families regarding the number of referrals received by the Children and Families Hub. (OQ55/2026) ............................................................................ 131

Connétable R.P. Vibert of St. Peter (The Minister for Children and Families):............ 131 19.4.1   Deputy V. Li : ...................................................................... 131

5. Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South of the Chief Minister regarding Palestine. (OQ.60/2026) ............................................................................ 132

Senator L.J. Farnham (The Chief Minister): ................................................ 132

1. Deputy T.A. Coles : ................................................................ 132
2. Deputy L.D. Carpenter of St. Helier Central : ...................................... 132
3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : .................................................. 133
4. Deputy M. Tadier :.................................................................. 133

6. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour of the Chief Minister regarding the reference to child poverty in Jersey within the United Nations Economic and Social Council's concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (OQ.52/2026) ................................. 134

Senator L.J. Farnham (The Chief Minister): ................................................ 134

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet : ........................................................... 134
2. Connétable I. Gardiner of St. Helier : .............................................. 135
3. The Connétable of St. Helier : ...................................................... 135
4. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet : ........................................................... 135

7. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North of the Minister for Education and Li felong Learning regarding an education-specific Human Capital Strategy. (OQ.51/2026) ............................................................................ 135

Deputy C.D. Curtis of St. Helier Central (The Minister for Education and Li felong

Learning): ............................................................................. 135 19.7.1   Deputy M.B. Andrews : ............................................................ 136

8. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity of the Chief Minister regarding what renewable energy, incentives and Government actions shall be prioritised. (OQ.57/2026) .............................................................. 136

Senator L.J. Farnham (The Chief Minister): ................................................ 136 19.8.1   Deputy H.L. Jeune : ................................................................ 136

9. Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding project priorities during the term. (OQ.61/2026) .................................... 137

Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade (The Minister for Infrastructure): ........................ 137 19.9.1   Deputy T.A. Coles : ................................................................ 137

10. Connétable I. Gardiner of St. Helier of the Minister for the Environment regarding the Extension of Time Dangerous Building Notice issued in respect of 106 and 108 Rouge Bouillon. (OQ.59/2026) ........................................................ 138

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat (The Minister for Planning and Regulation): ...................... 138

1. The Connétable of St. Helier : .................................................... 138
2. Connétable A. Howell of Trinity : ................................................ 139
3. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central : ...................................... 139
4. Deputy L.V. Feltham :............................................................ 139
5. The Connétable of St. Helier : .................................................... 139

11. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding election costs. (OQ.54/2026) ................................... 140

Senator A.J.H.M. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ................... 140

1. The Connétable of St. Martin : .................................................... 140
2. Connétable I. Gardiner of St. Helier : ............................................ 140
3. The Connétable of St. Helier : .................................................... 140
4. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ...................... 141
5. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John : .............................................. 141
6. The Connétable of St. John : ...................................................... 141
7. The Connétable of St. Martin : .................................................... 141

20. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for the Environment ....... 142

1. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North :........................................... 142 Senator M.R. Le Hegarat (The Minister for the Environment): ............................ 142
2. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :............................ 142

20.2.1   Deputy H.L. Jeune : ................................................................ 142

3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : ..................................................... 142

20.3.1   Deputy M. Tadier :.................................................................. 143

4. Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South : ............................................... 143

20.4.1   Deputy T.A. Coles : ................................................................ 143

5. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement : ................................................... 144

20.5.1   Deputy A.F. Curtis : ................................................................ 144

6. Connétable R.D. Johnson of St. Mary : ................................................ 144

20.6.1  The Connétable of St. Mary :....................................................... 144

7. Deputy A. Maltman of St Mary, St Ouen and St Peter: .............................. 144

20.7.1   Deputy A. Maltman : ............................................................... 145

8. Connétable M.O'D. Troy of St. Clement : ............................................ 145
9. Deputy M. Tadier : .................................................................... 145

20.9.1   Deputy M. Tadier :.................................................................. 145

21. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Health and Social Services. ........................................................................................... 146

1. Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South : ............................................... 146 Senator T.J.A. Binet (The Minister for Health and Social Services):....................... 146

1. Deputy T.A. Coles : ................................................................ 146
   2. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :............................ 146

21.2.1   Deputy H.L. Jeune : ................................................................ 146

3. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John :................................................... 147

21.3.1  The Connétable of St. John : ........................................................ 147

4. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : .............................................. 147

21.4.1   Deputy L.M.C. Doublet : ........................................................... 148

5. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central : .......................................... 148

21.5.1   Deputy L.V. Feltham : .............................................................. 148

6. Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South : ............................................... 148

21.6.1   Deputy T.A. Coles : ................................................................ 148

7. Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement : ................................................. 149

21.7.1   Deputy K.M. Wilson :.............................................................. 149

8. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : ..................................................... 149

21.8.1   Deputy M. Tadier :.................................................................. 149

9. Deputy M. Tadier : .................................................................... 149

21.9.1   Deputy M. Tadier :.................................................................. 150

10. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :............................ 150

22. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister ........................ 150

22.1   Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement : ................................................... 150 Senator L.J. Farnham (The Chief Minister): ................................................ 150

22.1.1   Deputy A.F. Curtis : ................................................................ 151

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ................ 151

23. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ........................................................................... 151

ADJOURNMENT .............................................................................. 151

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Greffier of the States led the Assembly in Prayer. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

I believe a response to my Written Question .. and though we have been in correspondence about 139, I have further concerns about 133 that contravenes Standing Order 12(2A). I do not believe it answers directly my question. It is regarding the financial impact of R.106/2026, the order that will be put forward, about the financial impact of transfer for the Minister for Planning and Regulation and the Minister for ..

The Bailiff :

That is Written Question 123? Deputy H.L. Jeune :

133.

The Bailiff :

I will ensure you get a ruling by the time set out in the Standing Orders. Connétable of St. Peter , your light was on. Not anymore.

Senator L.J. Farnham (The Chief Minister):

In relation to P.62, which has been lodged, I was going to ask the Assembly whether they would consider debating that item, of course with the permission of the proposer himself, given the order of the Order Paper. If we do not do that, the first item would be to ask the Assembly to appoint a Minister for Planning and Regulation, so I thought, out of respect for the Assembly and the proposition, we should debate that as the first item.

The Bailiff :

So the proposition you make is that P.62 be debated now? Senator L.J. Farnham :

Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to speak on the proposition that we take P.62 now?

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

Sir, could we hear the views of the proposer, please? The Bailiff :

It is a matter for him.

Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South :

If it helps, I am easy whichever way. I am happy to do it now, I am happy to do it after Questions, however the Assembly feels comfortable.

The Bailiff :

We only get to Questions after we deal with appointments. Deputy Tadier , your light was on momentarily.

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I do not remember a situation where we have done propositions before Questions, but I may be wrong.

The Bailiff :

Nor do I, but the Assembly is the master of its own procedure, so if Members vote for it then it will happen.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I do not know if it is appropriate to speak now or if it is just ..

The Bailiff :

In relation to whether we take P.62 first, that is the only thing we are debating now. Deputy M. Tadier :

I think we are in danger of setting some worrying precedents for governmental convenience. Questions have been tabled, there is an expectation, and certainly it has not been any different in my 18 years here, and even longer I think for others who have been here before, we do Questions first and then when they are done we move on to States business. I think it is entirely appropriate that this be the first item of business, but it is already a shortened lodging period. So if we were to observe normal protocol with the 3-week lodging period this would be debated in September, everyone would have a chance to properly reflect and consult with our constituents, which we should be doing. It seems to me that Government is already rushing this through, and to ask for an extra couple of hours to set a precedent, which has never been done before, would, I think, be highly unusual.

Deputy H.L. Jeune :

I also have a concern with putting this proposition first, because, for example, we have with Questions without notice, we have the Minister for the Environment and those were the times - and the Chief Minister both - where we could be asking those kind of questions, detailed questions, that we need to help us in understanding a bit more about the proposition. I would probably propose that if we seek to do the proposition now, to ask that the appointment for the Minister for Planning and Regulation goes after, so the last point of order of today rather than the first so that we do Questions first.

The Bailiff :

If you wish to propose that you can propose that after this has been dealt with. That is a different proposition, but you can propose that. Does anyone else wish to speak on this matter whether or not we debate P.62 now?

Senator L.J. Farnham :

May I seek a point of clarification? Unless I have misread the Order Paper, I understood we were going to deal with the appointments before Questions.

The Bailiff :

That is right, yes. Are you asking me a question or making a speech? The Order Paper is what the Order Paper is.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

Yes, but what the clarification is, that the election of the Minister for Planning and Regulation was due to be the first item.

The Bailiff :

Yes.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

The rationale behind my request is so we give the proposer the respect of debating his proposition, otherwise I would be minded to sign the order, in which case his proposition would not be available.

The Bailiff :

This is not a point of order, though. You are making a .. Senator L.J. Farnham :

No, Sir, a point of clarification. My clarification, it seemed that some Members were under the impression that we were doing Questions first, but we are not.

The Bailiff :

No, we are not.

Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central :

I just rise to support what Deputy Tadier said in the form of precedent-setting. My understanding, and perhaps you can let me know if I am correct, Sir, that it would be precedent-setting perhaps to move the proposition now but what Deputy Jeune has suggested, which would be to move the appointment after the debate on the proposition, would not in fact be setting different precedent to what has happened previously.

The Bailiff :

You are right, certainly it is unusual to deal with the proposition before we have Appointments or Questions but the Assembly can determine its own procedure and, as you say, if it is wished, then the election for the new Minister in question could be postponed until after Questions. That is equally possible as well.

Deputy F.G. Voisin of St. Helier North :

I would have thought that if we want to move on with appointing the Minister then we should deal with this proposition now. It would be illogical surely to bypass the election of the Minister for Planning and Regulation so that we can have a debate about whether we are actually going to create the ministerial role in the first place. Let us have this debate, get it agreed or not, and then we can deal with the appointments.

The Bailiff :

Does anyone else want to speak on the proposition before the Assembly now, whether or not we determine P.62 first? If no one else wishes to speak, I call upon the Chief Minister to reply.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

I thank Members for their comments and reiterate the rationale behind this request was, as Deputy Voisin stated, to deal with this so we can get on with the appointment or otherwise, depending on which way the Assembly votes. I make the proposition and ask for the appel, please.

The Bailiff :

The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. I ask the Greffier to open the voting on the proposal to debate P.62 now. If all Members have the chance to cast their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting.

POUR: 36

Senator L.J. Farnham Senator A.J.H.M. Maclean Senator M.R. Le Hegarat Senator T.J.A. Binet Senator H.M. Miles Senator M.E. Millar Senator Sir M.J. Boleat Senator S. M. Kersten Connétable of St. Mary Connétable of St. Martin Connétable of St. Peter Connétable of St. Brelade Connétable of St. Helier Connétable of St. John Connétable of St. Clement Connétable of St. Ouen Connétable of Trinity Connétable of Grouville Connétable of St. Saviour Connétable of St. Lawrence Deputy C.F. Labey

Deputy F. G. Voisin Deputy R.E. Binet

Deputy A.F. Curtis

Deputy C.D. Curtis

Deputy M.R. Ferey

Deputy J. Renouf

Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson Deputy B. Ward

Deputy K.M. Wilson Deputy S.J. Gleave

Deputy V. Li

Deputy A. Maltman

CONTRE: 8

Deputy M. Tadier

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet Deputy C.S. Alves

Deputy M.B. Andrews Deputy L.V. Feltham Deputy H.L. Jeune

Deputy B.B.de S.V.M. Porée Deputy L.D. Carpenter

ABSTAINED: 1 Deputy T.A. Coles

Deputy G.A. Raimondo Deputy C.J. Rebindaine Deputy P.J. Romeril

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. Reduction of lodging period The Bailiff :

Deputy Coles , before we begin the debate proper, do you wish to make the proposition under Standing Order 26(7) that the lodging period be reduced to allow P.62 to be debated at this sitting?

[9:45]

Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier Central :

Yes, please, Sir. Do I say a couple of words now? The Bailiff :

Yes, if you wish to.

1.1   Deputy T.A. Coles :

As the Chief Minister has already highlighted, this would have been a Ministerial Order that he would have signed and had to be enacted within 2 weeks. Of course, that 2-week period does not allow for proper process to lodge propositions, because that does require 3 weeks. As the Minister alluded to, he could have signed this Order, which would have meant the debate would have come back in at least 3 sittings' time, so with an annulment request, which is a different debate and a different proposition. At least, if we can debate this one today, then we are more flexible with our approach. So, I hope the Assembly can agree that we can shorten the lodging period.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to speak on the proposition that the lodging period is reduced?

1. Senator L.J. Farnham :

I take on board the point about the 2 weeks for the order, which was within the required notice. Our hands were tied by the timings of the election, the appointment of Ministers and, of course, the final sitting before the summer recess, and I was keen to ensure the Council of Ministers was fully constituted before the summer recess as we need to get on with the work that lies ahead of us. I hope that provides a useful explanation to Members.

2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I am not sure I will be supporting the vote to reduce the lodging period because I think this has only been done because Deputy Coles is trying to accommodate already some very bad practice that we are seeing from this Council of Ministers. They have not even been constituted yet properly .. well, they have been voted in the other week, and I think we are gaining an attempt here to ride roughshod over procedure. We have seen that already exemplified this morning, and the 2-week lodging period for the Ministerial Order has not even elapsed. What the Chief Minister should have done is that he should have lodged the Ministerial Order, let it sit over the summer and allowed Deputy Coles to also have his proposition, which would have sat over the summer so that there could be proper public scrutiny. The Scrutiny Panel for Environment and Housing has not even been formed yet, yet we are actually creating a completely new Ministry; so much for small government of course. But that is a matter for perhaps the main debate, and we expect this

Assembly to do its job of proper general scrutiny. I, for one, am not going to support the lodging period being reduced, even though it is being done by my party colleague for the right reasons, to accommodate a Government which clearly does not respect the democratic process and the democratic norms and, quite frankly, a shame on some of those Ministers who should know better who are towing this line from a very early stage.

The Bailiff :

Does anyone else wish to speak on the proposition to reduce the lodging period? If no one else wishes to speak, I ask Deputy Coles to reply.

3. Deputy T.A. Coles :

I do not really have much to conclude with, but I do hope the Assembly can agree to shorten the lodging period because I would rather get this debate out of the way now and allow either the Council of Ministers to carry on or them to actually start the work that the debate requires.

The Bailiff :

Is the appel called for? Deputy T.A. Coles : Yes, please, Sir.

The Bailiff :

The appel has been called for, Members are invited to return to their seats. I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting.

POUR: 43  CONTRE: 4  ABSTAINED: 0

Senator L.J. Farnham Senator A.J.H.M. Maclean Senator M.R. Le Hegarat Senator T.J.A. Binet Senator H.M. Miles Senator M.E. Millar Senator Sir M.J. Boleat Senator S. M. Kersten Connétable of St. Mary Connétable of St. Martin Connétable of St. Peter Connétable of St. Brelade Connétable of St. Helier Connétable of St. John Connétable of St. Clement Connétable of St. Ouen

Connétable of St. Saviour Deputy M. Tadier Deputy M.B. Andrews Deputy B. Ward

Connétable of Trinity Connétable of Grouville Connétable of St. Lawrence Deputy C.F. Labey

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet Deputy C.S. Alves

Deputy K.F. Morel

Deputy F. G. Voisin

Deputy R.E. Binet

Deputy T.A. Coles

Deputy A.F. Curtis

Deputy C.D. Curtis

Deputy L.V. Feltham Deputy M.R. Ferey

Deputy H.L. Jeune

Deputy B.B.de S.V.M. Porée Deputy J. Renouf

Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson Deputy K.M. Wilson Deputy L.D. Carpenter Deputy S.J. Gleave

Deputy V. Li

Deputy A. Maltman

Deputy R.J. Parker

Deputy G.A. Raimondo Deputy C.J. Rebindaine Deputy P.J. Romeril

2. Take No Action on the Draft States of Jersey (Ministerial Offices) Amendment Order 202- (P.62/2026)

The Bailiff :

We move on to Take No Action on the Draft States of Jersey (Ministerial Offices) Amendment Order lodged by Deputy Coles . The main respondent is the Chief Minister. I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to request the Chief Minister to take no action to make or enact the Draft States of Jersey (Ministerial Offices) Amendment Order 202- as appended to the Notice under Article 29A(3) of the States of Jersey Law 2005: Changes to Ministerial Offices 2026 (R.106/2026) until – (a) a report has been presented by the Chief Minister to the States which includes – (i) details of any additional costs and staffing implications of establishing the role of Minister for Planning and Regulation; (ii) clarification of the lines of officer accountability to the role of Minister for Planning and Regulation and whether any of these officers will also be accountable to other Ministers; (iii) the reasoning behind the transfer of responsibilities for items listed in Schedules 1 and 2 of the Amendment Order and an explanation of the alternatives (if any) that were considered; (iv) details of any consideration the Chief Minister gave to merging other Ministerial roles before creating the position of Minister for Planning and Regulation; and (b) the States has debated and voted on the establishment of the role of Minister for Planning and Regulation, in light of the information provided within (a).

2.1   Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South :

That was a lively start to our first debate in this new Assembly, so I thank everybody for their patience and agreeing that we can take this now. I also will acknowledge that obviously the Chief Minister has produced the comments paper, but that obviously came in late yesterday so I have not really had a chance to prep and plan responses to that. I may do that more in my summing up of this debate. Some Members of this Assembly will already know, and those who do not know will probably figure out soon, that I am a bit of a stickler for following process. This is probably why I ended up chairing the Machinery of Government Sub-Committee at P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) for the final 2 years of the last Assembly. This sub-committee looked at the Democratic Accountability and Governance Report and recommendations to see how they are being implemented, as well as looking at the machinery of our Government and the Assembly, making recommendations and propositions about how we can make improvements. Because of this, my first reaction when hearing the Chief Minister had decided to create a new Ministry was the D.A.G.S. (Democratic Accountability and Governance Sub-Committee) Report. The first recommendation of the D.A.G.S. Report says that each department should have one Minister who is ultimately accountable for the whole of the department. Where the scope of the department is such that it is felt that additional Ministers are required, there should be a lead Minister and a non- C.O.M. (Council of Ministers) Minister with the responsibility of specific areas of the department. That  would  mean  creating  an  Assistant  Minister. There  have  been  questions  around  the Department of Infrastructure and Environment for a while, as it has 2 Ministers and one chief officer. But of course, the name suggests there are quite clear lines of that definition about who is responsible for what area. It also helps that the director of regulation has statutory protections in place should the regulator need to take on the other department. The problem from here is that R.106 did not provide the details of how the department structure is going to change to account for the additional Minister. Which Minister is going to have ultimate accountability? Of course, with the department restructure the budget will also need to be considered. What staffing and resources will be required? What projects will need to be stopped to allow for the new Minister to start to achieve what they want to achieve? This is before we even start to ask the question around the legislation that will come under ministerial responsibility. When we were in the last Assembly, as in the last meeting of the Assembly, we appointed the Minister for the Environment, Senator Mary Le Hegarat , and in answering a question from Deputy Alex Curtis in relation to the Agricultural Land (Control of Sale and Leases) Law 1974, the Minister for the Environment ended by saying: "I think it is the Environment Department's remit to ensure that when land is being sold or transferred that all the rules are applied." Now, I am sure you probably miss Deputy Rob Ward but I hope this will help soften it. I am going to paraphrase George Michael, and apologise that it is not Billy Bragg, because: "Last sitting the Chief Minister gave her this law and the very next day he took it away, and this sitting to save some from tears, he's given it to someone he thinks is special." [Laughter] [Approbation] Though I jest, it does demonstrate the problem. Legislation is being moved from one Minister to another, but it had not been communicated before the appointments were made. R.106 also indicates that the responsibility for other legislation is being

moved  from  the  remit  of  Sustainable  Economic  Development to  both  the  Minister  for  the Environment and the potential new Minister for Planning and Regulation. This brings in a few questions to my mind. Has all the legislation been considered and discussed before making this decision? It seems that some of this has been a bit rushed and not thought through properly. We have seen that Senator Boleat has been given delegated functions already, so there is nothing stopping the Senator starting work already but as an Assistant Minister. Then why not have an Assistant Minister crossing portfolios with delegated functions? This has clearly been considered with other matters, as Senator Kersten has delegated functions for sport from multiple ministerial portfolios. So why does the new position of Minister for Planning and Regulation have to exist? The Chief Minister has 12 Ministers .. there is something quite biblical about that; we do pray for his sake that he does not find out who Judas is within the first couple of years. That is 12 potential areas of political accountability, not including the Chief Minister himself, where legislation on portfolios could be redeployed to deliver on the Common Strategic Policy. Maybe part of the issue lies in Standing Orders and maybe it is in the States of Jersey Law. Maybe it is something to whoever chairs the Machinery of Government Sub-committee will consider in this term, perhaps. But I simply do not understand the rush to create this position. It is not clear why this is necessary. It is not clear why it is okay for one remit to be covered by an Assistant Minister, but another needs to be a Minister. I think it is best that we address a question that some may be thinking, that why did I not question the Chief Minister in the last term when he decided to split Education and Children? Well, the Care Inquiry recommended that a Children's Minister should be created, and, until the split, it was an addition to another portfolio. Given this Island's historic failings, we needed to do better for our young people, be that their journey through care, mental health issues, or simply to allow that every child has a chance. When we look back at why the Department of Environment, and therefore the Minister for the Environment, was created, and in that creation held the Planning Department. It was to ensure that a balance between our environment and development was maintained. Jersey is a beautiful island, as I am sure we all agree. The problem with islands though, especially small ones, is that there is a finite amount of space and land, and we need to balance this space with building homes and appropriate places for businesses of many different types. This challenge gets tougher when one of our main business types on this Island is agriculture, so we need farmland. We need to balance our impact on wildlife and ecosystems. I hope everybody is aware to the risk of human life if all bees disappeared. Bees do not exist in isolation, they are part of a wider ecosystem. It remains unclear to me, when the Minister for the Environment talks about being a statutory consultee to planning, what this means. There are many parts of the Environment Department that already act as statutory consultees, from land control to historic environments. This acts to balance the policies of the Bridging Island Plan and the consultees across the Island. A new Island Plan, or at least a review of some of the policies, is needed. But does this need a new Minister to achieve that? I have talked about the connection between environment and planning, but what about regulation? This is an area that definitely needs to be looked into. There have always been concerns around the regulators sitting in Government, meant to be holding Government to account while being in the same department, under the same chief officer who has the department that is probably one of the largest pollution risks to this Island. That is not to say that the Department of Infrastructure does not do a good job of preventing these issues and controlling them. As I mentioned earlier, with the director of regulation and statutory protections, if they need to prosecute, these glass walls are well in place. However, the question of those making the rules are also enforcing the rules. The States of Jersey Police do not do this. If there is a consideration of splitting regulation, why not give wider consideration to splitting the role of rule maker with enforcement? Again, something which R.106 does not make clear. Article 26A of the States of Jersey Law gives the Chief Minister powers to create Ministers, abolish Ministers, and make provisions for Ministers' functions. But should we, as an Assembly, accept the large and more fundamental changes without prior scrutiny and

parliamentary process? The initial report is light on detail.   My requests, outlined in  my proposition, are reasonable.

[10:00]

With delegated functions, this request does not hold up any work. I urge Members to support this proposition to provide clarity to the Assembly and transparency to the public. I make my proposition.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to speak on the proposition?

1. Senator L.J. Farnham :

I welcome the opportunity to respond to this proposition because it raises an important question about how we organise government to best serve Islanders. At its heart this debate is not about creating another layer of bureaucracy or undertaking a major reorganisation of government. It is about  ensuring  that  ministerial  responsibilities  reflect  the  increasing  scale,  complexity  and importance of 2 distinct areas of public policy. The proposition before us, brought by Deputy Cole, suggests that the creation of a Minister for Planning and Regulation should be delayed until further reports have been prepared. The Council of Ministers do not believe that this is necessary, and I therefore ask Members to reject the proposition. The proposition to create the new Ministry has followed the statutory process set out in the States of Jersey Law. Notice was given on 29th June, and Members have had the required notice period. The proposed amendment order has been published, together with the legislation affected. Members can retain their established powers under the Legislation Law, should they wish, to challenge the order once made. This process is neither new nor exceptional. Indeed, it is precisely, as the Deputy alluded to, the same process that was followed when the office of Minister for Education and Li felong Learning was created in 2024. Then we had 4 weeks, I think, because of the timing of the change of Government and the dates  for  the  established  Assembly  sittings.   This,  we  only  have  2  weeks.   Planning  and environment protection have evolved significantly over recent years. Planning today is central to delivering many of the priorities Islanders have asked us to address. It was a key and regular topic for discussion during the recent election, because it influences the delivery of homes. It influences our infrastructure, business confidence, investment right across the community. It influences economic growth. At the same time, the environmental portfolio has expanded considerably. It now  encompasses  biodiversity,  biosecurity,  agriculture,  fisheries,  marine  resources,  climate adaptation, water and air quality, P.F.A.S. (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), monitoring and scientific oversight, countryside management, Jersey Met., animal welfare and veterinary services, our natural heritage, and, very importantly, our international environmental responsibilities. These are each substantial portfolios in their own right. The Council of Ministers therefore believes that they each require dedicated ministerial leadership. I refer to a proposition brought by the then Deputy Paul Le Claire in 2009 that actually asked the Assembly to consider splitting the roles of Ministers for similar reasons, but also the inference there was that planning was advantaged in the joint roles, as they were then, and the environment were disadvantaged. Now it seems to be the other way around. It seems that the proposer may think, and others may think, and public discourse in certain areas may think, that the environment will be disadvantaged now, which is not the case, as I will explain. It does not weaken environmental protections. I believe exactly the opposite. For many years, successive Ministers have carried responsibility for both planning and the environment within a single portfolio. I believe separating these 2 responsibilities provide greater clarity, greater transparency, and stronger democratic accountability. It allows the Minister for the Environment to devote her full attention to the increasingly complex environmental challenges facing our Island. Equally, a dedicated Minister for Planning and Regulation will be able to focus

fully on improving the planning service. Members will know that planning is often cited by Islanders and businesses alike as an area where we need to improve. We need to reduce unnecessary delays. We need to modernise the regulation. We need to improve customer service and make the whole process less expensive for Islanders and businesses. I would also like to confirm that there are no additional resource implications arising from the establishment of this ministerial officer, or at least none we can establish at this time. Of course, I would remind Members, we will have the Budget process coming up in the near future. If there are to be any changes we can deal with that during that process, but officials do not anticipate that currently. No  new  department  is  being  created,  no  new  directorate  is  being  established,  the  existing organisational structure remains exactly as it is today. But what does change is the political accountability, which becomes clearer. The proposition also asks about officer accountability. Again, the answer is straightforward. The proposer aligns ministerial responsibility with the department's existing operational arrangements. It does not reorganise the department. It simply provides 2 Ministers with clearly defined responsibilities, each accountable to this Assembly for their respective portfolios. The transfer of legislation has similarly been approached on a logical basis. Legislation has been allocated according to function. Legislation relating to planning and wider regulatory responsibilities sits with the Minister for Planning and Regulation. Legislation concerning the natural environment, agriculture, fisheries and environmental protection will remain with the Minister for the Environment. Attached to the comments, I have appended a list of all the pieces of legislation that will sit within the relative Ministry, if approved by this Assembly. The proposer asks whether the ministerial structures were considered. The answer is yes. Every incoming Government and Chief Minister reviews and applies careful thought to ministerial portfolios. That has happened under successive administrations since ministerial Government was introduced in 2005. From time to time, new ministerial offices have been created because priorities have changed. External Relations, for example, International Development, Children and Families, Education and Li felong Learning, each reflected changing circumstances and the need at the time for greater ministerial focus. Following careful consideration, the Council of Ministers concluded that separating planning and regulation from environment represented the most effective governance arrangement. Conversely, we did not consider it appropriate to merge the  remaining  environmental  responsibilities  with  the  Sustainable  Economic  Development Department, as also mentioned by the Deputy , because both are major portfolios and both require dedicated leadership. To combine them would dilute ministerial focus rather than strengthen it. Ultimately, this debate comes down to one simple question: do we believe Government works better when Ministers have clear, manageable and accountable portfolios? I believe it does. As Government has evolved, planning, regulation and environmental responsibilities have grown considerably in both breadth and complexity. This proposal is therefore not about creating more government, it is about creating better government. It strengthens environmental leadership. It strengthens planning performance. It improves accountability. It supports sustainable economic growth. It will provide clearer ministerial focus. It does so without reorganising the department or creating additional resource implications. In closing, I would like to confirm to Members that I firmly believe this is a measured and proportionate evolution of our ministerial structure. It reflects recognised principles of good governance and ministerial accountability. For those reasons, I ask Members to reject P.62 and allow the creation of the Minister for Planning and Regulation, so that both Ministers for Planning and the Environment, can begin the important work for which they have been selected.

2. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

I support Deputy Coles 's proposition. This is not a proposition against the principle of a Minister for Planning and Regulation. It is a proposition that says, before we make this permanent show us the workings. That is a reasonable thing for this Assembly, I think, to ask. We must remember as

a starting point that if Deputy Coles had not brought this proposition we would not have the level of detail we have in front of us in the comments paper. Yet the Minister for Planning and Regulation's role has substantially changed since R.106 was published, and I would say there is still very much unanswered questions and details to be had. I have concerns to the answers I was given in my Written Questions - Written Question 133 and Written Question 139 - which tried to dig deeper into the analysis behind the split, as all we have is R.103 and R.109. This was as chair of Scrutiny because my panel has not been formed and therefore I cannot write specific questions to the Chief Minister, letters to the Chief Minister or to the Minister for the Environment to understand in detail further what is happening. Therefore I had to write Written Questions, and I believe those answers were not comprehensive enough. I would invite Members, if they have not seen the answers for themselves, to see the little content of the answers that were given to me. Yet since R.106 was published, as I have just spoken about, the scope of the transfer has changed significantly. The Chief Minister says in his speech just now that the Members had time to review this, but I would question when did we have time? We had R.106, yes, but only yesterday, about 4 o'clock, did we actually see the final divisions between the laws and also a little bit more information behind that. That is very little time to do any analysis or be able to ask any further questions on that. For example, in detail, 8 pieces of legislation have been pulled back from the transfer to Planning and Regulation that was mentioned in R.106, and now they will stay with the Environment. That is 8 pieces of legislation, and not little legislation; these are quite substantial legislation. For example, as Deputy Coles has already said, the Agricultural Land (Control of Sales and Leases), the Protection of Agricultural Land, Pesticides, the Plant Health, the Weeds Law, EU legislation, export of flowers and potatoes. Those were all considered in R.106 to be important; important enough to give to the Minister for Planning and Regulation. Now they have changed and it will be back with the Minister for the Environment. This is essentially the entire agricultural and biosecurity block reversed between when we received the report and the final comments paper, which again I might add that if we had not got this proposition we would not know that, and we would be going into supporting the Minister for Planning and Regulation appointment without actually knowing that those 8 substantial laws have been pulled back and staying with the Minister for the Environment. I am not saying that the analysis of whether it was right or wrong depending on which, for myself, but I would like to understand why it was deemed necessary to give the Minister for Planning and Regulation those specific laws and what analysis was done behind that when that split was first given, and then what is the analysis now for why that law is now left with the Minister for the Environment. What are the workings and evidence- based scrutiny behind understanding that split? The legislation says, and this was said in the report, that the allocation was the nature of the function it governs. I know the Chief Minister has already said this in his speech, so why then again was this analysis of the nature of the functions it governs sound in June but has changed substantially a few weeks later? I also raised a few weeks ago that there was actually a discrepancy between Report 106 and Report 109, which set up Senator Boleat 's position as Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Environment, and at least that has now been resolved. This included the Water Law, Water Pollution Law and Water Resources.

[10:15]

This will all now stay with Environment, and I welcome that clarity and this means, of course, the Minister for the Environment will work on P.F.A.S. as a priority. But again this gives the example that there seemed to be no evidence-based analysis behind the splits, because we saw that there were 3 laws that had been assigned to the Assistant Minister but then fell away and was not going to be assigned to the Minister for Planning and Regulation. Now, of course, they all have changed again. But I would say not only of these, there are so many questions to the split and trying to get information behind why there is a split because of these changes that happened, and again we would not know that if we did not have the comments paper. There are still no answers specifically

about the overlapping functions especially around enforcement. Who has final responsibility, especially when it comes to contaminated land or water pollution or breaking the Wildlife Law? There is very little information about how enforcement will work and that overall accountability. I want to give an example, the Waste Management Law 2005, that law that governs licensing of waste sites and the polluter-pays cost principle for waste-related pollution has been transferred to the Minister for Planning and Regulation. But the Water Pollution Law, Water Resources Law and Water Law all remain with the Minister for the Environment. If contaminated waste from a site regulated under one law reaches water regulated under another law, which Minister leads? The answer I have been given with my Written Question is that the Ministers and officials will work together, as it is routinely done. But I do not believe this is good enough when 2 relevant laws now sit in different departments. I want to know, for Scrutiny's sake, which Minister will lead enforcement action where contamination from a licensed waste site under the former is found to affect water quality regulated under the latter. These are the kinds of questions that I think we should be going to the crux of before we decide about the split.

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Would the Member give way for a point of clarification? Deputy H.L. Jeune :

Yes, of course.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Does she think that these questions might be helpfully answered by the Attorney General during the course of this debate and if so, would she be minded to put some of those to him?

Deputy H.L. Jeune :

Absolutely, I would be happy to but at the moment the Attorney General is not here .. fantastic. [Laughter]

The Bailiff :

Perhaps a message could be sent to the Attorney General, Greffier. Deputy H.L. Jeune :

Sir, he is back.

Mr. M. Jowitt K.C., H.M. Attorney General:

From what I have been listening to, these are questions for the Minister, they are not questions for me as to how the work is divided up between departments. That is not a legal question.

The Bailiff :

Have you finished your speech? Deputy H.L. Jeune :

No, Sir. Those I think are questions therefore then I would like to hear the Minister for the Environment or potential Minister for Planning and Regulation to answer within this debate, which would be useful because I am sure that they have thought about this and they have talked about this, and they would be able to answer my questions.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Sorry, there is one more point of clarification and I do not want to make a habit of this.

The Bailiff :

Are you prepared to give way? Deputy H.L. Jeune :

Yes.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Does the Member believe that it would be helpful to know what the legal responsibility is and the statutory basis is for whom ultimately the buck stops with?

The Bailiff :

I think these are questions you might want to ask the Attorney yourself. But, Deputy Jeune , do you want to continue your speech?

Deputy H.L. Jeune :

Yes, and I think that it would be useful if the Deputy asks the Attorney General himself those at the end of this, but I think, as we can see, there are a lot of unanswered questions that I would like to get to the bottom of. Also related to funding, and I know the Chief Minister touches on this and also in the comments paper, but within my Written Question around funding, there is no evidence that the change is generally budget neutral, which was the answer to my question around the budget and how that will work. It was given to me that this is budget neutral. But there is not a clear analysis behind that to understand why it is budget neutral. It is just given as a fact, but without actually giving that explanation further. That is a question that I have asked the Bailiff to rule on further in the next .. to be able to come back to me on the Written Question related to that. But what I would say is that we hear that from the Budget for 2027 we will then have a split of separate heads of expenditure for the first time. I welcome this because it will clearly show how little this Island currently spends on protecting the environment. It is a figure that is presently hidden within a combined budget, and so I welcome that transparency because we really will be able to see just how little is being spent on the environment if we take out, of course, the agricultural transfers from the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development. The Chief Minister's Written Answer to my Written Question said accountability for international agreements follows the legislation; so transferred law, transferred accountability, retained law, retained accountability. I would like to understand, which was not answered - and maybe this is for Deputy Tadier 's question to the Attorney General - what are the mechanisms if one Minister's responsibility and decisions actively impacts the statutory responsibility of the other? What happens if a planning application was pushed through by the Minister of Planning and Regulation but it will have a negative impact on our water quality, our Wildlife Law or an impact on the international Ramsar sites, for example? I would also like to understand why the Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) Law has gone to Planning and Regulation. The entire justification for this specific transfer, the generic sentence says "guided by the nature of the function it governs", but there is no paragraph anywhere addressing why this law, which protects tenants from unsafe housing conditions, sits better with a planning and building control Minister than anywhere connected to housing policy. Why, for example, could that law not have gone to the Minister for Housing? But as we are splitting up the laws, maybe to answer the Chief Minister's point, if the laws are being split up now why not think of them in a deeper way than just splitting between the 2. Of course, also a lot of this is taking a lot from the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development as well. So in fact this split is splitting 3 Ministers down, though we are focusing now on 2, where a lot is being taken out of the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development's role as well. The comments paper points to the earlier split of Children's Services from Education as proof that this kind of ministerial reorganisation can be done cleanly, but I think that that comparison does not hold because there is

very specific, distinct statutory function between children and education, but the environment brief is nothing like that in scale. It is much more and is wide-ranging, and all of this has to be enforced. Now that sits within both Environment and also .. it is very unclear where enforcement sits. I think Deputy Coles has pointed this out in his speech. What I am trying to say, and by the interruptions that my speech has generated, is that I think there are a lot of unanswered questions. With supporting Deputy Coles 's proposition, I am not saying that having a new Minister for Planning and Regulation is a bad idea. Members may conclude that at the end this is the right structure, but what we are being asked right now is to let it happen without the costing, the staffing, the accountability lines, the funding assessments, all these questions to be answered clearly by Scrutiny as well as consultation, of course, that has been raised already. That is a situation where I think we have not got clarity, and again, as the interruptions show, there has not been clarity with this split. There has not been an assessment done behind the split. There seems to be changes all the time to the split. I, as chair of Scrutiny, would welcome the chance for my panel to be able to ask more detailed questions to this restructuring, because I think at the moment the Written Questions that I received were very vague. We only received the kind of detailed information in the comments paper. If we had not had this proposition, again we would not see any of this and we would just be passing a new Minister without any details whatsoever. So I would urge Members to .. this is not about opposing this new ministerial office but it is simply about giving us time to be able to scrutinise it before the Minister has been created.

3. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement :

I have sympathy for the Chief Minister here. On the one hand he wants to act and move and if he spends too long thinking about things and reporting on things he will be seen as being slow, and if he moves too fast and brings something immediately he will be thought to have said that things have not been consulted widely enough and worked on. I do not really feel that this is necessarily his fault. But I do have sympathy and will be supporting Deputy Coles , largely because I think we are in a position here that was foreseen years ago. It was foreseen 8 years ago that this is where we would end up when the powers under Article 29A are used in the States of Jersey Law. The Chief Minister referenced in his speech that forming and moving  ministerial offices is not something new, and it is not, and he quite rightly referenced his use of the powers when he made the Minister for Children and Families separate from the Minister for Education and Li felong Learning. But the power for the Chief Minister to do that alone only came in with the Machinery of Government (Miscellaneous Amendments) Law, P.1/2018. At the time the power for the Chief Minister to do this by order was contentious and, in fact, it was discussed against. I turned to the further comments made by the then titled Chairmen's Committee in relation to the amendments to the States of Jersey Law, and one of the largest issues they had was that introducing Article 29A - that is the ability for the Chief Minister to make these changes himself or herself - removes and changes a balance of power away from the Assembly. Paragraph 34 of their further comments say that Articles 15 and 16 amend the current provisions to provide the Chief Minister to do this: "The current position is that the Chief Minister may move offices from one office to another, subject to the approval of the States" and that: "This would mean that the States Assembly would not be involved in the decision-making to move Ministers around, other than after the event through the powers to challenge Ministerial Orders", quite rightly highlighted by the Chief Minister in his comments using the Legislation (Jersey) Law. What we are seeing now is the issue rising ahead, which is this Assembly not feeling necessarily it has been brought along on that journey. I give no fault to the Chief Minister for using his powers; he has used the powers he has to use arguably. It is not necessarily within the States of Jersey Law now for him to bring it to the States Assembly as legislation, it is an order-making power. But I do think the fact that these Articles were changed in the States of Jersey Law are giving rise to changes quicker than needed and perhaps .. or at least changes brought along without the agreement of this Government, and I think this Assembly

will work best over the next 4 years when decisions can be made, led from the Government and the Assembly hand-in-hand, agreeing where the best change is. I feel I agree with paragraph 41 of those further comments which, in essence, said: "The panel is concerned that there has not been sufficient consultation with States Members as a whole, nor has the panel been given sufficient time to consider the impact of the changes" and they recommended that Articles 15 and 16 of the amendment, which now refer to Articles 29 and 29A, be withdrawn or otherwise rejected by the States. I think we would be in a better place if the former process was still in place. I appreciate the Chief Minister is using his powers as they are in the law, but I think we, as an Assembly, should consider reverting to a pre-2018 position on this so that the next time a shuffle, or as the Chief Minister rightly says, the Council must adapt to the changing demands of the portfolios of Ministers, it is done with this Assembly agreeing it, scrutinising proactively not reactively, and so I will support this. But I will urge the Chief Minister to consider amending the States of Jersey Law to ensure that perhaps the powers sit back with the States Assembly. Still the Chief Minister to bring that, to lead the charge to design the Council of Ministers' best fit to deliver on the agenda of the Council, but I feel we are in this position not because of any one person but ultimately because the changes to the law are now bearing fruit. The one last comment I would make .. I am not going to comment about the suitability of portfolios, personally I see some real benefit and I have  been quite excited to  think about  how a dedicated regulation Minister can champion appropriate and proportionate regulation. It is a very exciting place to think about consolidating non-planning regulation actually; the stuff that has not been necessarily mentioned. But I turn to page 3 of the Chief Minister's comments on P.62, and they state, this is under the title "Better Governance": "The same Minister is responsible for promoting development, protecting the environment, preparing planning policy and for determining planning applications."

[10:30]

Then it concludes: "Separating these responsibilities creates greater transparency and provides clearer checks and balances within government decision-making", and it reflects good governance. What I would say is I do not believe what is being proposed today does change that, and I believe that it is still the joint responsibility of Ministers to, most importantly, protect the environment. I say that because we have to go to one of the larger laws being transferred to the Minister for Planning and Regulation, which is the Planning and Building Law. I will point back just briefly to the purpose of the law, Article 2. The law is there: "to conserve, protect and improve Jersey's natural beauty, natural resources and general amenities, its character, and its physical and natural environments." And in that paragraph: "The reference to natural resources of Jersey includes its biodiversity; and the natural environment of Jersey includes the natural environment around Jersey." So it will still very much be the responsibility of the Minister for Planning and Regulation, not to listen to the Minister for the Environment in how to protect the environment but to be the custodian himself or herself, whoever is appointed following this. I say this, I think the Chief Minister is in a bind, given he did use his powers quite rightly in the law. He has not done anything wrong at all, but I do still think it would be best to revisit Article 29 and 29A of the main States of Jersey Law so future decisions can be led by the Chief Minister but then ratified by the States Assembly proactively.

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

I am really grateful to follow Deputy Alex Curtis because he made some additional points, which I am going to build on. I think he was absolutely right to point out P.1/2018 because I was actually looking back further than that and looking at Clothier in the year 2000. If we are to go back to the foundational principles of the system of ministerial Government that we have, the Clothier Report said that the Scrutiny role is absolutely vital to the balanced machinery of government in this system. I do think that it is perhaps a quirk of the legislation and Standing Orders that we have,

that govern how our Assembly works, that the chair of Scrutiny is not able to call this in. Because if it were legislation she would be able to do so, and I think that Members should be mindful of the principles and the good governance that I believe would be appropriate around this. Even though it is not written into the Standing Orders, into the legislation, I think that the principle should still stand. When I was listening to the whole of the speech made by the chair of the Scrutiny Panel, she raised so many questions, more questions than I myself had thought of, and that indeed is the function of Scrutiny, is it not; to raise every single question and to explore every avenue and to raise questions on our behalf to a level of detail that we could not possibly do as individuals? I would like to let that function run its course. I think it is reasonable. I think that Deputy Coles has brought forward a very reasonable and moderate proposition today because it is not going to delay any work, because in fact the proposed Minister is perfectly able to carry out those functions as an Assistant Minister. So it is not actually going to delay anything, and I think that it would support the balance in our Assembly. That is something that is very important to me, and I know is and should be important to all Members, is having that balance between the Executive and the non-Executive. I will be supporting Deputy Coles 's proposition today. Mindful of what Deputy Alex Curtis has raised, I think that P.P.C. should explore this and consider it, to see if any changes should be made.

5. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin :

Deputies Jeune , Deputy Alex Curtis and others have spoken very eloquently and laid out very clearly why they are supporting Deputy Coles 's proposition. Before we go to the vote, I want to clarify that I am not against the principle at all and I am not against Senator Boleat becoming a Minister, but I am against this unholy rush that we seem to be having. Sorry, I have only just written it and I have got some on here. Proposition P.62 does not seek to permanently block the Chief Minister's vision, and nor does it debate the merits of a dedicated planning role. It simply enforces a necessary pause. It asks that we hit the brakes, demand a fully costed business case, and ensure that any major change to our ministerial offices is properly debated and voted on by this Assembly, rather than being pushed through by a Ministerial Order. Before we reorganise the machinery of government, we must understand the financial and operational consequences. I urge all Members of this Assembly to support proposition P.62, to stand up for proper parliamentary scrutiny and to protect the public purse.

6. Deputy M. Tadier :

I think we are playing a bit of itchy trigger fingers today. I can see some Ministers earnestly scribbling notes, but they may of course be notes to do with something else. But let us see if we can smoke some of them out, perhaps, if they do want to speak, because we are hearing remarkably little from Ministers on this as to why it is a good idea. Let us start off, first of all, with the current Minister for Infrastructure, my St. Brelade colleague. I noticed that in 2022, in his manifesto, one of his headline policies was that Planning and Environment should be split. He was of course in that role for 2 years and he was in the Assembly for 4 years. He did not bring that proposition. I would like to know whether he thinks it is still a good idea, whether he has concerns. He has been known as a strong champion for the environment. I noticed that one of his proposers or nominators in St. Brelade is a very well-established former Deputy who has been a strong champion for the environment, and he has published a letter in the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) in the last few weeks advising strong caution against this move, saying that he does not think it is the right way to be going about things and it is certainly rushed. He made a very compelling case actually about why the functions were put together in the first place. To say that the question is settled politically is, I think, not true. There are some very strong advocates over and above that who have made overtures in the public domain from groups, such as Friends of the Earth, also more locally-based groups advising caution, saying that we should not proceed with this today. The words that I heard

during the election is that while there was very much, I believe, a manufactured discourse from some of the candidates running that they wanted to deregulate and be pro-business and cut red tape, actually what I was hearing on the doorsteps in St. Brelade was a much more nuanced position, saying that people were looking at the environment and they very much valued the coastline, they very much valued the National Park, that they did not want undue development in what is increasingly becoming an urban area of Les Quennevais. I think that is true around the Island. I am concerned that the Council of Ministers is moving very quickly here to try and resolve a problem which they have identified, which has probably been misdiagnosed in the first place, and to which their solution is not the correct one. But let us also bring in a political element here because I think there does need to be the analysis that what we are seeing here is not just something which is being done for the rights and motivation of the environment but is actually politically expedient. I think what has happened, there is a strong argument to say that this is the case, certainly one interpretation is that we have had a Chief Minister who is effectively uncontested, and I think he has given too many sweets out. He has been handing the sweets out before the Ministers were appointed, and then when it has come to it he has realised that actually he does not have enough sweets because Mr. Troy 's sweet shop only allows you to have a certain number of sweets that you can give out. He is already scrambling around saying: "We need to get a bigger sweet shop so that I can give more sweets out." We have already seen the consequence of the fact the Government does not need any more sweets, they have got this Assembly pretty much in their pocket, although I hope that will be increasingly not the case as we get some fine debates. I know that we have got some very capable debaters in here, because I have heard some of them during the hustings. I hope we hear from them during this first proper debate that we are having now. The Chief Minister, I think, is going down an avenue of what I think is taking Jersey back to pre- 2008 or what Jersey was like in the 1980s and 1990s. There might be more women in the Assembly but we are seeing a job creation scheme, and it is very much business-as-usual jobs for the boys. He has not got enough jobs so he is creating more jobs and he is giving them to the members of the "old boys' network". We just need to look at the back row of the Council of Ministers. All of the top jobs have gone to the men even though we have had 4 very good Senatorial candidates elected. It is worth saying at this point that there seems to be this new doctrine that has come in that if you are a Senator you automatically get a ministerial role. Of course those ministerial roles will not always be equal. I am not sure how that has crept in because my understanding of it is, the way I look at it is, I think we have got some Senators who would have struggled to get in as Deputies in the Island, and my analysis is also that that is part of the reason that the Senatorial roles were brought back, because some of these Ministers had no constituencies to go to or to go back to, but that is just my analysis. I do not want to get into any territory that might be called ad hominem, but that is just one analysis. I think the politics of it does need to be analysed as an alternative motive for what we are seeing here. We see the Chief Minister, a man; we see the Minister for Treasury and Resources, a man; we see the Minister for External Relations job given to a man; we see the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development being given to a man, not even a Senator in this case. How could they give it to a lowly Deputy ? I am sure he is very qualified. Of course the Deputy Chief Minister is a man, the Minister for Health and Social Services is a man. The poll topper of course is not a man, it is a woman, and she has been given her old job back as Justice and Home Affairs. We see other jobs being created, an Assistant Minister role for a newcomer. We also see that a Member that I really like, of course, who I am glad got in as well, even if she did knock out one of our party members, has been given a job that she clearly wants at Environment. Here is the rub, she is having most of that role removed from her today. That is what we are passing. So the Chief Minister says: "You can have that role, Senator Le Hegarat , but I am going to take all of the good stuff, the interesting stuff, away from you to start." Am I making this a feminist issue? I do not know; I am just stating some facts. If other Members in this Assembly want to interpret that in that way. The Chief Minister has tried

to spin this by saying that of course it is going to give more power to the Environment, so somehow by removing environmental powers and protections you are protecting the environment. Great. I mean it is not just going back to the early 2000s, it is going back to 1984 because we are hearing a  great  example  of  doublespeak  here. So  when  the  Minister  says  there  will  be  stronger environmental leadership; creating a dedicated Minister for the Environment enables greater political focus upon biodiversity recovery, agriculture, fisheries, water, air quality, P.F.A.S., coastal protection and natural environment policy and countryside management, the Minister already had that before the changes were made. The point that I would make here is that the power is only effective to lead on those policies because of the regulatory powers that underpin them. So we risk adopting policies here which do not get implemented and this is, I think, a very real risk and I think there is an experience that shows that policies will only get implemented if the rules require it through regulation. So one question that I may ask to the Attorney General is what powers is the Minister for the Environment being left with here? I am not going to ask this question necessarily, I will leave those as rhetorical for the moment, but other Members may wish to consider these. Also, the fact that we are not just talking about environmental powers which are now being handed over to the Minister for Planning and Regulation, we are looking at things to do with the regulation of care. Why on earth would the regulation of care be being moved over to the Minister for Planning and Regulation; it is quite bizarre. And Environmental Health being moved over to the Minister for Planning and Regulation, it has already been said by the Scrutiny Panel. Now what we should be doing in this Assembly is not simply rubberstamping anything that this Council of Ministers wants. What we should be saying is: "Look, make a case for this if you think it is the right thing to do let us have a proper consultative period where we can look at these issues and let us talk to the wider community, let us talk to those many champions in the community, not just those who we supposedly heard from at election time saying there is far too much regulation we need to get rid of it." I am accepting that there might be some things that need to be done in terms of streamlining in our planning process that make it more sensible, and arguably this is perhaps a question that will come to the Minister when he puts himself forward about the balance between private rights for those who want to develop versus those that have much more of an environmental and public impact. Of course those balances are always there to be struck, but I think we need that wider discourse with the community that has not happened. I think it would be a great example of leadership if the Chief Minister were to say, rather than encouraging his Council to reject this proposition: "Okay, I will take that forward, I will use the summer recess as an opportunity to give a fuller report to present back to this Assembly", which I am sure the chair of the Scrutiny Panel would welcome once she has a fully constituted Scrutiny Panel.

[10:45]

They can look at that report, that they can do it in real time and, as we know in the past, Scrutiny has worked very quickly to be able to provide their comments and say: "Actually, you can go ahead with this, but we need to be making sure as an Assembly that we have taken these areas into consideration." Because of course, what it all boils down to, and what I remember former Senator Ferguson saying, is that it is the law of unintended consequences. It is fine to say that there is no additional cost here, but we do not know about what those additional costs are until we realise that there may be future implication. So at the moment we are being told - and the Attorney General said this is a political issue - that there is a political decision to be made about who does what. But I can imagine a scenario where we have a very strong and vocal champion for the environment. I will give you one example. It may well be - and I am not putting words into anyone's mouth, this is hypothetical - that we have a big question mark that is arising over what to do with all these dilapidated greenhouses in the countryside. A Minister for the Environment may say: "Look, we need to either get rid of these greenhouses and put them back to nature or we need to actually enforce the dilapidated buildings regulations, which require those farmers to put them back into

the state that they should have been, into active glasshouses." That Minister for the Environment's viewpoint might be that they should be turned into community allotments or whatever. She might be very strong at saying that but the Minister for Planning and Regulation will now have all the laws and be saying; "That is very good, Senator Le Hegarat , but actually I think we just need to cut red tape, that is what I was elected on" and before you know it there are going to be lots of building in those areas. Now, that is fine, those are political decisions that need to be made, but I think suggesting that this is going to actually enhance environmental protections is nothing less than, I think, offensive to those who care about the environment. I think we would do very well to support what Deputy Coles is proposing here fully and to let the Council of Ministers come back, show they are working so that we can have some proper consensus around this very far- reaching issue.

7. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John :

I feel it is a case of déjà vu, a new Assembly but where do we start? We start by talking about ourselves once more. Sadly, I have to disagree with the previous speaker, my fellow St. John parishioner, as I do not believe this has got anything to do with gender. The public who participated in the recent election have, I believe, an expectation that we will all roll our sleeves up and get on with things. I suspect many who did not participate in the recent election did not take part as they think we do not get on and do things, so why bother? I see what the Chief Minister is proposing as a good example of simply getting on with things. I fully respect the chair of the Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel, and I have to disagree with her and would ask her to look at this proposal with a different lens. Speaking from personal experience, the chair is more than capable of holding a Minister to account, whether that is on water, waste, pollution, et cetera, whoever the responsible Minister is. The Chief Minister referred to a proposal from 2009 when a split in the functions was first proposed, and there are many reasons to put more focus on both environment and planning. Many Members, and probably thousands of Islanders, could give us a whole range of issues with both of these areas, and this is not a reflection on the previous Minister or Ministers, rather it is a reflection on the process. We are not being asked to change the Island Plan this morning. The way I see it, we are being asked to put more focus on both planning and environment, and I for one welcome this. Any work that is done to review regulation should, in my view, be a way of delivering efficiencies rather than actually costing us and Islanders more money. I am very hopeful that the proposed changes will put more emphasis on both reviewing the planning process as well as putting more emphasis on enforcement. Both areas have significant room for improvement, in my opinion, and so I am happy to support the Chief Minister's proposal to split the role and will vote against the proposition today.

8. Senator M.R. Le Hegarat :

I find it very interesting this morning because with one hand we say we fully accept what the Chief Minister has done is right and then on the other hand say we do not like it. So for me that is already a contradictory fact. In relation to the changes that were made, myself, when I got the list, I looked at the proposed changes and I straight away said, as the Minister for the Environment, I would like these pieces of legislation. I had consultation also with my colleague who is going to work in the department with me and we agreed the things that we wanted and we have what we want. The interesting part in relation to Deputy Tadier 's comments about all the good jobs going to the male colleagues, I do not agree. Those of you, and particularly I think Deputy Tadier , and he probably actually knew by saying what he said he would get me off my seat, because it is quite characteristic I only speak when there is a need to, and at this stage there is a need to. Now I think that this is an exceptionally good idea. I have a history, as you all know, and I am not an expert on the environment, as maybe one of my colleagues has a lot more brain power than I do, however, I am passionate, I am fully supported of agriculture and fisheries, so for me I have the dream job. Now,

I am sitting next to my colleague, trust me, if you sat around the Council of Ministers' table with me in the last 2½ years, you know that I am as feisty as anybody and I will fight my corner. So that is the first point. In relation to the department and the split of it, have we all forgotten about the Target Operating Model? We got rid of all of the chief executives in the different departments and we threw it under one person, and that is what we still have. However, what we do have in those departments is the staff that do those jobs. Those staff will still be doing those jobs because they will sit, maybe not in the same part of the department but they will still be doing the same jobs. So they all work together. Waste, water, all of those teams already work together, they already discuss all of these issues. Yes, there will be different Ministers in charge of waste and water, however, what that means is that as a Council of Ministers we will have to come back and have a discussion about all of these things and, in actual fact, will that not be better for us as a Council of Ministers to be working more closely together than we were before, because there is always room for improvement. In relation to what people are talking about, the reason that I have the legislation that I have is because, as I said, it is what sits with the environment, agriculture and fisheries. That is why I and my colleague, Deputy Morel , have said - and the officers we have spoken to as well - we want this law. I specifically answered the question Deputy Curtis asked me about land law. I am passionate about land law. So for me I want it. It is as simple as that. For me I do not see this male/female designation. I am not interested, if I am honest. For me, I have a job that I want and I, for the next 4 years, will do my utmost to ensure that all of those areas are protected. In relation to some of the regulations that were under this remit before, they have gone to Planning and Regulation. Guess why? Because that is where they have gone. We seem to be totally focusing on planning, but all of the other regulations which we, as an Assembly, have created over years are strangling us. Rightly, as people have said, in the last few years we have created a whole load of different things, we have created a whole load of regulations and we cannot do business, we cannot do anything because we have over-regulated ourselves to the size of a country, and we are not; we are a small Island. Trust me, we will not be building multi big houses on the Five Mile Road on a golf course I will not say what I was going to say because it would be inappropriate what I was going to say. The other thing I would like to point out is I do not always like to look to those north. I prefer the ones to that side but I do not like always looking to the things north. If you look north, the U.K. (United Kingdom), do they have planning and environment together? No, they do not, they have them totally separate. Northern Ireland have them separate. Northern Ireland has rural economy, environment, agriculture and fisheries. One

- me - would like to see us actually start to progress and support these industries a lot more by having them together in that environment. The other point about should environment and agriculture  and  fisheries  not  gone    or  environment  gone  to  the  Minister  for  Sustainable Economic Development; absolutely not. On one hand we are saying: "Oh no, we cannot put planning and environment separately" and on the other hand we are then saying: "Well, if you are going to split them why can they not go over there." That does not make sense to me. They sit where they should sit, and for those of us that are old enough will know what the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries looked like at Howard Davis Farm all those years ago. What we had was agriculture and fisheries and all of those types of things in one location, and what we did was we threw everything to do with business of any description into a bucket and said: "Over here", and that is what we had done when we put all of those roles within the role of the economic development. In actual fact, one has to say you cannot manage all of those different things and, to me, by changing the remit and withdrawing agriculture and fisheries, splitting this role is a perfect option. I am fully supportive of the changes and I will not be voting for this proposition.

The Bailiff :

Does anyone else wish to speak on this proposition? If no one else wishes to speak, I call upon Deputy Coles to reply.

9. Deputy T.A. Coles :

I am glad to follow Senator Le Hegarat because there is so much stuff there that she mentioned that was really good and really important. This idea that you take a look at everybody's portfolio, re-establish where everything sits better and bringing them together, because that is absolutely the right thing we need to do. But you need to think about it, you need to address everything, but when you do something so quickly, are we doing it right? Have we missed something? Have we considered something not completely in the round? The Senator also mentions about big country and how we have regulated ourselves in the same way as we do a big country. She then goes on to point out about England and Ireland and how they split planning and environments, which are big countries. Obviously Jersey is small, so maybe keeping the 2 things together is actually more cost effective and efficient because you are comparing apples and oranges sometimes. I am just going back over the regulation part because there is a big question over regulation and why it is needed and why it is important, and maybe this is more of a thought of a warning, that if we do things too quickly and we cut our regulation too much, we will find ourselves in a position where we cannot deal with big countries anymore. As many will know that the U.K. E.U. (European Union) reset negotiations are going to start soon, and this will have a really big impact on our economy with regards to our fishers being able to have fish in Granville and other ports along Normandy as well as access through from the Common Travel Area into the E.U. There are so many things on the line. I mentioned this because it fits within the Minister for the Environment's portfolio, or does it? Because I am not necessarily sure, where that law currently sits, whether there is going to be another review and whether that sits under Regulation, whether that sits under Environment, because that is going to be a big negotiation that is going to require resources to ensure that Islanders who have needs to export things to the E.U. are able to do so and, as some Members of the Assembly pushed for, the cheap German supermarkets. Maybe it will be cheaper to import their goods from the E.U., which you cannot do quite so easily as you can from the U.K. I have just looked through some of the notes that I have written down, and of course sweet shops came up. I am sure most of us were wishing we all had a gobstopper right now, or at least I had one, so I will not go on for too much longer. But there is the talk around the improving of the planning service, and I feel this is a little bit disrespectful to the former Minister, the former Deputy Steve Luce, who when he took over the last 2 years we saw an accelerated line of approvals come through our planning service because he brought improvements, while also bringing forward the Food Law, the Animal Welfare Law. The former Deputy did a lot of good work in a short period of time as one person looking after that department.

[11:00]

I believe Deputy Jeune made some really good points, which I do not necessarily want to repeat them, but there are some that confused me in the schedule that the Minister made the point in the comments paper. Things like the Food Law and the High Hedges law. High hedges obviously they do more than just block out light from one person to another, and I know they are about height but they also hold our biodiversity. So if those 2 things are separate, are we at risk of cutting down a hedge which actually holds a rare bird species, rare bat species or just does something that improves our biodiversity, which improves our agriculture, which keeps our lives going. The Food Law, sitting within Planning and Regulation. The team that look after that is called Environmental Health. There is the confusion. Are they going to then be enforced by Environmental Health, which sits under the Minister for Planning and Regulation? Or would that be still something that sits under the remit of the Minister for the Environment? Because the big question that keeps being outstanding is around enforcement. It is good to have people who look at individual laws and come up with individual policies and can actually dedicate their time to that without being drawn too thin, but it has got to be done properly. As mentioned with the States of Jersey Law and it

being done by Order like I have said, there is nothing disrespectful to the Chief Minister, my proposition is worded in such a way because it is his right to make these orders. The way to challenge that Order is with an annulment and, of course, that feels a little bit more heavy-handed. That is really asking to put the full brakes on and hit it hard. Where I have just asked a series of questions  of  Senator   Boleat ,  who  is  Assistant  Minister  with  delegated  functions,  I  am  not preventing any work from carrying on. In the comments paper, it talks about the consideration of mergers of different portfolios. Of course, yes, in my report, there is mention about Sustainable Economic Development and the Environment when you consider what is left. But there is also a consideration that actually, where you have moved something, somebody has a bit more space. Maybe something else can be moved somewhere else. There is room for full assessment of all ministerial portfolios, because that also sits within the Chief Minister's gift. He could redesign all his portfolios so they work the best, but you need to take time to do that. So I appreciate he has to present his slate of Ministers, then the Assembly adopts those, and then that can change. I think having a review of this particular division of legislation could open the door to see more - more potential, more ways - for the Chief Minister to deliver on his Common Strategic Policy that we will see after the summer, because that is what Governments are here to do, is to deliver and to deliver efficiently and effectively. But if we rush things we get things wrong, then we have conflict internally and that becomes a problem. This does not stop any work, as I have said, so I would be grateful if Members could support this. Let us have a look at legislation, let the Chief Minister and his teams look at this properly, provide the rest of the Assembly the transparency of what is going to be done. Of course, the last thing I should mention before I sit down, when we talk about cost, we do not all say when people think cost, they automatically go to financials, but not every cost is financial. If we move a research and project officer from one project to another, the cost is that first project loses a resource because it moves to do something else. So that is a cost in time, that is a cost in delivery, but it is not a financial cost. That is one of the things when I say about cost and staff and resources that comes out of that. What is going to be delayed? What is going to be cancelled? What is not going to be delivered so that somebody else can deliver something else? What are the priorities? That is what is not clear from this report, and so that is what I ask the Chief Minister to deliver. I call for the appel.

The Bailiff :

The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask Greffier to close the voting.

POUR: 15

Connétable of St. Martin Connétable of St. Clement Connétable of St. Ouen Connétable of Grouville Connétable of St. Saviour Deputy M. Tadier

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet Deputy C.S. Alves Deputy T.A. Coles Deputy A.F. Curtis

CONTRE: 31

Senator L.J. Farnham Senator A.J.H.M. Maclean Senator M.R. Le Hegarat Senator T.J.A. Binet Senator H.M. Miles Senator M.E. Millar Senator Sir M.J. Boleat Senator S. M. Kersten Connétable of St. Mary Connétable of St. Peter

ABSTAINED: 0

Deputy L.V. Feltham Deputy H.L. Jeune

Deputy B.B.de S.V.M. Porée Deputy K.M. Wilson Deputy L.D. Carpenter

Connétable of St. Brelade Connétable of St. Helier Connétable of St. John Connétable of St. Lawrence Deputy C.F. Labey

Deputy K.F. Morel

Deputy F. G. Voisin Deputy M.B. Andrews Deputy R.E. Binet

Deputy C.D. Curtis

Deputy M.R. Ferey

Deputy J. Renouf

Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson Deputy B. Ward

Deputy S.J. Gleave

Deputy V. Li

Deputy A. Maltman Deputy R.J. Parker Deputy G.A. Raimondo Deputy C.J. Rebindaine Deputy P.J. Romeril

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS

3. Appointment of the Minister for Planning and Regulation

The Bailiff :

We now move on to the appointments.

Senator L.J. Farnham (The Chief Minister):

In line with Article 29A, following the result of that vote, I have now signed the order enabling the next item on the agenda to proceed, namely the election of the Minister for Planning and Regulation.

The Bailiff :

We now move on to the selection of the Minister for Planning and Regulation. In accordance with Standing Order 117(2E), I ask the Chief Minister to make his nomination for the position of Minister for Planning and Regulation. I remind Members that neither nomination nor seconding may be the pretext for any substantive speech. Chief Minister, do you have a nomination for this appointment.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

Yes, thank you. I would like to nominate Senator Mark Boleat for the position of Minister for Planning and Regulation.

Is the nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Deputy L.D. Carpenter of St. Helier Central :

Yes, Sir, I would like to nominate Deputy Tadier .

The Bailiff :

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? In that case, we will then have a period of speeches for up to 10 minutes and then questions for up to 20 minutes. I invite Deputy Tadier to leave the Chamber for the speech and questions involving Senator Boleat . Thank you, Deputy . Senator Boleat , you have 10 minutes to address the Assembly, followed by questions for up to 20 minutes.

1. Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

I enjoyed the last debate, I think. I felt at times like being a patient on the operating table with eminent physicians discussing what, if anything, to do with me. But I am pleased we have got that over. I thank the Chief Minister for nominating me to this new position as Minister for Planning and Regulation. I am aware that there have been and will continue to be discussions about the appropriate delineation of functions, and it is quite right that time should be taken to decide exactly where responsibilities lie. But I have no doubt that the principle of seeking to bring together several regulatory functions under one Minister and in one department so as to help ensure consistency and economies of scale is the right one. Each Member will have their own views on what they want to achieve in their term of office. For some, that will be new laws or propositions, and I respect that. In my case, it may mean fewer laws and fewer propositions. I strongly believe that Jersey must have planning and regulatory systems appropriate for Jersey, not imported wholesale from the U.K. or anywhere else. But we can learn from others, and that is where I think I can help ensure that Jersey benefits from doing so. I was a member of the City of London's Planning Committee for around 10 years, and deputy chairman of its Streets and Walkways Sub- Committee, in which capacity I was delighted to host visits from the then Connétable of St. Helier and the Minister for the Environment to share experiences and ideas. I also had experience of planning as a director of a major house builder, a member of Mayor Sadiq Khan's Homes for Londoners' Board, and chair of the Housing and Finance Institute, for which I wrote a paper entitled The Housing Problem in London - a broken planning system. Locally, I have been chair of both Andium Homes and the Jersey Development Company. Similarly, on regulation, in Jersey, I have chaired the Competition Authority, and in the U.K., I set up the system for regulating claims management companies. I was also a member of the Regulatory Policy Committee, which was charged with validating impact assessments that accompany proposed new laws and regulations. Is that relevant to Jersey? I think having an impact assessment, not on States manpower, employment and expenditure but on people and businesses, would be a really good development, and I hope we can make progress on that. How would I see my role in Planning? I must do what the law requires, which includes considering reports by inspectors who have heard appeals and ensuring that the Bridging Island Plan and relevant laws and policies are complied with. But there is a wider role to support the private sector and the public interest to ensure that the planning system is fit for purpose and does not become a barrier to economic growth. I was open in my election campaign that I regarded the current system as an obstacle to economic growth. That does not mean ripping up the system and removing protection, but it does mean having policies that are proportionate and appropriate, and which have due regard to the impact that they will have. This is particularly true in respect of residential properties. Sadly, planning and housing is an area where data to inform policy are inadequate; something I will seek to remedy. But we know that about three-quarters of homes sold every year are existing homes. A developer cannot simply

build whatever they like in the knowledge that somebody will have to buy it. Developers have gone bust because they produced homes that people do not want to buy. We should therefore be wary about loading requirements on to developers of new homes which people are not willing to pay for. The effect may not be that we have better homes, it may be that we have fewer homes. I am pleased to say that work is in train to simplify the planning system, building on the work that Deputy Luce did in the last Assembly. In particular, the voluminous documentation that must be provided with planning applications will be reduced. The Bridging Island Plan has an end date of 2025, but the law is such that the plan remains in operation until there is another plan. So I will be taking forward work to develop a new plan in which, of course, all Members of the Assembly will be fully involved. In the meantime, the Assembly has agreed to allow amendments to be made to the existing plan, which I will be working on alongside the Scrutiny Panel during the process, rather than simply expecting the panel to comment on proposals. The Assembly will, of course, have the final word. Turning to the wider regulation brief, I should start by quoting the Chief Minister, who told this Assembly: "We are regulating like a big country and we are not a big country." I should add the thoughtful comments from the Island's chief executive in his speech to the Chamber of Commerce. He pointed out that while each regulatory measure could be justified at the time it was introduced, it was the totality of measures, frequently overlapping if not conflicting, that causes problems. The 2023 Barriers to Business report noted that Jersey currently has 1,368 active laws dating back to 1771. Sixty per cent of respondents in its survey stated that regulation has had a negative impact on their business. Starting a business in Jersey is a complex process - I know, I have done 2 of them - made even more intimidating by the lengthy 12-step process outlined on the Government's website. This involves registering with different parts of Government and that does not include the Parishes, the Office of the Information Commissioner or the Financial Services Commission. A recent social media post summed up the position quite well: "Having recently set up a business I cannot stress how unnecessarily difficult the processes made by bureaucracy, disorganisation, and the endless hoops to jump through."

[11:15]

It went on: "There is the sheer number of registrations and forms, each department firing out its own  I.D.s  (identification)  and  reference  numbers.   Parish,  J.O.I.C.  (Jersey  Office  of  the Information  Commissioner),  Manpower,  T.I.N.  (Taxation  Identification  Numbers),  Social, J.F.S.C. (Jersey Financial Services Commission), et cetera. OneGov, if I am allowed to mention that, yet none of them seem to speak to each other." It concluded with a request for a small win. "If you are a Government department and you have a P.D.F. (Portable Document Format) that needs filling out, please make sure that the fields are editable." This is basic. It should be the norm. I made my views known on regulation during the campaign. Of course, regulation must be proportionate. No one disagrees with that, they just disagree on what proportionate is. But take the requirements that a business has to go through when it wants to employ somebody off-Island. That business has done a business case, that is what a business does, and it has worked out that that is what it needs to do. Yet it then has to produce another business case to a Government department, which will be considered by people who are not in business. That is before they attempt to complete the associated forms which come with a warning that the person filling it in should set aside an hour and a half to complete it because it cannot be saved. Of course, these are individual examples of how we can bring positive change but they are also part of a whole, where everything I will seek to do will be focused on improving things for the people of Jersey, whether helping them run their businesses, improve their homes or have better jobs. In everything I do, I will, as I said during my election campaign, work collaboratively with all Members of the Assembly and, as important, with businesses, charities and interest groups that have got something constructive to contribute to the policy-making process. I ask for the support of Members for this position. [Approbation]

The Bailiff :

We now move to a period of questions of up to 20 minutes. The first question from Deputy Ward .

1. Deputy B. Ward of St. Clement :

I will be doing this question to both candidates. On reading P.62, the comments paper, which sets out the responsibilities of the 2 separated roles, however there is an item of responsibility that fell under the previous Minister for the Environment's duties which does not seem to be itemised or identified in either of the 2 roles. This being the Jersey Care Commission, which was under the old system of responsibilities, plus the Care Law. Will the candidate for Minister of Planning and Regulation explain where does this health-related commission sit and is it appropriate for care and health-regulated laws to fall under this proposed Planning and Regulation remit, and if not where?

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

I am grateful for the question. I think the law fits within the Regulatory Department, and indeed earlier this morning I had a preliminary meeting with the chair and chief executive of the Care Commission. I thought it was a very productive meeting. That function currently belongs in the wider Environment Department. I can see little logic in it belonging to a department concerned with the environment. So that is something that I believe has been transferred, the appropriate law. If you had asked a longer question I could have looked it up, but I am afraid the question was not long enough to do so. But I believe that rests with the new department.

The Bailiff :

Supplementary?

Deputy B. Ward :

Not at this time, but thank you for your response.

2. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

Does the Senator support the polluter-pays principle as one that should underpin the licensing, fees and enforcement approach of his department; so the polluter-pays principle?

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

The polluter-pays should be the starting point for any discussion. The issue is the polluter does not like paying, and the polluter can have substantial political power, so ultimately it is a matter for this Assembly. But certainly as a principle that would be the starting point. What the end point will be will depend on political discussions.

3. Deputy H.L. Jeune :

I thank the Senator for his answers. I suppose his answer pre-empted my follow-up question, which is how would the Senator weigh the proportionality against the principle that environmental costs should sit with the polluter pays rather than the taxpayer or the ratepayers? How would the Senator weigh that proportionality for that principle when he says that it is about political; how would he weigh that?

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

I tried to pre-empt the question, but clearly failed to do so in its entirety. I think that is very difficult. In terms of developing policy, I am a firm believer that you take all interests into account but, most importantly, you do not listen most to the person who shouts loudest or the person who has got the most lobbying power. That is something I think all political organisations fall into that trap, that because somebody has sent 35 emails, that view is as worthy as somebody who sent none but has an equally valid view, or because there is a media campaign we should respond to it. So I think that requires politicians to look at the facts, to look at who will be impacted and to take the right decision that in many cases is going to be an unpopular decision. If you do not want to take unpopular decisions, do not become a Government Minister.

4. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement :

Will the candidate support the continued work of the Planning Committee, made-up of elected States Members, as part of a planning system that considers and determines matters under relevant planning law?

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Planning Committee. As I mentioned earlier, I did serve for 10 years on a planning committee in the City of London. It was a committee of 35 members. I would say to this Assembly, a committee of 35 members is not a great committee. But I did learn a fair bit about planning and I saw the value of planning committees. I think what is particularly important, very relevant to the work of this committee, we all know that the Bridging Island Plan is not fit for purpose and it will remain not fit for purpose until we replace it. The Planning Committee is the committee that has the power to decide something that is against the Island Plan because it is in the wider interest that it does so. That, I think, is a vital role for the committee to play, to look at something which is not in accordance with the plan, which is clearly desirable. I commend what the committee did on the Strive proposal for example, a good case of where the committee is looking at a proposition in the round for the benefit of the whole Island, not simply slavishly saying: "Because the plan says no, we cannot do it."

5. Deputy A. F. Curtis :

A recent letter to the editor of the J.E.P. highlighted the committee and perhaps suggested it is not a valid role, and I would suggest painted it in a more negative light. Does the candidate consider that the committee can play a very positive role and should be presented in a positive role, in particular the fact that it provides a zero-cost review process for applicants who have had refused applications, and that actually it is important to champion the positive work that the committee can do as an enabler?

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

Yes.

6. Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South :

I rise after Deputy Ward 's question. The Regulation of Care Law 2014 does sit within the proposed Minister's remit. Does he agree that the separation from regulator and service provider is an essential part of regulation?

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

I am grateful to the Deputy for clarifying my responsibilities. I have been involved in regulation for far more years than I care to consider, and I have been looking at Jersey for many years. Where you draw the line can be very arbitrary and the one thing I have learned in working in politics over many years is that structures matter a lot less than people. The right people can make a poor structure work, the wrong people will make a bad structure not work. Now already, since the Council of Ministers was established, I have worked with my colleague, Senator Le Hegarat , perfectly well. We have sat together considering matters, I have had discussions with other Ministers on specific matters. The Ministerial Code of Conduct requires that where something cuts across more than one department Ministers work together, and that is exactly what I will be doing.   Now some of  the  things I  might  want  to  do on regulation do not  fall within my responsibility. They may fall within the responsibility of the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development, and he will be receiving a few emails from me suggesting where we might discuss such matters. So it is about people working together, and that is absolutely what I am committed to doing, regardless of what the structure says.

7. Deputy T.A. Coles :

The question was originally about enforcement, because sometimes we have to get to that point where somebody breaks the rules and they have to be held to account for that. So, with the right glass walls and the right glass petitions, does the Minister then agree or not whether or not the enforcement should be separated from the rule maker?

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

There are any number of examples where rulemaking and enforcement sit in the same organisation. I think the Jersey Financial Services Commission would be one where it makes up the rules and it enforces them. Where that happens then there needs to be some form of appeal procedure. However you look at it, there are pros and cons of having rulemaking and enforcement in the same organisation or having them in different organisations; either can be made to work with the right people. So  there  are  some  enforcement  responsibilities,  quite  a  few  that  come  with  the responsibility for being the Minister for Planning and Regulation, and indeed there is a question about one of them for later today. So I do not see a problem with them being in the same organisation, nor do I see a problem with them being in different organisations. Either can work.

8. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central :

Will the candidate give his view on maintaining public access to our coastlines? Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

As an avid walker before my knees decided it was not a good idea, absolutely. I think our coastline is one of Jersey's great advantages. It is something we must protect. It is not always possible to do it, but as a starting point I would absolutely support that. Again, learning from the City of London - and I do not wish to keep emphasising that, it does not go down well with some people

- we spent 20 or 30 years building the path alongside the Thames, and it took that length of time. You had to do it with individual developments, so I think preserving access to the coastline is absolutely essential.

9. Deputy C.S. Alves :

How does the Senator think he will go about protecting it if there is a conflict or there is some dispute on that? How will he manage that?

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

That depends a bit on the nature of the dispute. If it is a planning application that threatens the coastline, that will be a matter for the Planning Committee, which will take the appropriate decision. I think you can never say never. There may be circumstances in which the coastline cannot be adequately protected, but my starting point is that absolutely it should be protected. If something comes to me for a decision and the Minister for Planning and Regulation has to take decisions in that sort of judicial capacity - not quite as important as your judicial capacity, Sir - but you have to look at all of the evidence and take the appropriate decision, and that is what I would seek to do

10. Connétable M. O'D. Troy of St. Clement :

Speaking about structures that do not work, what do you see as the future for our derelict and dangerous greenhouses?

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

That is a subject on which I have an interest because I live within a mile of 3 of them. One of them I am happy to say in the Parish of Grouville , but the other 2 are in St. Clement . I have to say that derelict greenhouse sites, in my view, do not enhance our natural environment. It is a difficult issue. The Bridging Island Plan is clear that they must be returned to agricultural use but the fact is some of them are not going to be returned to agricultural use. There is supplementary planning guidance that covers this at present. I think there is a case for reviewing that guidance. I am not saying changing it but for reviewing it, and that is something I would wish to do in conjunction with the panel to see whether it is appropriate, because I do not think it is appropriate that these sites, which have been derelict for 20 years, I think I am right in saying, should not continue.

11. Deputy V. Li of St. Helier North :

The Senator will recall that during his leadership in the City, the Square Mile has adopted the 20 miles per hour speed limit and prioritised the pedestrian safety in the dense urban environment, not unlike St. Helier . Will he bring the same approach to Jersey by making safe schools and safe school access a material planning consideration in the new Island Plan?

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

I think safety, particularly for children going to school, is vitally important. It is difficult in a small Island where you have roads. I frequently walk all the way from Pontac to one of the excellent cafés at Gorey, that is one of the Island's main roads and on part of that road, particularly in the Parish of Grouville , there are no pavements at all.

[11:30]

What I do observe is that drivers on the whole being very careful or perhaps they are just worried about me when they see me walking. In terms of doing it to schools, yes, I am very old, as some Members of the Assembly will know, and the prospect of being driven to school did not apply when I was young because people did not have cars. Amazingly, children got to school and got back and they were not abducted on the way there or back. Now it seems that children have to be delivered door to door. I would sincerely hope that we can move away from that and having safe routes - and I know some work has been done with some schools - is absolutely vital. But it is hard work because the starting point is our road system, which was largely designed by General Conway with a view to fighting the French. He could have designed them for other purposes but that is what happened and those roads are not ideal for other purposes. We have to make the best we can with the road system we have.

12. Deputy V. Li :

Can he assure our parents in St. Helier North that children and young people walking to school in Jersey will receive the same consideration he gave to the commuters in the City?

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

We did not actually have any children in the City, which made it easier. The number was tiny and we had one primary school. But we did many things in the City, including making streets pedestrian  only.   We  introduced  the  wrong  way  cycling  up  streets,  which  was  incredibly controversial. I did point out that we are only introducing it in streets where it happened anyway, and we were merely legalising it. Nobody died as a result. But the City solved that problem because the traffic moves so slowly, pedestrians go faster than the cars anyway. I do not think we should be trying to do that in Jersey, although we seem to be doing our best at times.

The Bailiff :

I am going to call upon Members who have not asked a question before coming to ones who have already asked a question, who want to ask a second question.

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

What will the candidate do to protect mature trees which cannot be simply replaced with new planting?

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

I think the law does that. The law is very clear about trees. Unfortunately, we cannot protect against Storm Ciarán, which I think did more damage to our trees than any developers could have done. I think we have a planning system that properly protects trees but, again, that is always a question of balance. There will be time when there are other considerations that mean that a mature tree may have to be removed, but the planning system is there to consider those matters and I am sure that the Planning Committee will absolutely, in looking at those issues, wish to protect not only mature trees but all trees where it is possible to do so. It is only in exceptional cases where that would not happen.

14. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

Given I think there is a political consensus that actually our legislation does not adequately protect trees, would the candidate, if elected, agree to look at this to see where the legislation could be strengthened in this area.

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

I think we have supplementary planning guidance on that. Absolutely I will look at that.

15. Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement :

The Senator mentioned earlier that the current Bridging Island Plan is not fit for purpose. Can you give some indication as to what his plans are to make it fit for purpose?

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

I cannot tell a lie, I have not read the entire plan but I read enough of the beginning of it to know that the assumptions on which it were based turned out to be not correct at all, and if the assumptions are not correct the plan is unlikely to be correct. My observation, reading the plan, is that it was predominantly a plan about protecting the past, not about preparing the Island for the future. There are very few references to economy and a lot about preserving what we have got. Now, I am all in favour of preservation, I live in an 18th century farmhouse that has been not just preserved but beautifully modernised as well. So we do have to preserve everything that is great about Jersey but that does not mean preserving everything. We do have policies in some areas where the wish to preserve prevents things happening. I will give an example of St. Saviour 's Hospital. The development brief for that says it is a heritage project but nobody is willing to pay for a heritage project. Therefore, we have a derelict building instead. So we do have to balance the heritage requirements against other requirements. I think, walking around the Island when I can, I observed some farm buildings that can best be described as near derelict, but they could be turned into really nice housing, but you cannot do that if there is a wish to preserve everything that was there. Now, equally, there are many old farms that have been beautifully modernised into excellent housing that look really attractive from the outside. But if you attempt to require too many or too much preservation of what is there, the risk is someone is going to say: "I cannot

afford doing it." I have had chapter and verse on a few people of what they have tried to do, and they have given up because the cost was simply not worth it. If the planners would rather I have a derelict building than a modern building, that is what is going to happen. I do not want to see that continue.

16. Deputy K.M. Wilson :

Is the Minister then suggesting that there will be a change in the philosophy that he will engage with to develop a system that is sometimes process-led to one that is more focused on enabling sustainable growth? Could he also then explain, if that is the case, how he will aim to broker or address the tensions between local planning in Parishes and more strategic planning decisions?

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

I thank the Deputy ; I think that is a really good question. I have already made it clear to officers that the job of the planning system is to assist businesses that want to develop their business and to help people who want to improve their homes. In doing so, of course, it has to protect things that need protecting but the emphasis should be on helping and assisting, and this applies to regulators across the board. I have had experience of regulation and I can tell you the biggest changes I have seen in regulation is when the regulator changes, i.e. the person changes. I will give a direct example. When I became chair of the Competition Authority we had 2 senior officers who loved looking at international

The Bailiff :

Senator, your time is up.

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

My time is up, Sir, I have only had

The Bailiff :

I need to be quite strict when there are 2 candidates. Senator Sir M.J. Boleat :

I will do as I am told.

The Bailiff :

Your time is up. So, can I invite you now to withdraw from the Chamber and ask someone to locate Deputy Tadier . Deputy , when you are ready you can start your speech.

2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

[Je vais peut-être commencer en français, Monsieur, car aujourd'hui c'est le 14 juillet, alors c'est le jour de la Bastille – la fête de la Révolution en France. Alors, d'abord je voudrais saluer tout le monde et souhaiter à tous une bonne fête nationale française.]

I would like to start in French, Sir, because today is 14th July, Bastille Day, the day that celebrates the French Revolution, and so I would like to wish everyone a happy French National Day.

Before people continue with their panicked looks on the faces from new Members, it is, of course, a longstanding tradition that any Member of this Assembly can address our Assembly in French. I do so for 2 reasons. The first is because today is 14th July. It is La Bastille, Bastille Day, so I wish everybody in the Assembly and anyone listening a bonne fête, Sir, including yourself. The second is that I decided while I was out of the room to ask the internet what was great about the French planning system. We have probably heard something about the U.K. planning system, I suspect, from the previous Member who has a lot of experience of it. We know, obviously, about

our own planning system but what might be good about the French planning system? The answer I  was given is that it has  an integrated spatial  strategy, that French communes are highly encouraged to develop unified local plans that co-ordinate economic development, ecology and public transport, and that it provides a holistic approach that does not ensure growth happens in a vacuum. They are also very big on architectural preservation. Now this should not come as a surprise because when we have been to some of the great French cities, and in fact not just the cities but the smaller villages, we notice how the French take care about their system to make sure that there are different quartiers, different quarters, in the town, that their buildings are very well- preserved and they value their culture. So the French system is excellent at safeguarding cultural heritage. Through specialised zoning, regional authorities preserve the distinct vernacular of architecture. I am not sure if that is quite the case in Jersey. When I walk through town and if I am ever with a group of tourists, I say there is some great architecture in St. Helier , in particular, but you have to look up, because when you look at the lower levels of our shops, they are not very consistent, there seems to be a mismatch. There have been examples where bad planning behaviour has actually created a complete hodgepodge of unsympathetic vernacular throughout St. Helier . The other thing that I looked at was that there was a question asked by my opponent .. sorry, rather referencing my opponent in the London Assembly. This was asked in 2011 by Navin Shah, a member of the Assembly to the Mayor and the question was this, he said: " Sir Mark Boleat , chair of The Housing and Finance Institute, has recently called for a complete overhaul, of what he calls, deeply flawed planning system which gives far too much attention to articulate groups who make a lot of noise'. He is asking to hugely reduce influence of residents and calling for Australian-style streamlined planning panels. Do you agree with these proposals for London?" The answer was: "I do not believe that the planning system in London is deeply flawed, but I have to be clear that the delivery of new homes can be speeded up." Why do I mention that? Well, first of all, I do not know what my opponent said, of course, because I was not in the room, so I can only speculate. I am sure that he talked about his vast experience in the City of London, and also what he saw as a deeply flawed planning system, and maybe some of his plans in Jersey to fight what he calls over-regulation. There might have also been comments that the electorate were very clear during the election that they wanted to see a streamlined planning system, that there was too much red tape. Did the red tape come anywhere up during the previous speech on the bingo card? I suspect it would. We do need to, of course, talk about the area of deregulation and appropriate regulation. But the first point I would make is that the context that we see ourselves here in Jersey is not that of the U.K. The U.K. has allowed itself to have quite a lot of quangos. Things like Ofwat, for example, do not exist in Jersey. So there were lots of powers which do fall to the Minister for Planning and Regulation now, as it is, which will need to be done in-house. So there is a completely different starting context.

[11:45]

There is a wider context here as well, in the sense that Jersey, I think, historically should be very proud of itself. It has always managed to achieve, certainly in recent history, and we are looking pretty much since the development of the Island Development Committee, as it was then, also under the stewardship of the great and late Colin Powell. He was obviously known as being one of the economic architects of Jersey, but he is somebody who did have a hand in our planning system. What served Jersey very well is that when we get a balance between the countryside, the town and the coastal protection, all in balance and all in moderation, that is when Jersey works well. We have seen what some other islands not too far away can do in terms of ribbon development. Jersey has always managed to, I think, on the whole, through its planning system, make sure that it has got a good balance when it comes to not overdevelopment, but protecting certainly its countryside and protecting its coastline. An area that I would like to focus on, and this did come up during my election experience, one of enforcement. Let us look at perhaps the

other side of the coin to deregulation, but actually there are some very good examples of poor enforcement, if that is not tautological or an oxymoron indeed. I think I can give you a couple of examples. What was coming up on the doorstep is when people flout planning law, planning enforcement, it breeds a very contempt for the system. They will see on the one hand and this was an actual example knocking on doors around La Moye. I see the planning notice on a residential home, a 3-bedroom home, bulk standard, but very nice in the La Moye area. I read it, I actually took a photo of it, and they needed to put a notice up for 28 days because they want to put a pagoda up in their back garden. I had to double-check what a pagoda was because I thought it was some kind of cuisine but, no, it is a type of structure, a bit like a gazebo, in your back garden. They are having to do that even though it is of a certain height and it is only really going to affect them, it is not going to affect any of the neighbours, the process has to be gone through. But only perhaps less than a mile away from where they live we get a very high-profile example of somebody who as they would say on the doorstep in their own vernacular, but translated into parliamentary language, we have this property owner who is taking the mickey that there has been a structure put on the coastal area which is not allowed and it is not being removed, it has come to the end of the 28-day period. There are other encroachments and other enforcement issues that need to be removed. Of course, the owner says: "No, I am not removing it", it simply stays there. So we do have this 2-tier system whereby enforcement for whatever reason is not being done. Now it is delicate because I know this is a live issue, but it is a live issue which has come up at the election and I have been very careful not to name the individual or the area specifically where it is. But it is a very well-known case. I think if there is a rebalancing that needs to take place it does fundamentally need to, of course, take into account the fact that Article 1, Protocol 1 of the Human Rights both in Jersey and in Europe has a presumption that people should have enjoyment of their own properties, but it does seem to depend on who you are. So for the little person who wants to make moderate development within their own curtilage, it seems that arguably there is over-regulation there. I do wonder what would have happened if they would have just pushed ahead with the pagoda. I would find it very difficult to argue with somebody saying: "Why on earth should I try and get permission when others do not have to? After all it is not going to be enforced." One tangible step I would take in that area would be to say that if you have an enforcement order against you which you have not complied with, you cannot submit a new planning application until that enforcement order has been dealt with. That is something that I would want to bring forward, and I know how the maths are stacked here but if that is not something that I am able to do because I am not in the job, I certainly hope that all of this Assembly would put that pressure on the Minister for Planning and Regulation to bring that forward. The problem is I am not convinced that is something he would do because my opponent has form in actually pushing for deregulation. We heard the attributed comments to him that were raised in the London Assembly but we also know that he has talked elsewhere about the deregulation of the taxi service. I know it is not immediately what we are talking about here today but it does seem to me that we would be putting somebody in post who has got form, both in terms of his previous political experience and his rhetoric, for calling for greater deregulation. I do not think that is something that is needed in the Jersey system wholesale. I think there will be specific examples when we can do better. For example, and I probably do have to declare an interest here in that some of my our shared property with myself and my wife, part of it is an outhouse that we have got, which for some reason is a listed building. I do not want to speak specifically about myself but it has got a low-level listing. I do think that in Jersey there does probably need to be a general review about which buildings are listed and how they got listed because, of course, it is great that you can appeal a listing but you have to do that within 28 days of the listing having been made and it may well be that you acquire a listed building later, at which point then you have got to rely on a much more arduous process to question whether that should have been listed in the first place. We see a very high-profile example of that, do we not, with the recent

Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John :

Sir, much as I enjoy listening to the Deputy , I understood it was a 10-minute speech? The Bailiff :

Good ness gracious, is it really? Thank you for drawing that to our attention. That is 3 people who should have noticed that did not. Or maybe 50, but certainly 3. I apologise, thank you for drawing that to our attention. Yes, we now move to a period of questions for the Deputy . Who wants to ask the first question?

1. Deputy B. Ward :

I am asking the same question to both candidates. On reading the comments paper that we received yesterday, it sets out the responsibilities of the 2 separated areas. However, there is an item of responsibility that fell under the previous Minister for the Environment's duties which does not seem to be itemised or identified in either of the 2 proposed roles. This being the Jersey Care Commission, which was under the old system and responsibilities, and the Care Law. Will the candidate for the Minister for Planning and Regulation explain where does this health-related commission sit, and is it appropriate for care and health-related laws too fall under this proposed remit and, if not, where would it be?

Deputy M. Tadier :

Thank you, that is a very good question. It was point 5 of my speech, which I would have probably got to in about half an hour. I apologise if I went over, I do not know if the lack of pulling me up was because everyone was so enthralled or because they were asleep, but I will presume it is the former. It is a very good question; regulation of care is fundamental for me. I have seen first-hand experience of the need for good care, especially for the elderly, although it is not exclusively for the elderly. I have seen reports produced by the Care Commission where they have gone in and there has been some terrible care received in Jersey, much to the real chagrin of the families involved. They do a great job. I think it is an interesting one, is it not, because the argument is should it come under Health. Health cannot regulate themselves but it is not Health regulating themselves either; this is outsourced care effectively. There is a much more fundamental problem in Jersey, that I think we have an over-reliance on privatisation in our elderly care. I think that leads to a risk of profit over people. That is why it needs to have firm and strong regulation. I do not think it is necessarily a problem with it having sat at environment previously. I do think that moving it to planning automatically with the Planning and Regulation does give an opportunity for it to be reviewed about where it should best sit. The bottom line is, though, I do want to see extra funding being made available for enforcement and for regulation to be administered properly. I imagine that might be something which sets me apart from my opponent here, because I do not favour automatically, ideologically small government. I favour right-sized government.

The Bailiff :

Supplementary?

Deputy B. Ward :

No, Sir, but I would just like to thank the candidate for the response.

2. Deputy A.F. Curtis :

Will the candidate support the continued work of the Planning Committee that is made-up of elected States Members as part of a planning system for considering and determining matters under planning law?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I think the Planning Applications Panel does a great job in very many ways. They are the unsung heroes of the system. It is a thankless task, is the expression I was looking for. I am not going to get drawn into whether I think it is the best system to have entirely elected Members on the planning system but that is the system we have got and I do not have a compelling case to change it.

3. Deputy A.F. Curtis :

Very quickly, I would note that it was renamed in legislation from the Planning Applications Panel to the Planning Committee, and I would ask whether the candidate considers that it should actually be recognised for its positive work it can do providing free recourse? Does he consider it important that there are good routes to review of applications, especially those refused by applicants, so that they can actually have an affordable way of trying to get their case through?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I am happy to do that, and it reminds me of when the Deputy was standing for his position I asked a question about the balance of proof, if you like. So while I am on my feet and to answer yes to that, I would also like to highlight the fact that is something I would like to look at. Actually I think the balance of burden of proof in rejecting an application should be on the States, not on the individual, and where there is a tied vote, say if it was 2-2, I think because of the human rights implications it is up to the States to prove that it should not be built. It could be argued that there should be a presumption in favour of building. That is something which the right of the Assembly might wish to consider as a good idea as well, and maybe vote for me to do that.

4. Deputy H.L. Jeune :

Does the Deputy support the polluter-pay principle as one that should underpin the licensing fees and enforcement approach of the planning and regulation hub?

Deputy M. Tadier :

Polluter pays, I think that we should be probably moving to an area where we think about a more holistic and comprehensive ecocide law. I think that the environment needs to be at the heart of everything we do. I think there has been some very bad practice over the years and it is difficult to know who you would identify as the pollutant. I think it is definitely something we should look at. We have got very high nitrate levels still in Jersey. I think the conversation around nitrates has largely been forgotten. When we have a Government which continually will issue derogations to its water company that it should actually be enforcing, I think that is a big problem. So I think along with the user-pays pollutants, I think Government actually needs to start holding to account the utilities in a way which would be very uncomfortable for any Minister who is doing his job, in this case, properly.

5. Deputy H.L. Jeune :

I thank the Deputy for his answer. It is also quite a detailed answer, giving some examples. I suppose the question then, how would he - if he was Minister for Planning and Regulation - go about that within the Council of Ministers who want to cut red tape and also try to encourage economic growth, which potentially could be put above and beyond that issue of polluter-pay principle.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I would just make the case that economic growth needs to be sustainable. If we do not have a functioning agricultural system in 30 or 50 years' time and we do not have increasing food security, then it is all at the altar of Mammon, so to speak, but the public will not thank us. Ultimately, it is

up to this Assembly to give its not just implied consent but, in many cases, its actual consent to what Government has in its programme. If this Assembly is a deregulatory, laissez-faire, neo- liberal Assembly, it will want to make sure that it has that appropriate Minister in place. Part of me standing for election is to give the history books the opportunity to say that perhaps when fundamental change has happened in Jersey's planning system, the Assembly knew what they were doing and they had a choice. They had a choice between somebody - and I hope I am wrong in this - who will potentially be throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to our planning system. Because I think we have got a very balanced system at the moment, and we tinker with that at our peril.

6. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

What will the candidate do to protect mature trees on the Island, which cannot simply be replaced with new planting?

[12:00]

Deputy M. Tadier :

I do not have evidence at the moment that the current strategy when it comes to trees is flawed. If there are issues, we need to take a longer-term view of where trees are planted and how they are maintained. What is often the case is that we see historically - sometimes by accident but sometimes deliberately - inappropriate trees are being planted in the wrong places. Of course, when they become rooted then become very large, they can have unintended consequences. So I think we do need to have .. I would certainly want to sit down with the charity that looks after trees. It used to be called Men of the Trees; it is called Jersey Trees for Li fe now. They do a great job. I remember during the Great Storm of 1987, along La Route Orange. When there was a big storm and I was still in shorts - probably not in October though on that day - that there was some great work done about planting and young people. We were all involved in that. I think people do care about trees. I want to make sure that is still proportionate and that it is a sensible policy.

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

If the candidate is elected to this role, would he agree to look at the legislation in this area with a view to strengthening protection of mature trees?

Deputy M. Tadier :

That would be one of the potential workstreams. I would suggest that rather than me as a hypothetical future Minister doing that work, it might be better if the Scrutiny Panel maybe looked at it and presented something, if indeed we cannot convince the actual Minister to do the work.

7. Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée of St. Helier South :

If elected, how would the candidate work with other Ministers and the Constables to solve the current issues regarding the Victoria Marine Lake, which is presently a listed structure?

Deputy M. Tadier :

That is fortuitous. That was the issue that I was trying to address in the eleventh minute of my speech. It is quite fundamental. On the one hand, we have got to remember that we .. the Marine Lake was listed only a couple of years ago. For me, that seemed like a very strange thing to do. I am not saying it was right or wrong but it seemed to happen in a vacuum. First of all - this could be given as an example - why was the Marine Lake listed, which needs to be protected? But the actual political question about what needs to happen to the Marine Lake was not solved. It could be that the Marine Lake needs to just be removed completely because that might be a cheaper and safer solution to what needs to be done there, but the listing potentially aggravates that. I think that is a very good example where the planning system and the heritage aspect is not working together with what might be ultimately in the public interest. So to answer the question shortly, of course there needs to be some joined-up working. But first of all, if there is no money available to maintain it as a listed structure, the first question might be to look at delisting it and then having a question about what to do with it. But that will not be popular with everyone.

8. Deputy C.S. Alves :

I am going to ask the same question I asked the last candidate, which is what is the candidate's view on maintaining public access to our coastlines?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I think it is vital. We know that the public feel very strongly about the coastline. I remember the first line in the sand. I remember the second line in the sand. I remember a couple of years ago, when I organised - and kindly some of my local Deputies assisted with that - that there was also a strong feeling about what was going on at La Braye and around that area. People do come out to show their support for the coastline. The Chief Minister now, of course, when he .. I do not think he was Chief Minister at the time, he may have been. He brought the Grève de Lecq acquisition, and it was co-funded through the National Trust. The public are very savvy when it comes to this issue. I think we need to listen to the public on that issue.

Deputy C.S. Alves :

What strategies or how does he think he would help protect any challenges that there might be to this?

Deputy M. Tadier :

Again, I refer to a previous answer that we need to first of all enforce good practice in Jersey. Where there are examples of that being flouted, it needs to be enforced properly so that people will respect the decisions, not just in word but the fact that we value our coastline in practice. I think we need to continue to value the work that is done by third-sector organisations. The coastal network that we have of cliff paths, of steps, do not happen by chance. They are done in large parts by groups like the National Trust. They are a big economic driver, as well as providing things for our local community to do. So I think it is a real balance. There is already an economic balance and benefit in Jersey when we do things properly through a balanced planning system that we take for granted and perhaps should not do.

9. Deputy V. Li :

This is the same question that I asked the other candidate. Would the candidate consider making safe schools and safe school access a material planning consideration in the new Island Plan?

Deputy M. Tadier :

There are already some safeguards around that, and I think those are considerations. There is also the opportunity to do these things through planning gains, of course. That may also be appropriate. But ultimately, yes is the answer. We need to make sure that those powers are only strengthened and that they are always at the forefront. I am a big supporter of things like that 20-minute village, I think it is called. Safe routes for walking and cycling. They need to be joined up, ultimately. There is no point in having a partial cycle network if there are certain areas of road which are very dangerous and young families, in particular, or the elderly do not wish to traverse because they cannot get there. So we have to do all that we can. It is not entirely the job for the Minister for Planning and Regulation, but the Minister will need to work in a joined-up way with his ministerial colleagues.

Deputy V. Li :

I think the candidate has already briefed his opinions on that. My question is, can he assure the parents in St. Helier North that, as a Minister, children and young people walking to the school will come first in every planning decision?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I can advise that I would want due consideration to be given to what the Deputy is asking. The issue is, of course, there are a multitude of considerations that need to be taken into account. If somebody has been elected on cutting red tape and prioritising economic gain as opposed to necessarily doing what is best for the local community, there might be tensions there. I think ultimately people get what they voted for.

10. Deputy K.M. Wilson :

The candidate referred to evidence presented in the U.K. Parliament by his opponent in this process. Looking at that evidence, his opponent refers to inherent tensions between local planning and strategic planning decisions. What will be his approach when it comes to brokering solutions in this scenario, in the interest of supporting economic growth and protecting our heritage and environment?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I am glad for the opportunity. I did refer to that. What struck me and worries me is that there was this reference to articulate groups who make a lot of noise having too much influence on the planning system. If that is a correct attribution of what the Member is quoted to have said, I think that is very dismissive, first of all, of those types of groups. We are talking about groups like the National Trust. We are talking about groups like Save Our Shoreline, Friends of the Earth. There will be local community groups, of course, which may be on a constituency basis, which all have a very direct interest and they care about the Island holistically. I do not know if this is the point to mention it, but I would certainly want to protect the third-party appeals mechanism and system. I  think it is vitally important  in  Jersey that the third-party appeal system  exists, that it is proportionate, because we live often cheek by jowl in Jersey. We do not have the vast swaths of land where people can be protected from the worst vagaries of bad planning decisions. I do not know if that answers the Member's question but happy to take a supplementary.

Deputy K.M. Wilson :

From a system that can sometimes appear process-led to one that is more focused on enabling sustainable development and economic growth, what are his particular views on how this can be improved?

Deputy M. Tadier :

We have already seen the development and the evolution of pre-planning advice being given. I think that is much better than it used to be in the past. That is a system which initially can provide written or verbal feedback. Once people fully realise how that can be used, that can be developed. The more work that can be done in earlier stage .. I will give one example; again, it was in La Moye. I had somebody who is an architect, I came across him. He had a really fruitful experience of dealing with the Planning Department where traditionally others have said: "I find it really difficult." This was somebody who worked in the area of historic buildings. He just had a really refreshing way of looking at it. He did not see the Planning Department as an enemy, he saw them as somebody to be worked with. I think if that mentality is shared on both sides - and sadly, it is not always the case - where there is proportionate regulation but also conversations can happen, I think that is where we get the best out of our planning system.

11. The Connétable of St. Clement :

The same question to the second candidate. What would the future be for our derelict and dangerous greenhouses under your direction?

Deputy M. Tadier :

There was a vote that took place in 2022, early, brought by then Deputy Moore, which did not pass. Essentially, we need to use the powers that we have. Whether it is a broken wall that I have seen in St. Brelade for the last 10 to 15 years not being fixed or a derelict greenhouse, there are currently provisions in the law which allows the Minister - or it is delegated to his chief officer - to enforce that. So you go to the land owner and say: "You can either put those back into use and build them again as greenhouses - because there are people in the community who would quite happily take on an allotment greenhouse - or you return them to as they were." Sometimes, in many cases, these farmers might have received subsidies to help construct that. That is taxpayers' money going to these dilapidated greenhouses. There is a quote from Deputy Ash during the debate, where he said that if .. I do not know if I can read it out. But he talked about the fact that this would encourage bad practice. There are also quotes from Senator Ferguson. So Deputy Ash said that this will lead to more development in St. Clement by the back door. He says: "Part of Government should be .. to drive good behaviours .. This does nothing to drive good behaviours. This effectively says: Let your greenhouse get into a terrible state and then cash in to the tune of several million pounds'."

The Bailiff :

That is the ..?

Deputy M. Tadier :

The former Deputy of St. Clement . The Bailiff :

Thank you. That is 20 minutes brought to an end. Could someone locate Senator Boleat before we move to the vote? Members are asked to return to their seats. Any Member wishing to vote for Senator Boleat should press the pour button. Any Member wishing to vote for Deputy Tadier should press the contre button. Members may abstain in the usual way, if they wish. I will ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting.

POUR:

Senator L.J. Farnham Senator A.J.H.M Maclean Senator M.R. Le Hegarat Senator T.J.A. Binet Senator H.M. Miles Senator M.E. Millar Senator Sir M.J. Boleat Senator S.M. Kersten Connétable of St. Mary Connétable of St. Martin

CONTRE:

Deputy M. Tadier

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet Deputy C.S. Alves

Deputy T.A. Coles

Deputy L.V. Feltham Deputy B.B.de S.V.M Porée Deputy L.D. Carpenter

ABSTAINED: Deputy A.F. Curtis Deputy H.L. Jeune

Connétable of St. Peter Connétable of St. Brelade Connétable of St. Helier Connétable of St. John Connétable of St. Clement Connétable of St. Ouen Connétable of Trinity Connétable of Grouville Connétable of St. Saviour Connétable of St. Lawrence Deputy C.F. Labey

Deputy K.F. Morel

Deputy F.G Voisin

Deputy M.B. Andrews Deputy R.E. Binet

Deputy M.R. Ferey

Deputy J. Renouf

Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson Deputy B. Ward

Deputy K.M. Wilson Deputy S.J. Gleave

Deputy V. Li

Deputy A Maltman

Deputy R.J. Parker

Deputy G.A. Raimondo Deputy C.J. Rebindaine Deputy P.J. Romeril

4. Appointment of the President of the Scrutiny Li aison Committee The Bailiff :

We now go on to the appointment of the President of the Scrutiny Li aison Committee. Under Standing Order 121, the Assembly is due to appoint a president of the Scrutiny Li aison Committee. I invite Members to make nominations for the president of the committee from among the chairs of the Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committee.

Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

I would like to nominate Deputy Wilson as president for the Scrutiny Li aison Committee. The Bailiff :

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Accordingly, I invite Deputy Wilson to address the Assembly for up to 10 minutes, following which there will be a period of questions for up to 20 minutes.

4.1   Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement :

I will keep it brief. For me Scrutiny is the complete and total control mechanism in the Assembly, and one of the things that I would like to do through the presidency is to make sure that what we will do is have a higher standard to the Scrutiny process that will enable Ministers to do their work well. For me, one of the things that is critical is the relationship between Ministers and the panels, and in that regard, understanding the agenda between us and agreeing on the way in which we work together will be critical. There are 5 very capable leaders of each of the Scrutiny Panels, and I do not underestimate the task of trying to co-ordinate the ambition and the purpose behind each of those panels, but one of the things I can assure the Assembly is that we will be measured and we will be considered in the way that we approach our work, and that we will conduct ourselves in a professional way. One of the things that I think is really important to call upon is the need for mutual respect in terms of Ministers' ambitions for delivery, but also the respect that is given to the Scrutiny process so that the public feel that they can trust the way in which the Assembly works. I would also like to, on this occasion, say that there has been a really good balance in terms of the way in which the Members have put themselves forward for leading each of those panels. So I hope the Assembly will benefit from the richness of the difference and the diversity of what we have in terms of contribution. One of the key areas that we will need to address immediately is the legacy report that was previously undertaken by the previous S.L.C. (Scrutiny Li aison Committee), and we are in the process at the moment of trying to come together as an S.L.C. to agree that work programme and undertake the timeframe for delivery around that. I can assure you that as an S.L.C. we will also be good communicators of what it is we want to achieve, and we will widen our Scrutiny process to make sure that there is good representation from the public in all of the work that we do on our Scrutiny Panels. I would also like to express my thanks to my panel members for the confidence and the trust they have placed in me to carry out this significant leadership role. Thank you. [Approbation]

The Bailiff :

Are there any questions for Deputy Wilson ?

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Can I just preface it by thanking the Deputy for being an excellent vice-chair on my Scrutiny Panel over the last term. The question I have relating to that is, what experience has she learnt from that role that she will put into good practice when it comes to leading S.L.C.?

Deputy K.M. Wilson :

I think I was able to fulfil my role as the vice-chair because I had a good chair, so thank you for that. What I have learnt is that preparation is everything. In actual fact, I had a conversation with the chief executive yesterday in relation to P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee), and one of the things that we have agreed is that in order to raise the bar and raise the standard of the way in which the Public Accounts Committee will operate will be to improve on that communication and to also prepare well. We talked about the fact that very often papers, propositions, laws were delivered late, and that put an enormous pressure on the Scrutiny Panels to have to do the work. I think if we are going to be candid, that we have had a debate this morning about that very thing. For me, the most important thing is to make sure that we can respect the process. They are there for a reason. The other thing is that the makeup of the panels I think is going to be critical, and I know panel chairs have been able to harness the support of lots of Assembly Members from

different areas. I think again that is another learning point, is to keep them apolitical, to bring all of the talents to the panels, to focus on the issues. Clearly politics will play a part in between, but we must never lose sight of the fact that we are here to serve. We are here for the purpose of the public. They are the voice, or we are their voice, and when I talk about respect, I talk about the need to respect that public voice. That is what I have learnt through the Scrutiny process so far, that there have been some issues with that as we have gone forward. I would clearly like to work with colleagues to raise the standard on that so that we can have trust and confidence, not only in the Government, but also in the Scrutiny process itself.

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

Would the candidate detail how she would continue to innovate within Scrutiny? As Scrutiny has become, I think, increasingly creative and innovative and inclusive over the years, and with things such as review panels, co-opting Members for specific reviews, holding single issue hearings et cetera, would she try to carry on those things and embed them, and has she got any new ideas for what she might do?

Deputy K.M. Wilson :

Yes, I would want to continue to make more progress on the best of what we have done already. We have not really had a proper debate on the way in which artificial intelligence will inform the Scrutiny process, but we have got capability there that will allow us to refine and focus our Scrutiny so that it is using the evidence and the intelligence rather than just rely also on opinion. So they are the kinds of things. I would also like to see more public engagement in the Scrutiny Panels and Scrutiny process, and I would like to spend more time talking to the general public in the form of community meetings or whatever out in the community, to be able to engage information from the public before Scrutiny concludes its work. So to use that mechanism for informing people a lot more robustly than what we have done at the moment. I think we have to move away from transaction. We have got to focus on outcomes. One of the other things that I think is important is to maybe work with the panels and explore ways in which we can ask more strategically-focused questions that will again allow us to have much more strategic debate in the Assembly as a result of that Scrutiny process.

3. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

I thank the Deputy for her answer. I am also interested in what kind of direction she would give to the other chairs in terms of following up on previous reviews, especially where there might not be that corporate memory if it is a new Member. One of the reviews I am thinking of is the Family Friendly Review which we worked on together, but of course there are many others.

Deputy K.M. Wilson :

I mean, as an S.L.C., I think we are going to have to prioritise our work. We are going to have to look across all of the Scrutiny programmes of work to see where there are common themes, where we can avoid duplication of efforts, where we can work with joint panels, cross panels. We have already had a conversation around the Corporate Services Panel in terms of how we might approach the Common Strategic Policy. I think there are really good examples like that that we could use to build upon. But for me, it is really about being collegiates and having that strategic intention focused on outcomes rather than tactical activity all of the time.

4. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

I would like to ask the Deputy a question that I asked of Scrutiny members a couple of weeks ago, but from the perspective of Scrutiny Panels and their budgets, and having control of their budgets, does the Deputy have any thoughts about whether the politicians on Scrutiny should have greater control over those budgets, or does she think that the current situations work perfectly well?

Deputy K.M. Wilson :

I think the Deputy will know that I am always looking for improvement in some of the ways in which we do things. I think if we are going to have a more cross-governmental approach to the way in which we scrutinise, then that gives us an opportunity to look at how we use money. I am aware in relation to Deputy Tadier 's question before, that it has been a bit of a bunfight for money in relation to review processes. I think the design of our review process gives us an opportunity to think about how we might spend money differently and allocate money differently. I think to ring-fence this I do not think you get the value out of it in the way that we see.

5. Deputy K.F. Morel :

I thank the Deputy for her answer. Would the Deputy agree with the statement that Scrutiny politicians should be in charge of the Scrutiny budgets?

Deputy K.M. Wilson :

It is a very interesting question and, to be quite honest, I want to give that some more thought. I think if you are in charge of delivery, which again, Scrutiny will be, then it would follow that I think if there is a resource allocated to that, that you also have to account for the way in which you make your decisions about how you are going to scrutinise. But I also think that there is a conversation to be had as to where the public feel that that money is best spent, and that is why I do not think we should get into a scenario whereby we become quite insular in terms of our focus around how we spend our Scrutiny money to do the reviews that we will be doing, but that we open that to a much more consultative, engaging way so that we can make sure that we are delivering value for money.

The Bailiff :

Are there any more questions for Deputy Wilson ? If not, then I can announce that Deputy Wilson has been appointed as president of the Scrutiny Li aison Committee. [Approbation]

5. Appointment of the Members of the Privileges and Procedures Committee The Bailiff :

In accordance with Standing Order 122, the Assembly is due to appoint members of the Privileges and Procedures Committee. I invite the chair, Deputy Alves , to make 3 nominations from elected Members who are not Ministers or Assistant Ministers.

1. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

I would like to nominate Deputy Louise Doublet , Deputy Tom Coles and the Connétable of St. John .

The Bailiff :

Are those nominations seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? If there are no other nominations, then I declare that Deputy Doublet , Deputy Coles and the Connétable of St. John are appointed members of P.P.C. [Approbation] In accordance with Standing Order 122(5), I invite the Chair of P.P.C. to nominate a further 2 members from the Ministers and Assistant Ministers to P.P.C.

2. Deputy C.S. Alves :

After consultation with the Chief Minister, I would like to nominate Senator Serena Kersten and Deputy Kirsten Morel .

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much. Are those nominations seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations?

[12:30]

In that case, I can announce that Senator Kersten and Deputy Morel have been elected as members of P.P.C. [Approbation] We now move on to the appointment of members of the Public Accounts Committee in accordance with Standing Order 123.

Deputy C.S. Alves :

Sorry, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Yes, Deputy Alves .

Deputy C.S. Alves :

We need the S.L.C. (Scrutiny Li aison Committee) rep as well. The Bailiff :

Oh, have I skipped something? I do apologise. Yes, I have. I invite the chair of P.P.C. to nominate a further member from among the membership of the Scrutiny Li aison Committee.

3. Deputy C.S. Alves :

I would like to nominate Deputy Karen Wilson . The Bailiff :

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Accordingly, I declare that Deputy Wilson is appointed a member of P.P.C. [Approbation]

6. Appointment of the elected Members of the Public Accounts Committee The Bailiff :

I now move on to Standing Order 123, members of the Public Accounts Committee who are elected Members. Standing Order 124 deals with unelected members appointed for the Public Accounts Committee, which requires notice to be given 14 days before the meeting of the person to be nominated, which therefore cannot happen at this meeting, but under Standing Order 123(1) I invite Deputy Wilson to make her nominations for membership of the Public Accounts Committee.

6.1   Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement (Chair, Public Accounts Committee):

It gives me great pleasure to nominate Constable Troy , Deputy Carpenter and Deputy Li as members of the panel.

The Bailiff :

Are there any other nominations? In that case, I declare that the Connétable of St. Clement , Deputy Carpenter  and   Deputy   Li  are  appointed  as  members  of  the  Public  Accounts  Committee. [Approbation]

7. Appointment of the Members of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel The Bailiff :

In accordance with Standing Order 125, the Assembly is to appoint members of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel. In accordance with Standing Order 125(1), I invite the Chair, Deputy Feltham , to indicate the number of the members she is seeking for the panel. The maximum is 5. How many members are you seeking, Deputy Feltham ?

7.1   Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central (Chair, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel): That will be 4 members.

The Bailiff :

4 members.

Deputy L.V. Feltham :

Plus myself, of course.

The Bailiff :

Thank you. I invite you to make your nominations.

Deputy L.V. Feltham :

I nominate Deputy Leck , Deputy Rebindaine , Deputy Carpenter and Deputy Jeune .

The Bailiff :

Are there any other nominations?  [Seconded] Seconded, thank you. Are there any other nominations? In that case, I declare that Deputy Leck , Deputy Rebindaine , Deputy Carpenter and Deputy   Jeune  have  been  appointed  as  members  of  the  Corporate  Services  Scrutiny  Panel. [Approbation]

8. Appointment of the Members of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel

The Bailiff :

I now move on to members of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel. In accordance with Standing Order 125(1), I invite the chair, Deputy Gleave , of the panel to indicate the number of members she is seeking for that panel.

8.1   Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South (Chair, Economic and International Affairs

Scrutiny Panel):

4.

The Bailiff :

Thank you. Can I please have your nominations? Deputy S.J. Gleave :

Yes, I would like to propose Deputy Rebindaine , Connétable Johnson , Deputy Leck and Deputy Raimondo .

The Bailiff :

So that was Deputy Rebindaine , Connétable of St. Mary , Deputy Raimondo . Who was the fourth one?

Deputy S.J. Gleave : Deputy Leck .

The Bailiff :

Deputy   Leck ,  yes.   Are  those  nominations  seconded?   [Seconded]   Are  there  any  other nominations? Accordingly, I declare Deputy Rebindaine , the Connétable of St. Mary , Deputy Leck and Deputy Raimondo appointed as members of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel. [Approbation]

9. Appointment of the Members of the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

The Bailiff :

I move on to the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel. In accordance with Standing Order 125, I invite the Chair, Deputy Li , to indicate the number of members she is seeking for that panel.

9.1   Deputy V. Li of St. Helier North (Chair, Children, Education and Home Affairs

Scrutiny Panel):

4, thank you.

The Bailiff :

4. Please may I have your nominations?

Deputy V. Li :

I would like to nominate the following Members: Connétable Labey , Connétable Palmer .. The Bailiff :

Sorry, forgive me. Can you give me their names and their titles? Sorry.

Deputy V. Li :

Connétable Labey .

The Bailiff :

Connétable of Grouville , yes.

Deputy V. Li :

Connétable of St. Lawrence , Tina Palmer ; Connétable of St. Saviour , David Curtis .

The Bailiff :

Yes. Just use their titles, Connétable of St. Saviour , St. Lawrence and so on.

Deputy V. Li :

And Deputy Rebindaine .

The Bailiff :

Deputy Rebindaine . Thank you very much. Are those nominations seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Accordingly, I declare that the Connétable of Grouville , the Connétable of St. Lawrence , the Connétable of St. Saviour and Deputy Rebindaine are appointed as members of the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel. [Approbation]  

10. Appointment  of  the  Members  of  the  Environment,  Housing  and  Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel:

The Bailiff :

We now move on to members of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel. In accordance with Standing Order 125, I invite the chair, Deputy Jeune , to indicate the number of members she is seeking for this panel.

10.1   Deputy  H.L.   Jeune  of  St.  John,  St.  Lawrence  and   Trinity  (Chair,  Environment,

Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel):

4.

The Bailiff :

Thank you. Deputy Jeune , please make your nominations. Deputy H.L. Jeune :

Yes. I would like to nominate the Connétable of St. Saviour , Deputy Coles , Deputy Curtis and Deputy Maltman .

The Bailiff :

That is Deputy Alex Curtis , yes? Deputy H.L. Jeune :

Yes, sorry.

The Bailiff :

Deputy Coles , and who was the last one? Deputy H.L. Jeune :

Deputy Maltman , Arlene Maltman .

The Bailiff :

Yes, thank you very much. Are those nominations seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Accordingly, I declare that Deputy Coles , the Connétable of St. Saviour , Deputy Alex Curtis and Deputy Maltman are duly appointed to membership of that panel. [Approbation]

11. Appointment of the Members of the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel The Bailiff :

I move on to membership of the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel. I invite the chair, Deputy Porée , to indicate the number of members she is seeking for this panel.

11.1   Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée of St. Helier South (Chair, Health and Social Security

Scrutiny Panel):

I am currently seeking 3 panel members.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much.

Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée :

Their names are Deputy Carpenter , Deputy Raimondo and Deputy Leck . The Bailiff :

The last one was Deputy Leck , was it?

Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée :

Yes, it is. The Bailiff :

Thank you. Are those nominations seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Accordingly, I can declare that Deputy Carpenter , Deputy Raimondo and Deputy Leck are appointed as members of the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel. [Approbation]