POLITICIANS yesterday decided to postpone developing youth facilities in St Clement until 2028.
While Deputy Karen Wilson’s amendment received much vocal support throughout the hours-long – and at times emotive – debate, the proposed change to the government’s £1.2 billion spending plans was rejected when 15 States Members voted for and 31 voted against.
Speaking to the JEP after the debate, Deputy Wilson said she was “really disappointed” about the vote and that it showed “there is a lack of focus around the young people’s agenda”.
The St Clement politician had been calling for the government to approve £2.5 million of additional funding per year from 2025 to 2027 to develop the Le Squez youth centre, with funding being redirected from existing infrastructure and public-realm budgets.
This would have allowed construction of a long-awaited new facility, which it was hoped would create a community hub and safe space for young people in St Clement, to begin next year instead of 2028.
The Deputy argued that the project has faced repeated delays since it was first proposed in 2019, despite having approved plans and designs in place.
In the Chamber, she said bringing the amendment was “a matter of conscience as much as a matter of prioritisation”.
She said: “The youth club has reached the end of its lifecycle. It’s a crumbling mess, not fit-for-purpose and certainly not the cool place that young people would choose to spend time in.”
She responded to the main argument from those in opposition – that government plans favour building a new youth facility at the derelict Ann Street Brewery site in St Helier to “support wider redevelopment” in town, and there are not enough funds to build both youth facilities at the same time.
Deputy Wilson said: “Is it fair to use the argument that St Helier doesn’t have a youth facility as reason for removing funding from Le Squez?”
She further said that her amendment would remove the need to use taxpayer money over the next four years to repair the dilapidated building.
She added: “We are in danger of sending a message loud and clear to this community that while we would like to do something, we want to leave it to another government.
“There is a risk that young people can disengage with their government if they are not being seen to represent their interests.”
Deputy Wilson said it sent the view that “some communities are more important than others” and pointed out that there were no representatives of St Clement sat at the Council of Ministers table while there were four from St Helier.
The Constable of St Helier, Simon Crowcroft, countered that drawing funds from infrastructure and public-realm budgets would “affect the way our Island looks and feels” and delay vital improvement works in town.
However, St Clement Constable Marcus Troy accused ministers of “emotional blackmail”, saying: “It is not the case that if we build a youth facility in St Clement then potholes will not be filled.”
Other members who stood in support were Deputy Alex Curtis, also representing St Clement, and Deputy Louise Doublet, who said: “Just because we are failing children in one part of the Island does not mean we should not address the failures in another part of the Island.”
She challenged the government to carry out both projects simultaneously, saying: “I don’t buy this message that we cannot do both.
“We need families to stay in our island, we need young adults to have children, and if we aren’t providing the environment for them to do that, then people aren’t going to want to have families here. That’s how serious this is.”
Ministers held ranks and presented a united front against the amendment.
Deputy Malcolm Ferey said the government was “unable to do everything everywhere all at once” and argued that redevelopment plans were still at feasibility stage and “not ready to go”, while Children’s Minister Richard Vibert said Le Squez was still operational and that there was “no question” on whether the government would continue maintenance until the redevelopment begins.
Infrastructure Minister Andy Jehan also disputed that the facility was a “crumbling mess”.
Education Minister Rob Ward said that leadership meant prioritising and he was “happy” to prioritise a “desperately-needed facility in the town focusing on early intervention, which could have a positive impact in the future”.
All members, meanwhile, agreed that it was unfortunate that the two parishes were being pitted against each other.
New hospital
A bid to reveal the funding breakdown for projects within the New Healthcare Facilities Programme was defeated yesterday as States Members continued to debate the government’s proposed Budget.
The Hospital Review Panel, chaired by Deputy Jonathan Renouf, had brought an amendment asking Ministers to provide a breakdown of expenditure within the NHFP, which involves building facilities over several sites.
The government has so far described the programme’s £710m price tag as encompassing the cost of delivering an acute facility at Overdale and making “meaningful progress” on development of the future phases.
But the amendment from Deputy Renouf and his panel pushed for the public disclosure of the separate budgets for each project.
Deputy Renouf argued that the amendment was essentially about “transparency”.
“Without that transparency, neither we in this Assembly, nor the public, can know whether or not what is being proposed represents good value for money, whether it is part of a coherent strategy and whether the various projects are being properly funded,” he said.
But Health Minister Tom Binet maintained that the NHFP team needed to maintain a “strong negotiating position” and that putting the requested figures in the public domain — and therefore in the sight of potential contractors – “poses a major risk to getting the best value for taxpayers money”.
The amendment was defeated with 17 votes for, 28 votes against and one abstention.
Any other business
Members unanimously agreed to amend government spending plans to ensure greater transparency around the funding for the redevelopment of Fort Regent. The Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel were successful in “correcting the omission” of the project from the spending plans and it now has its own “head of expenditure” with an allocation of £0.
The panel said this would ensure that funding for any expenditure on Fort Regent is “transparently represented” in the Budget 2025 to 2028. Ministers also agreed to work with Jersey Development Company to identify the appropriate funding and source for funding of feasibility work before 31 March 2025.
An amendment from Deputy Alex Curtis to ensure the Digital Services Platform is built and designed following “open design principals” was unanimously approved after the Deputy removed the elements in the proposition relating to funding.
Deputy Philip Ozouf’s amendment to oppose the proposed acquisition of the new Government headquarters using the Social Security Fund was defeated.
Sitting late
Later in the day, Members continued to debate an amendment lodged by Deputy Helen Miles asking the government to commit to the reinstatement of duty on spirits, wine, cider and beer in line with the Retail Price Index from 2026 onward. This amendment was defeated by 31-14.
The last four amendments of the day, considered during an extended evening session that lasted until 8.30pm, were:
-
A Council of Ministers amendment altering Budget proposals to reduce duty for small spirits distillers, which was passed by 34-8.
-
An amendment by Deputy Hilary Jeune about revenue projected to be received as a result of the new Pillar Two Corporate tax changes, amended by the Council of Ministers and subsequently passed 44-0.
-
The Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel lodged an amendment that Statistics Jersey Funding should be increased by £157,000 through the reallocation of other Cabinet Office expenditure. The Council of Ministers lodged their own amendment in a bid to reduce the increase in to £78,000, which was passed by 22-21 with one abstention. The Scrutiny amendment was subsequently voted through by 42-0.
-
Deputy Alex Curtis made a bid to amend Budget proposals regarding the “Transform” programme by the Social Security Department, but his amendment was defeated by 29 votes to 12 with one abstention.
