Monday, October 15, 2012

THE VOTING PATTERNS 2 - THE VOTE FOR PLÉMONT




Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf

Chief Minister Ian Gorst

The Jersey "DON" Senator  Bailhache

THE VOTE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PLÉMONT HEADLAND


THIS PROPOSITION LODGED BY THE CHIEF MINISTER IAN GORST ON BEHALF OF SENATOR BAILHACHE GIVES US AN INSIGHT INTO HOW THE STATES OF JERSEY IS REALLY RUN.


I WILL BE EXPLAINING OVER A COUPLE OF POSTS HOW THE STATES WORKS REGARDING VOTING AND HOW IT TIES IN WITH THE CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATION.


WE WILL EXAMINE THE POWER AND HOLD SENATOR BAILHACHE HOLDS OVER STATES MEMBERS.


A LONG FIRST POSTING TO SET IT OUT.



TODAY WE FOCUS ON THE TREASURY MINISTER, SENATOR PHILIP OZOUF.


I WILL SHOW WHY THE VOTE WILL BE  35 VOTES FOR THE PURCHASE


HE HAS ONE ALMIGHTY U-TURN TO MAKE.


IT ALL DATES BACK TO THE 19TH / 20TH JANUARY 2010 AND THE PROPOSITION LODGED BY THEN ST OUEN CONSTABLE KEN VIBERT:


So, how did the the Vote go?


Vote for Plémont Holiday Village: acquisition by the Public.
Vote date:
20/01/2010

Reference:
P.144/2009

Proposition:


PROPOSITIONTHE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion
  • (a)  to approve, subject to the availability of the necessary funds voted by the Assembly, the acquisition by the Public of the site known as the Plémont Holiday Village site as identified on drawing number 1505/06/101 (as attached at the Appendix); 
  • (b)  to agree that the Minister for Planning and Environment should be empowered, in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 119 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, to acquire the land and any interest therein by compulsory purchase on behalf of the Public in accordance with the provisions of the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1961; 
  • (c)  to authorise the Attorney General and the Greffier of the States on behalf of the Public to pass any contracts which might be found necessary to pass in connection with the acquisition. 
CONNÉTABLE OF ST. OUEN
REPORT
Obviously, the question Members will ask is why I feel it necessary to bring this proposition for consideration at this time. I do so through a sense of utter frustration that following 2 propositions agreed to by this House, no obvious steps forward appear to have been undertaken in reaching any conclusions.
In September 2006, I brought P.112/2006, where the States agreed that it would be in the public interest for the headland at Plémont to be preserved as an open space for the enjoyment of the Public of the Island. The same proposition requested the Council of Ministers to consider all options to preserve this land and recommend the preferred option to the States without the least possible delay.
In July 2008, following a series of questions, asked in the States, the Connétable of St. Clement (then Senator Norman) asked the then Chief Minister when the preferred options of the Council of Ministers would be presented to the States. The Chief Minister replied that he could not give a precise date, saying that further consultation on, and assessment of, the options was required.
Three months later, I brought a further proposition requesting the Minister for Treasury and Resources to open negotiations with the current owners of the Plémont Holiday Village site with a view to ascertaining their willingness to sell the site and, if appropriate, determining an agreed value for it. Further, to present the outcome of the negotiations to the States to enable Members to decide what further actions, if any, they might choose to take.
To date, although Property Holdings have met with the owners, to the best of my knowledge, no serious negotiations have been undertaken, and therefore we are no nearer to determining an agreed value. The sticking point being that the determination of the value is dependent on the acceptance of a planning application. Without planning permission, the site is far less valuable. The longer the States hold back from making any decision, the more pressure the Minister for Planning and Environment comes under.
I do not believe that the States system is conducive to negotiating land/property deals, that the need to always refer matters to the States Assembly becomes a hindrance and an obstacle to good negotiation. Whilst I agree that the spending of taxpayers’ money must always remain a decision of the States Assembly, the use of compulsory purchase under the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1961 has always been intended to overcome difficult situations such as this.
In Article 2(2) of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, the purposes for which compulsory purchases can be used are identified and say “the purpose of this Law is to conserve, protect and improve Jersey’s natural beauty, natural resources and general amenities, its character, and its physical and natural environments”. It further states that this Law can be used “to protect sites and places that have a special importance or value to Jersey”, and furthermore “to ensure that the coast of Jersey is kept in a natural state”. Article 2(2)(f) says that the purpose of this Law is to impose other necessary controls on the development and use of land in Jersey.
Although I accept that this is a particularly difficult time for the States to be considering the expenditure of any monies, the opportunity for acquiring this area of land for the present and future generations of this Island will only appear once. If the
page3image29440.png
page3image29712.png
page3image29984.png
P .144/2009
owners achieve planning permission for any development, the opportunity will have been lost forever, and future generations will not thank the present States for dithering and letting this one chance slip through their fingers.
Financial and manpower implications
There is little, if any, manpower implication associated with the proposition, but a large, as yet undetermined, financial implication. The precise value is dependent on the outcome of the planning process but will be in excess of £5 million. As stated in paragraph (a), the sum needed for the acquisition will need to be voted by the Assembly and the purchase cannot proceed until that happens.


So, how did the the Vote go? 

23 VOTED AGAINST. 19 VOTED FOR THE PURCHASE

All those who voted against this proposition are laid out below.

Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur Contre
Senator Paul Francis Routier M.B.E. Contre
Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf Contre
Senator Ben Edward Shenton Contre
Senator James Leslie Perchard Contre
Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson Contre
Senator Alan John Henry Maclean Contre
Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand Contre

Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy Contre
Connétable Michael Keith Jackson Contre
Connétable Leonard Norman Contre
Connétable John Martin Refault Contre
Connétable Philip John Rondel Contre
Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel Contre
Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M. Contre
Deputy Judith Ann Martin Contre
Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern Contre
Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré Contre
Deputy Anne Enid Pryke Contre
Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis Contre
Deputy Angela Elizabeth Jeune Contre
Deputy Edward James Noel Contre
Deputy Tracey Anne Vallois Contre

Connétable Graeme Frank Butcher Declared an interest

Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning Declared an interest

Connétable Juliette Gallichan Declared an interest

Deputy Collin Hedley Egré Declared an interest

Deputy Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire Declared an interest

Deputy Sean Power Declared an interest

Deputy Jeremy Martin Maçon Declared an interest


 LETS REMOVE THE STATES MEMBERS WHO ARE NO LONGER IN THE STATES ANS SEE WHO IS LEFT.


Senator Paul Francis Routier M.B.E. Contre
Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf Contre
Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson Contre
Senator Alan John Henry Maclean Contre
Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand Contre

Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy Contre
Connétable Leonard Norman Contre
Connétable John Martin Refault Contre
Connétable Philip John Rondel Contre

Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel Contre
Deputy Judith Ann Martin Contre
Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern Contre
Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré Contre
Deputy Anne Enid Pryke Contre
Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis Contre
Deputy Edward James Noel Contre
Deputy Tracey Anne Vallois Contre

This leaves 17 members.

Connétable Juliette Gallichan Declared an interest

Deputy Sean Power Declared an interest

Deputy Jeremy Martin Maçon Declared an interest


AND NOW THE ONES WHO VOTED FOR THE PURCHASE:

Senator Alan Breckon Pour
Connétable Kenneth Priaulx Vibert Pour
Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft Pour
Connétable Silvanus Arthur Yates Pour
Connétable Deidre Wendy Mezbourian Pour
Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier Pour
Deputy John Benjamin Fox Pour
Deputy James Gordon Reed Pour
Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey Pour
Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton Pour
Deputy Shona Pitman Pour
Senator Ian Joseph Gorst Pour
Deputy Montfort Tadier Pour
Deputy Daniel John Arabin Wimberley Pour
Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman Pour
Deputy Anne Teresa Dupre Pour
Deputy Michael Roderick Higgins Pour
Deputy Andrew Kenneth Francis Green M.B.E. Pour
Deputy Deborah Jane De Sousa

LETS REMOVE THE STATES MEMBERS WHO ARE NO LONGER IN THE STATES ANS SEE WHO IS LEFT.

Senator Alan Breckon Pour
Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft Pour
Connétable Deidre Wendy Mezbourian Pour
Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier Pour
Deputy James Gordon Reed Pour
Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey Pour
Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton Pour
Deputy Shona Pitman Pour
Senator Ian Joseph Gorst Pour
Deputy Montfort Tadier Pour
Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman Pour
Deputy Michael Roderick Higgins Pour

This leaves 12 members.


Now, the difference between Constable Ken Viberts proposition and the one lodged by the Chief Minister is simple. It is lodged by the Chief Minister on behalf of the all powerful Senator Bailhache. Will Senator Ozouf, as Treasury Minister, stick to his guns? Surely the Chief Minister wouldn't have lodged a proposition without the backing of the Treasury Minister, Senator Ozouf. But the Treasury Minister voted against this purchase in 2010. How have things changed? 

Lets look at what he said:



19/10/2010 P144/2009

7.1.8 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:
I have been involved, I should say, in a number of the previous planning decisions in respect of this site back in the days of the Environment and Public Services Committee and I recognise, for that reason alone, the difficulty that the Planning Department and the Minister for Planning and Environment has with this whole site and this whole proposition.  I did say to him earlier - before the Connétable used his opening remarks to criticise the Treasury - that I thought it was important… and we are still good friends, I am sure.  It was important to have this debate.  I think it is important for us to have this debate and for us to be realistic.  To be realistic and honest with people about expectations, because I do not think we have been entirely realistic with expectations in the past.  As I said, the Connétable did criticise me, he criticised the Council of Ministers and I will say to him that it is very easy to criticise on this issue when you do not have to do the difficult thing of priorities.  It is very easy to stand up and to promise and to say that there will be a solution to this issue and that somehow we can wash away the existing buildings, we can find a planning solution, we can find alternatives.  It is easy to say those things, it is much more difficult to come up with them.  In fact, both the Chief Minister and myself are in an almost impossible position.  We of course - and I, of course, do, I will not speak for the Chief Minister - but I of course do have a reasonable understanding of the planning process and I have a reasonable understanding of what the site is worth.  I understand what the likely probable outcome of a reasonable planning decision, whether it be contested in court, or otherwise, will be.  At the same time, I have to be extremely guarded and careful in what I say in relation to value and relation to the planning process, because anything that we say - anything that I say - could influence, potentially, the outcome of discussions - potentially.  The only realistic thing, I think, that we can say on the issue of value is that we are talking probably in excess of £5 million of taxpayers’ money and probably a lot more.  I do not really want to go into the detail of what we think but we are talking and for the purposes of my remarks I would ask Members to consider the issue as it was an issue of £5 million or more.  It is about priorities and I will not bore Members again, as I am going to have to a lot in the next few months, about the difficulties of public finances, the difficulties that we face in terms of balancing the books.  But we have to be realistic about would we allocate that £5 million or more to this project, set against other priorities that we have?  Whether it be town improvements, whether it be hospital… it is easy to trot out all of the options.  Would we do that?  I do not believe that, on my conscience, that that is a realistic allocation of £5 million or more of taxpayers’ money.  I think that there are going to be other priorities and other more important issues for us to deal with.  I do think that the latest plans represent an improvement on previous ones.  I will not go any further than that.  They do give back, some sites, they do allow public access.  This is not a site which is on the escarpment, that is, I think, the other coastal developments which people have spoken about.  I think that a reasonable solution can be made and a compromise in terms of some sort of development without pulling on public funds to the extent that which inevitably will be.  We cannot even ... if some Members do hold out the hope of purchasing the site, I think the worst of all situations would be to embark upon the unknown process of compulsory purchase.  That would be a massive risk, it would be at a massive uncertainty for all parties concerned, for a very significant period of time.  With regret, it would be lovely to be able to do these things, it would be lovely to be able to find a compromise or solution or a trade-off.  It would be nice to find £5 million or more.  But we have to be realistic, we have to be managing expectations realistically.  I think now is the time to make that reasonable decision and to allow the planning process and the process for this site to conclude and to be honest with the public and say that we do have other things to spend - urgent issues to spend money on - but to deal with this site.  I urge Members to close this issue now, as difficult as it is, manage public expectations, and to reject the proposition.

The first question we must ask is this. 

WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE 2010? ARE WE BACK IN THE MONEY?

Surely the Treasury Minister must reject the Chief Ministers proposition like he did the first time but can he? This is Bailhache. He controls them. 


How about Deputy Kevin Lewis? He is now a Minister of TTS. Will his view change? Can he also do a U-Turn?

This is what he said in the same debate:  

7.1.9 Deputy K.C. Lewis:
I have been privileged to know one or 2 people who love their Island so much they have left parcels of headland to the National Trust, to be held in perpetuity for their fellow Islanders.  I do not think it is going to happen in this case but we live in hope.  As there are already buildings on this site I am sure the owners would have, in planning terms, a reasonable expectation of development. 
[17:15]
I do not like compulsory purchase, I never have, and that of course should be used as a last resort and not the first and could take many, many years to come to fruition.  I am very fond of the area, hence my questions earlier regarding birdlife on the coastline there.  I think I would have to go with my original answer of last year to the Constable of St. Ouen regarding a land swap and hope he could manage that, and then return this particular part of the Island to nature.  That would be wonderful.  But with more redundancies just announced there is no way in the world I could sanction £14.7 million to purchase this site.  I would ask the Constable what particular value that he would put on the land. 

Now just have a read of P90/2012 


The Treasury Minister Now looks on Board. What could have Happened? Could it be that Bailhache bailed him out of the Lime Grove Fiasco and now its payback time? 


Lodged au Greffe on 27th September 2012 by the Chief Minister P90/2012

PROPOSITIONTHE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion
  • (a)  to approve the acquisition by the Public of the site known as the Plémont Holiday Village and adjoining land as identified on the drawing attached as Appendix 1 to the Report; 
  • (b)  to negotiate with the owners for the purchase of the said land at a fair and proper price to be agreed by the Minister for Treasury and Resources; 
  • (c)  to agree that, in the event of it not being possible to agree a fair and proper price with the owners of the land, the Minister for Planning and Environment should be empowered, in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 119 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, to acquire the land and any interest therein by compulsory purchase on behalf of the Public in accordance with the provisions of the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1961; 
  • (d)  to request the Minister for Treasury and Resources to make the payment or discharge of the expenses incurred in connection with the acquisition of the said land and any interests therein, and of the payment of all legal expenses, from central reserves; 
  • (e)  to agree that, following the acquisition of the land, it should forthwith be sold to the National Trust for Jersey for a consideration of £2 million subject to a condition that the National Trust for Jersey will thereafter restore the land to nature; 
  • (f)  to authorize the Attorney General and the Greffier of the States on behalf of the Public to pass any necessary contracts in connection with the acquisition and subsequent sale of the site and adjoining land. 
CHIEF MINISTER

THIS IS JUST THE FIRST POSTING.


I WILL SHOW YOU WHY THE DEBATE IS A WASTE OF TIME AND HOW THE ESTABLISHMENT WILL BACK SENATOR BAILHACE  -  EVEN IF HUGE U-TURNS ARE REQUIRED.

We Will be looking at the new Establishment Party:

Senator Paul Francis Routier M.B.E. Contre
Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf Contre
Senator Alan Breckon Contre
Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand Contre
Senator Ian Joseph Gorst Contre
Senator Lyndon John Farnham Contre
Senator Sir Philip Martin Bailhache Contre
Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan Contre
Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy Contre
Connétable Leonard Norman Contre
Connétable John Martin Refault Contre
Connétable Deidre Wendy Mezbourian Contre
Connétable Juliette Gallichan Contre
Connétable Philip John Rondel Contre
Connétable Michael John Paddock Contre
Connétable Michel Philip Sydney Le Troquer Contre
Deputy James Gordon Reed Contre
Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton Contre
Deputy Anne Enid Pryke Contre
Deputy Sean Power Contre
Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis Contre
Deputy Edward James Noel Contre
Deputy Andrew Kenneth Francis Green M.B.E. Contre
Deputy James Patrick Gorton Baker Contre
Deputy Susan Jane Pinel Contre
Deputy John Michael Le Bailly Contre
Deputy Stephen George Luce Contre
Deputy Roderick Gordon Bryans Contre
Deputy Kristina Louise Moore Contre
Deputy Richard John Rondel


Look at the words of Senator Ozouf and ask yourself what has financially changed in Jersey that he can now back this?


Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist 



28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you should conduct an analysis of how much the States of Jersey could save by foregoing the use of a building and support staff, instead simply voting by phone based on the directions they receive. No debate required, so why fund a facility?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you should conduct an analysis of how much the States of Jersey could save by foregoing the use of a building and support staff, instead simply voting by phone based on the directions they receive. No debate required, so why fund a facility? If they wantes to they could bypass the phone vote and have you predict the voting pattern, since you are fairly accurate.

Anonymous said...

Senator Ozouf:

"But we have to be realistic about would we allocate that £5 million or more to this project, set against other priorities that we have? Whether it be town improvements, whether it be hospital… it is easy to trot out all of the options. Would we do that? I do not believe that, on my conscience, that that is a realistic allocation of £5 million or more of taxpayers’ money. I think that there are going to be other priorities and other more important issues for us to deal with."

Senator Bailhace:

8 million my dear boy and I want it now.

Senator Ozouf:

Yes my lord

Sam Mézec said...

Thanks for finding that speech by Senator Ozouf Rico.

When he delivers a speech saying the exact opposite thing, we should really make a big deal out of it and make sure everyone this island knows how he and his colleagues really work!

Anonymous said...

Interesting case of constables not block voting, even on a propositon tabled by one of their own.

rico sorda said...

Very unusual for a Constable to bring a proposition. This will change in November when they have P90/2012. The majority will now back Senator Bailhache and Ozouf. Its how it works I'm afraid.

Bailhache keeps the Constables in the States and he then gets rewarded. Mark my words.

rs

rico sorda said...

I think now is the time to make that reasonable decision and to allow the planning process and the process for this site to conclude and to be honest with the public and say that we do have other things to spend - urgent issues to spend money on - but to deal with this site. I urge Members to close this issue now, as difficult as it is, manage public expectations, and to reject the proposition. Senator Ozouf

This will be worse than his GST U-Turn.

How can he justify now backing the proposition when we are certainly no better off financially?

I have emailed this posting out to politicians and media so they can see that the game is being exposed.

rs

Anonymous said...

This deserves some real credit.. Well done you hansard geek.

Anonymous said...

Rico, there's a pretty obvious face-saving solution. Everybody in the Party agrees that Ozouf votes Contre, gives a little speech about being consistent 'I said it then, and I'll say it now', says he can't in all conscience vote £8 million when there are more pressing priorities etc etc.

Let's face it, they can afford to sacrifice one vote to let little Pip continue to play Prudence.

Anonymous said...

But Ozouf is the Treasury Minister. He must support this.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Just as importantly, what this Blog Posting demonstrates, is the complete lack of political "journalism" on the island.

Why don't we get this type of analyses from the State Media?

Good work on your behalf but something that should NOT have to be done by a member of the public.

Anonymous said...

The power in the chamber is the 5 unelected members of the States of Jersey Limited they control the questions .Constables will act as directors of the Ministers holding dual roles all controlled all contained by the unelected hence we keep seeing the block voting.

Anonymous said...

It's great that party politics is alive and well in Jersey. Isn't that what you all wanted?

Anonymous said...

This is very interesting. Can PB swing these members onside. It wull need all his guile as these men are not for changing.

Senator Paul Francis Routier
M.B.E.
Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson Senator Alan John Henry Maclean Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand
Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy
Connétable Leonard Norman
Connétable John Martin Refault
Connétable Philip John Rondel

Ian Evans said...

El Tel & those DAMN FILTHY BLOGGERS

Anonymous said...

So if you had to translate this in to party politics you would have the Establishment Party (Concealment Party) and the Constable Bloc Wing of the same party. A very very few Independents, mainly a small number of Deputies.

Anonymous said...

Party politics is where a group of people with common political views produce a manifesto and put themselves up for election based on that manifesto. If they form a majority in the house, they follow their manifesto promises.

If they turn out to be not so great, they get elected out of power and an opposing party with a different manifesto is elected.

A bunch of individuals forming a secret cabal, with no published manifesto, is not a party. A few of them might lose an election, but the status quo remains.

Anonymous said...

Fair point at 8:29, although I think th point of the previous commenter was to illustrate the solid voting block of the Constables being a predictable wing of the dictates of the Establishment.

Ian Evans said...

Adventures and EMBARRASSMENTS in Legal Land.

Anonymous said...

Rico, sorry to see that you practice censorship. My post may have disagreed with a point you made but it was polite and well argued.

Needless to say I will read your posts in a different light now, if at all.

Anonymous said...

"Rico, sorry to see that you practice censorship. My post may have disagreed with a point you made but it was polite and well argued"

Send it to him again Anon. It might have been deleted by mistake. I know rico is fair with comments.

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon,

Dont remember deleting any thought out comments re-submit it and I will make sure it gets published. I love getting those comments even if they don't agree with my stance. I do sometimes delete ridiculous comments that are more at home elsewhere.

rs

Ian Evans said...

What Deputy Labey HAD TO SAY

Zoompad said...

Anon, Rico doesn't always publish my comments, he has to use his own disgression, I realise that with mine, I am struggling to find the truth of who has persecuted me, and sometimes make mistakes, I struggle with depression. Please dont jump to the conclusion that Rico is censoring comments for any bad reason, its very hard doing a blog like this, and no-one wants the police banging at the door on a libel charge, so he has to use his own judgement.

Ian Evans said...

Lawful interview with CYRIL

Anonymous said...

Rico, look out for the JEP editorial condemning Jimmy Savile, today Thurs 18 Oct 2012. Maybe Ian can get it online?

Ian Evans said...

Update from LEAH McGRATH GOODMAN

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

An update from banned U.S. Journalist LEAH MCGRATH GOODMAN.