Transcript

Transcript

You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our extraordinary full council meeting on Wednesday, the 1st of May. There are no planned fire drills, but I will just run through the emergency procedures. If you hear the fire and arm sound, please treat it as a real emergency and vacuate the building by the nearest escape route. The nearest escape route is by the stairs to your left as you leave the council chamber or public gallery. Exit by the door at the back of the building and walk across the inner car park to the evacuation point, which is the pavement opposite the police station. The list can't be used in the event of emergency. Please do not reenter the building until your advice to safe to do so by members staff. I would like to advise both members of the public and press this meeting is being recorded and broadcast live. Mobile phones should be switched off unless they're being used for the meeting. Please only speak when I ask you to do so and speak clearly into the microphone. I have apologies from Councillor Jones Evans. Is there anyone else? No, no, and everyone else here. So everyone else present will move on to the agenda. So I've got to welcome those in the gallery up there as well. So thank you for attending. Now item one is to approve the minutes of the full council meeting held on the 20th March. So I will just go through those and sign them off. Yeah, I'm first. Sorry. Is everyone happy with the minutes. So any challenges on the minutes, your cuts to speak. Point please. Could I have added to the minutes so it's about the third paragraph from paid on page 11. Where it says. Voting was requested and the vote took place. I'd like an addition, please. The vote was completed after the expiration of three hours since the meeting began. Which is a matter of record and should be on the minutes. So the vote was completed after the expiration of three hours since the meeting. That's fine. I've added that on. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] On to item two, the declarations interest. Are there any members that wish to declare? [BLANKAUDIO] I was told a statement was going to be made by Justin in terms of a general dispensation. I think he sent out an email to that point. Is that no longer the case? I wasn't aware he was making a statement about it just that he sent it out in advance. I did speak to me and said it would be announced at the meeting. I don't mind. [BLANKAUDIO] Hi, members. Can you hear me? In terms of Justin that sent out an email to members about whether there were any declarations in the future governance report by virtue of the fact that any changes might impact on certain members, depending on their roles. This is just to confirm with members that our professional opinion is that there is no pecuniary or personal interest to declare at this stage. If there is one, it'll appear on the 15th of May where decisions and adoptions may be made. But there there is a dispensation in place. So our advice to members is there is no concern about interest at this stage. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for confirming that. On to item three, the public questions. I haven't got any written questions, but I've got some all questions from members of the gallery. The first time is from Councillor Cameron Palin. Thank you, Chairman. Does the leader agree with me that even further delays to the draft island planning strategy will give further uncertainty on key issues such as social housing, homes for islanders, health, and growing older population, economic investment, future flooding, coastal defence policy and safeguarding our environment. Thanks for following. Would you like to comment on that, please? Thank you very much for the question, Cameron. Yes, this is one of the concerns that we do have if the IPS continues to stall. Again, I have been approached by a lot of members of the public in the last few weeks asking us to get on with this. And that is one of the consequences. We obviously have the debate later on, and members will make up their own mind with where they stand on the dips. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Palin. The second question is from Adrian Whitaker. Please come forward with a question. Thank you. It's just a quick question regarding the little steps down in Shankman. In the beginning of February, we're subject to a cliff fall, and then subsequently closed for 21 days. There was a statutory analysis, but that was, that one expired. On the 27 March, I spoke to Natasha Dick's prior email, and there was another emergency closure put on there for a further 21 days. That 21 days notice is expired. Has the Council got any update to when these steps will be reopened? Please. Thanks. Exactly. No, we're working hard to get those steps open. You're right. There was a cliff fall. The cliffs and the area is extraordinary wet. We're monitoring it. When it's safe to clear away the debris, we will do. I will ask our team if we need to implement another closure to meet the regulations will do that, but we're going to get those steps as open as quickly as we can. The circumstances allow us in terms of the landslide and the wet cliffs that remain there. Thank you. Just a quick supplementary if I'm allowed. Unfortunately, he's more about beach safety. The Bay areas had a vast amount of wood washed up on his beaches, and I mean extensive amount of wood. The Franklin Beach is completely littered from Hope Beach all right to the Fisherman's and beyond, and the same lakes, not too bad, but the sanddowns got some wooden debris. Is that plans to have that all that create before it would have been nice for this bank holiday weekend, but that's not going to happen. But can we just highlight to the Council that does need clearing? That's in hand to deal with that exactly to say, whether we get it done before the bank holiday weekend, probably not. Thank you. With no questions, I think those in the gallery for coming and we move on to another question. Yeah. Okay, there's a microphone if you could just tell them. Thank you. If you just announced your name, please. My name is Matthew. Thank you. No worries. Yeah, I've got a series of questions, but I attended a town council meeting a few weeks ago and the press specifically asked that the meeting wasn't recorded. And for my kind of, yeah, my kind of, you know, secrecy, not sexy so wrong word. Whatever, but I'd rather if, yeah, maybe at the end of the meeting, I could have five minutes just to express a few things I think my questions are probably a little bit deep for this meeting. So I think they're quite important things that not just within this council, but on a bigger kind of picture that that being a member of the public and listening to my peers and everyone around me that there's some relatively important bits and it's obviously a choice to listen to me as a member of the public or not. But I think it may be better at the end when you finish recording that more on a personal basis at this stage. Somebody can speak to afterwards if that's what you prefer. Yeah, I'm happy to speak to everyone as a group. Because it's important, you know, we're all interconnected in some way in this community, and the larger picture that we, you know, conversations between all different departments and different people. But again, it's obviously it's a choice and it is the end of the meeting people can go if they want to go, if they want to stay in and listen then I'll be happy. Public questions can only be now. So if you've got a question for us now but you could speak to somebody privately from the council after the meeting, if it was more appropriate to your need. My slight issues I've got a lot of questions and I don't want to waste people's time. I can allow you one main question and a follow up one at this point in time. Okay, all right then. I'll have to pick one. Oh, yeah. At present, there are 10,000 council workers that are off sick on long term leave. And that's obviously not just within this council that's between the 317 councils in the UK. The average council worker gets paid some around 37,500 pounds, this is just informational from from the internet so I can't validate the source. That as a cost to the council is 375 million pounds. But between those 317 councils in the UK, they bring in 46.9 billion. That's that's net. So I guess from a financial point of view that that is covered within the, you know, the. The company or how you put the council is as they are so that's fine. But my question I suppose really would be what support is being given to those 10,000 people to help them with their long term sickness. Second one is, again, with the same question is, as the council have 10,000 people short from. You know, the numbers that used to have that where is the part in the public sort. You know, point of view is how is their service now being reduced through not having that workforce. Obviously council tax and I think as I understand have been going up. But then if we've got 10,000 people that are not helping the public. You know, where does that kind of. Okay, we can get you some answers on this. I think it's going to be a written response to this. Okay. Is that a possible because we won't have that level of detail for this point in time. That's kind of what I thought. Yeah. If you can get your details to somebody from democratic services will come up at some point and get your contact details. So that we can have some response to you on that. Okay. I mean, it's not so much to me. I'm, I'm, I'm very blessed. I'm lucky to be in a present, but, but obviously those people, you know, and a lot more other people are struggling out here for many reasons and. And that really falls on the shoulders of the governments and the councils and everybody. Um, you know, with four years, five years out from COVID now and we're still at this. You know, we're not growing. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you for your comments. No problem. Thank you for your time. Emily brothers, would you like to speak. So, you know, where the. Thank you, Cameron. Thank you, Emily brothers, bearing in mind the, um, the closer relationship between adult social care and health. Who do we learn about the council's position and representation that's making in respect to the proposed closure of what in GP surgery. Thank you. Thank you, Emily. I think we can get again a written response to you on that, unless there's someone here that can, but I think perhaps. Council, Andrea, would you like to have a follow up on that. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Um, as I'm sure Council brothers will appreciate it is a very complex issue. It is one that does concern us. Um, but I think a full written response would be appropriate in this case, because it's not a matter. It's not a simple solution. And it's a variety of measures and mitigations that we need to put in place. So we will provide a written response. Thank you. Thank you, Council, Andrea. Thank you, Council brothers. If there's no more public questions, we will move on to item four, report of the chief executive, the future governance report. And I think the chairman of the future governance working group, Council Brody will introduce this report and propose a recommendation. Thank you, Chairman. I don't plan to say a lot. A lot's been said of previous meetings. And frankly, as we come up to the anniversary of me trying to start this, I've practically had enough of it to be honest. But that's the way I, Council's operate, isn't it really. You can never do anything quickly without getting a lot of grief. Um, you've got the report from the chief executive. I have no stress on this Council other than this informal group as chair of the future, the future governance working group. But I've table the motion, which you have in on the white paper in front of you, which fits with the report and the recommendation deed within the report from the chief executive. I won't go into all the history, but it's a recommendation that we do change to a committee form of governance. And then adheres to the position of the working group as it stood when it reported to the order and governance committee back in December at the end of last year. That is that change should happen from May the 15th this year, and that the leader of the Council should be the chair of the proposed policy resources and finance committee. So it's not my motion, it's a motion on behalf of the working group reflect in that position. There are undoubtedly risks with going ahead with this year, as opposed to next year. But it has always been said and officers have confirmed this, including the chief executive. In the last two thousand and forty is achievable, if that's what members so wish. Throughout the, that the past nearly 12 months, it has become clearer to me that the overwhelming majority of my councillors fever a move to a committee system, where there is disagreement is when. I proposed on behalf of the working group, their position of the 15th of May, you also have an amendment on a color panel, which I believe is so nice referred to a salmon, but where I come from I don't know what color salmon is, but it looks like orangey to me. It looks like a fire, Council, a big and which will give you a choice regarding the implementation date. If you do so, do wish to move to a committee system. There is also an amendment on yellow and I straight forward color on yellow from Council German, that's primarily seeks to change the recommendation of my in my motion that the leader of the Council should also. And finance committee. And that that should be left to the decision of annual Council each year. I mean, ultimately, there's not much else to say, hopefully you've already read this report you've read all the previous reports. The working group was a politically proportionate group. I was the chair of that. There were four members of the conservative group three members of the ruling Alliance group. As I say, I absolute certainty in my mind that people understand that is time to try a different system of governance, particularly with the likelihood of continuing overall councils in the future. If you make a decision tonight to change, whether it's this year or next year, that will mean that you can't then reverse that for five years. So it would be five year if you change from this may not be five years, if you change from next year, it would, it would only be in place for four years, but you cannot reverse that decision. So that would be cast in stone and I think that's a good thing. So we don't have any messing around over the next 12 months if it is reversed. They put back until me next year. I will probably speak on the implementation date when we get to the amendments and I will probably speak on the amendment from from Council john and later on. But as it stands, I just formally propose the motion so that we can hopefully put in place the procedure to have a committee style of governance, rather than the dictatorial system that we can have a leader and cabinet. So, I hope you will support the chair and subcommittee system and then let's have the vote on the data of implementation, and you will then work with your conscience as to what you think is right in terms of the views. Thank you chair. I formally propose and I seek a second. Thank you. Brody, do we have a seconder for that motion, please. Councillor Garrett, thank you. In the same way, I will formally second that, and I don't think there's anything for me to add to what Councillor Brody has otherwise said at this stage. Thank you, Councillor Garrett. So we come to the amendments now to discuss those before we formally go on to the substantive folks. I have a couple of amendments here, I think we say we've got them on different kind of paper. And if I'm from Councillor jaman, would you like to put forward your amendments. Very happy to chair. It's all before you I think it's been well circulated beforehand. I'm sure we will debate this at the appropriate time, following words. I formally move the amendment on yellow. I think there was a correct characterization of the color of the paper. I'm not too sure about the other color either, but there we are. But this is definitely yellow and I'll look for a seconder, please. That's a monster. Thank you for that seconding that motion. So we will discuss this motion. Do you want to speak on it at all as a second, this amendment? Yeah, I think you can't speak after Councillor jaman and enjoy the debate. Thank you. Thank you. So if you've got nothing more at this stage, do you want me to take it to the floor to speak? The floor to speak about the amendment. I'm very happy to hear from the floor on this and then I'll come back. Thank you. Thank you. I can take those that have got questions and comments on Councillor jamans amendment at this point. So anyone wish to speak on that? If not, we will go to the vote on that amendment, Councillor. I've got Councillor bacon. I'll come back to you, Councillor. That's a bacon? Sorry. Thank you, Chair. So I thought a lot more people were going to put forward to speak on this. I'm going to be proposing an amendment in a moment, talking about the fact I feel we're going into this too quickly. My concern with the amendment proposed by Councillor jaman is that it is proposing something that is very unusual from the norm in a committee system. If we are potentially to do this in two weeks time, then to do something that is so at variance with most committee systems around the country adds, I think, an additional element of risk and concern and potentially difficulty to what will in any event if we move in this May, and as I'll be proposing, we delay things. I think it will just add an additional element of uncertainty, risk and difficulty to what will in any event be a difficult move for this Council. And as such, I think that if we are to be looking at a motion that potentially takes us to a change in this May, we should, as much of the work that had been done by the officers working behind this done in ensuring as much as lifted and transferred to the new system without disruption as possible to ensure it works, as well as possible, so as to take a fairly major change like this, at this speed. That is why I feel it is not the right thing to do essentially whatever date we do this, but particularly if we are, as it stands at the moment potentially doing this in a few weeks time. Thank you. Thank you. So we look to, I seconded this motion because actually I agree with this. I've worked, as you know, as a Councillor for nearly eight years now, and I've seen different people who do finance roles and different people who do leadership roles who have different levels of personalities and qualities to do those roles. And I refer back to Councillor Hutchinson, who was absolutely amazing, he won't mind me mentioning that finance, but you wouldn't want him to be the leader of the Council, you know, he's, his detail of stuff that he'd want to go through would actually not be the right person to present some of the stuff to the statuity bodies that the leader of this Council has to go to. So there are different memberships that the leader of the Council has to do an outside roles outside this Council. So, for example, the independent care board we look at all the stuff that's going on a health at the moment, it is the leader of the Council that's involved in that. And I think actually you need to go on with a strategic head on rather than a solely financial head on. There's lots of outside bodies that the leader attends, and the leader still should leave attend to represent this Council, a statutory roles outside of this Council and governance that we can't find ourselves. So that's why we were looking to uncouple these two roles. The leader of the Council would still sit on the finance committee, and they could of course have a seat on any other committee to chair that committee if they wish to do so. So I don't see that it's a huge risk at all. I think the bigger risk would be actually to look at all those statutory roles outside of the Council and to expect the chair of the finance committee to be attending and representing the Council at those meetings. So, yeah, that's one of the reasons that we wanted to uncouple it. What's the rating. Thank you chair. I wasn't going to comment. I support this motion. My understanding the committee system is it's bringing out the best skills across the 39 Councillors in the best positions to carry out the roles for the good of the either white people. They may well be that the person who is perfect to be the leader of the Council with all the skills they've got might not be the best person at the 39 of us to chair. The finance committee. So, whilst it's actually right that either sits on the finance committee of course it is to utilize the best skill set of the 39 Councillors. It has to be surely that we elect the best person to chair that committee who may not or maybe the leader may not lead. It doesn't matter as long as it's the best person amongst us to chair that finance committee. So, I will be supporting the uncoupling of the two roles for that very reason to get a best skills out of this council. Okay. Hey, thank you. Speaking on the amendment, I said I would come back regarding this. And as, as it was at the end of November when the future governance working group reported to the order in governance committee in the December. There was no difference of opinion on the working group regarding the leader of the council chair in this committee, non what so ever. It is the norm nationwide where they run committee systems. And since then, there has been no division within the working group to alter that position. That's why it's in my substandard motion. You'll agree with that though, fundamentally, I think it's wrong. The leader of the council should chair was essentially the most important committee in the council. I think the problem we've got here is that people are applying personalities to a situation and that's entirely the wrong thing to do. The whole pro the whole process by which this has been led by me and the whole reason I initiated it was to try and take away the politics of personality away from things. So that we could have the best people, the council being able to fully contribute. That doesn't happen at the moment as far as I'm concerned under a cabinet system, a can under a committee system. But with the start of the change of some members of the working group early this year, the move to this, this amendment position, I started to have concerns. It's not in my substandard motion, but in the amendment, I will be opposing it and I would urge other colleagues to do the same. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you, Sharon, I would echo Councillor Brody's analysis of the situation. It's the policy finance and resources committee, not the finance committee that is being opposed. Whilst I have some sympathy with the idea of skill sets being adequately used and if there were a finance subcommittee being proposed within this, this, this within these proposals that would make sense for someone that a chancellor, for example, to chair that subcommittee. But in a sense to say that the dominant part of the policy finance resources committee would be the finances to put the cart before the horse. We deliver service based on policy and we resource that policy thereafter to our resourcing is driven by the policies, not the policies being driven by the resourcing. I think what the public would want to see is that the person who is heading up the most, most important committee underneath the council is the same person who is leading that council and presenting that policy lead to the public and listening to the public that in the reverse direction and communicate communicating back in that way. So, and I think it is no surprise that if you analyze the many hundreds of local authorities across the country. Back in the 1990s when there was a committee system that very, very few would have adopted a model in which they had split the leader of the council role from the leader of what what I would have called the PNR. So, whilst I have an understanding and sympathy for the ideas of skill sets. I think this is important to see that this is in the broader context that that we deliver service against policy and we resource policy thereafter, not the other way around. I have worked in a committee system in the past. One thing that we just do is to actually try and identify their priorities and the things that need to happen, and going into the resources committee, the chairs of the individual service committee should be bringing the things that they want to do. That can be supported by the leader. It also has to be questioned in terms of what is affordable, and what is possible. So there's a balance to be put. It's a two way system. It's not about just saying this is the budget, this is what you can do, but it's also about coming up and saying this is what we aspire to try to achieve. That the concept of the right people in the right jobs is right. I was supported. I will just find out the council voted at the time. The discussion was on this role and keeping it as the same job. The committee wasn't politically important that day and I did raise the concerns of the conservative group and we came back. And they were discussed the committee as a time when the committee was unfortunately unable to be there. So it has been in the committee. It isn't sort of something that's come across just today. It's not a last minute that has been there for some time. And I personally think that the amendment is sound because it will work for us. If it doesn't work, we can review it in the future, but I think it will work. Thank you. I wasn't really bothered either way I missed until I heard what council mussel and what council of court just said then is I don't think I've seen a worse example of politicking ever. I think it goes against entirely what council of body put this forward for in the first place and is entirely personality based. I think the last sentence from the council of court says it all is it works for us and we all know who it is. Thank you chair. It seems the effect of this amendment is to give choice and give power to councillors. It would be perfectly open if this amendment goes through for councillors to elect a leader and then elects that person to also be chair of finance. So what this amendment does is give options. If there's a member doesn't go through then you don't have that flexibility, but power will always rest with the 39 councillors to make those appointments. And the leader could be appointed chair of finance policy and resources. Council. Yes, it concerns me that we are making a straight jacket for this council future elections. Not everybody wants to be leading me being one of them. It means that we've got to have got to point somebody who has a really good financial background to believe as well, but the two don't always mix. If in a commercial business, the managing director manages all the forces underneath him and selects the best person for the job. And to me that's how what we should be doing. Thank you. I think there's been quite enough debates on this unless anyone's desperate to speak so we will move on to the the votes on that so do you like me to sum up. No, I think that's the Brody can sum up as it's. If I can check if I can. Yeah, I know. I know members it seems a bit odd. But when there is a motion on the table which is councillor Brody's, there is an amendment, which is cancer genres which has been debated. And the way the rules of procedure work is that the right of reply, go to councillor Brody because someone is trying to amend his motion. If that motion is one by you councillor, then that becomes the substantive motion. And then the debate, you have the right to reply. So strictly speaking, in terms of the constitutional rule, it is councillor Brody who has the right to apply, but we have gone slightly out of secret. And I think what comes to jam and should have done is had your speech when you were. I did say I would speak to the end so. Oh, I. Yeah, can I just propose that you should use some kindness and allow councillor German to speak. I will let him speak. Yes. I was going to do that. Yes. So councillor German. Yes, you can have time on this now. Thank you chair. Well, I think many of the points have been well said, and just of each of us bring our own expertise and uniqueness and experience to this council. I believe we can collectively decide who to choose from amongst our number to occupy each of these two demanding roles. First, the needs of those roles may remain fairly constant. The pool of elected members available to fill them will change. The move forward with the automatic assignment of a selected leader to simultaneously occupy the position of chair of the policy resource and finance committee presumes attributes that may not be the case. On inclination, which may not be present. Any given leader selected from time to time may not wish to assume position of chair. Be the best match of skills and expertise, or simply lack the time required to fulfill that secondary role. There should be no undue pressure on any member to be shoehorned into a consequential role following election of leader. As no dissent and also no disincentive for any member to stand for the office of leader, knowing that the consequential demands that will be expected of them. Disassociating the positions of leader and chair of that committee does not preclude a worthy individual seeking both positions or of this council electing them to both. It simply provides for the two to be different members should this full council so decide. Retaining to full council, the decision of appointments for the two positions is, I believe, both democratic, pragmatic, and responsible. And that's why I brought this motion. Thank you. Thank you. We can now move on to voting on that. Don't have to go back to this. Anyone else? No, excellent. I don't think that's the body wanted to come back off that as Mr Fernandez said, I still have the right to reply to choose to use it so long as it is my motion. If it does get amended, then it gets transferred to that person. Thank you. Thank you. So I think everybody's had the right for play. They require. And so now we can go to the votes. So all those for that amendment, please raise your hand. Thank you. Those against that amendment. That amendment is carried with 24 and 18 against. Thank you. So now we move on to the second amendment. Which is on the peach paper, both can give it some names. No, not that. Okay, it's the salmon one orange, whatever is from council bacon, please. Thank you, chair. I think it's peach. My only problem with that is it flashes a bit in my shirt, but I'm not going to complain too much on that as grants. Chair, I was a member of the governance group and also I've been closely following this process as the relevant cabinet member and the amendment I've put forward. It reflects the position I've held and stated since November last year when the group made its recommendations. The amendment deals with essentially one of the two major questions we've got this evening. Do we do this? When do we do this? I think for most, there is no argument against the first of those questions. But this is a fundamental change to the way this counts operates changing procedures embedded over at least 20 years. And I think we're doing it too fast. Much of the discussion, indeed, much of the content of the paper we have talks about risk. We're being driven by a law which says that implementation of any of these such changes can only happen at an annual counts on the course of this year. That's 15th of May, two weeks time. My amendment is simply to seek a pause and to ensure that we have all the rules, training, understanding necessary in place and that those risks that have been identified can be properly assessed and ameliorated. And I think that's partly for members, but very importantly also for staff. I think that the extra year could be used to make sure we can determine properly implementation for annual council 2025 and allow staff. I think it's a big task, a very big task to ask staff to implement this change over the course of two weeks. I think it's unfair to do that frankly. In addition to the lesser point on the member side, I think we only have three, maybe four members who have previous experience of the committee system system. I think that taking time, rather than being pushed by legislation that says you either do it in two weeks or in a year's time, taking that little extra time we could. Well, as I say, and they was to ensure procedures are in place based on the new rules and that they can be properly reviewed, clear, be understood by all who have to use them, and even that we'd have time for training and practice. To make sure things work properly and we're not doing things on the hoof. As I was on the governance group, and as part of that work, looking at other councils and what they did, and I cannot see could not find an example of another council that rushed into such a momentous change at such speed, most take at least a year. And certainly there was no example of any council that said, Oh, we could have done that quicker. That certainly wasn't present in the research. Just as a side to side to lesser points, but I think interesting points in support of the amendments and the position I'm putting forward. In the last 48 hours, some of you may have seen emails which have been querying the position of health scrutiny under the proposed new system. Is it there does it comply with statute. It looks like it does, which is okay, but doubtless other similar questions will arise and need to be dealt with. And it was interesting I think the last governance meeting we had. It was clear that most people around the table, it not all had not had a chance to familiarize themselves properly with the new constitution, and what it contains and what it requires. And again, that is a massive task for anyone to try and do that in the next two weeks. And I'd also say that early this year, admittedly in different circumstance to different circumstances. We had a clear example of dangers of making rush decisions, excuse me. And when there was an on the roof amendment to the council tax support scheme. It was done in the rush, a mistake was made and we had to go through hoops to unpick it. And of course this decision is on a much bigger scale. I support the committee system, but we want a robust system. And I'd say we want to be able to hit the ground running, not just hit the ground like the coyote in the cartoons. I think we need to get this right, we need to take a bit of time to do that. And importantly, that delay will allow us to respect and support our staff, who will be the ones at the sharp end of operating the system. So I move the motion, but I look for a second. Thank you. You can't speak it to I have a seconder for that motion. That's the quickly. Thank you. Would you like to speak on as soon as. I don't think there's much I can add after Jonathan. You've got you don't want to say anything else at this stage. Okay. Thank you. So now we are discussing that's amendment. And I think as opposed to putting your hands up to speak on that. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I'll stop making a list of names. So council price first. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Um, I can, I can see the, um, the advantages for waiting. Um, for councils to learn this system and to perhaps help the staff and officers learn the system. Um, but equally, there's a bigger risk of next year when there's a new council with, um, some of us may be still here. There's, um, there's likely to be lots of new members coming in. Um, and to try and get this system up and running with a brand new set of counselors would be far more problematic. Um, I think if we're going to adopt this system, we should get on with it as adopted as soon as possible. All of the issues will be brought out during the next 12 months. Um, and by next May, it will be well embedded into the way we operate here. So I fully support what we've already had in front of us. And unfortunately cannot support this motion. I think we should move to the committee system as soon as is physically as is physically possible. Thank you. Councillor Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Up until last week, I would have supported this motion, this amendment to the motion. I felt that a committee system was the way to go, but I also felt we were rushing into it. However, having attended the briefings, the Office of Briefing last week and listened to what was said there, I'm now quite comfortable and quite satisfied that we can and should go ahead and move to this system next on the 15th of May. So I'm afraid I won't be supporting this amendment. Thank you. Councillor Lillie. Thank you. I will be supporting this amendment. I do believe in the long term moving to a committee system is the best way to encourage and engage new Councillors. And wide and involvement and debate. I remember being a new Councillor myself and feeling that I wasn't able to actually contribute to the experience and that I actually had that I could actually give this Council. So I actually think it is important to actually be a tool to actually encourage new Councillors and get wider involvement. I particularly are very concerned about the Russianist of it because of health. At the moment, we have legislation which has a health scrutiny committee, which actually brings to account all the health partners, particularly the NHS partners to account. It's the only body and it's a time when most of the governance of those bodies have left the island and we have a number of Hampshire and island white board where less and less. You also have the body of the island white health watch, which is in the legislation as well. And they have a role on that scrutiny committee to actually get the voice of residents of that. We have GP surgeries closing. We have dentistry where our children, a lot of our children can do not have an NHS dentist on the island. We have a range of a health priorities. All the main ones, the island white samarities going to courts, et cetera, et cetera. We're having huge issues with the ICB within this. And all you've got is our item six in on page 11 adult social care and public health and housing as one thing. How is that committee going to do those? At the moment, the health scrutiny committee probably goes on nearly three or four hours, just dealing with the NHS, let alone the other departments, the public health and adult social care. Far too. As soon as rushed, we need a year to get these things right. And it is not the time to do it, particularly from the point of view of what the health crisis we have on this item. Thank you. Two points. Firstly, I don't think we credit our officers with as much credit as we should get gift because actually those officers again to be writing the same reports for a committee as if they were writing it for a cabinet member. Those officers aren't changing. That's excellent skill set that we have. Those officers will be writing those reports. They'll be able to do that report for a committee system, or for a cabinet report. That's not going to change. It's a bit run when government changes all the civil service servants underneath don't suddenly get kicked out the door and going on, we've got new ones now. I think we need to give our officers more credit than we are. And to come back to Council Lily's point, on behalf of the working group, probably because I've got not enough to do in my time. I actually sat through health committees that actually online because these committees are held all in public and watched how they did their health committee. So the health committee was the start of it was the actual business of the day, those things that they need to discuss and those decisions they had to make as a committee as those council members. And then the second part of the meeting actually invited people from the other bodies in so from CCG. I'm sorry, I'm going to clinical commissioning group from the trust they were invited in and health watch they were invited in for the second part of the meeting. So scrutiny was driven one because the committee system you actually scrutinize yourself, but then the second part of the meeting the outside bodies were brought in and those discussions were held so I did actually take the time and I didn't just watch it once. I actually watched the next meeting that they had so I could report back to the working group that I had taken the time to do it and see how those committees ran and how and I was having been a cabinet member and having sat on health scrutiny. I was quite happy that it ticked all the boxes and those discussions were open and honest and all statutory bodies were involved. So, constantly I have taken the time to do that. Thank you. Yeah, thank you chair. Just to reiterate the point I'm just going to make this very similar to the point that Councillor price made ultimately come May 2025. There will be a lot of new councillors in this chamber come May 2025. And as a new councillor, you do tend to rely on some of those more experienced councillors who have been in the chamber previously and worked in the council for many years to bring that experience and knowledge and understanding of how the council works and support you in those early days. So, I think it would be better for the long term future of this council to, if we to move to a committee stage to do it now, when you have 39 council members with a minimum of three years experience under their belts, and those that are left come May 2025 can have that knowledge and understanding of working in that committee environment for a minimum of a year to support those new members. Thank you. Councillor JAMIN. Thank you chair. I think there can be no greater call on us at this moment than what we're discussing to restore the full representation of all residents on this island through the equal participation of all of their elected representatives, and the earliest opportunity, and a very simple way that I'd look on this is to say, there's a very common phrase, justice delayed is justice denied. And here, I would say, democracy delayed is democracy denied, we should get on with this, do it now, give us a year to bed it in, and we can move on. I think, fairly quickly, with what I believe the vast majority of us want to do. Thank you chair. Councillor for that. Thank you chairman. I have the envious position in that I was a member of the committee structure between 1995 and 2001. And it was also an opposition member in that committee system. I've also served as members of the ruling group, and as a member of opposition. So I think I've got experience on my side. I think, you know, looking at the proposals that we have, the concern that I have is the lack of regularity of when these committees will meet. When you look at how broad those committees are, they are quite extensive, and those meetings at the moment will will meet four times a year, which I don't think is enough, in my opinion, even if you increase it to six times a year, you will still struggle to get the amount of the amount of work done that will need to happen. My, from my point of view, is that, and what I saw when I was on the committee previously, was the attendance of other members. I would be a regular attending the meetings of the committee, because other Councillors were not, they were not able to attend, because they had other responsibilities. I think if you look at the attendance for the committees between 1995 and 2001, I was probably one of the most regular attendees of those committees, because I was just filling in deputizing for other members. And again, it was difficult. It was difficult for members who were working to be able to give up the amount of hours that sometimes these committees needed to run for. But again, if we're looking at having a few committee committee meetings, then you are putting quite a huge burden on that committee to make decisions in a very short period of time those committees will have to meet for the, during the day for a quite long periods. And again, there is the issue with that about being inclusive of our members. What I don't want to say is that members, members of our wider community not being able to attend the meetings, because they have other commitments, such as work. And so that is a concern to me. That said, I do support the committee system. I always have supported the committee system. And the reason for that is because members, members of all parties can step up and be involved. And what I want to make sure happens is that all 39 members do step up and be involved in those committees, because knowing that there are responsibilities that many members on both sides of the chamber have, I am a little bit concerned. And I think what we need to do is have actually reading through the paperwork is that there are risks with those risks in place. I want to ensure that they can be properly sought out. Thank you. So quickly, try to give a situation where I've come across many times in various different sizes of where something this important gets rushed through, and it's nearly always down to self interest. We've not managed any public consultation or meaningful public consultation on this. And I think the public deserve to have some voice in what's the biggest change to the democracy on the island for a long, long time. I mean, they're a danger of having none. So those that are against emotion, I think you need to ask yourselves honestly, are you against it for the good of the island? Or is it just because it's for the good of your party. Thank you, Councillor. Brading next, please. Thank you, Chairman. If you go back 12 months and ask me the question, as far as often as a cabinet system was the right way to manage this Council, because that's all I have in you. As a very experienced Councillor. Now, you know, I'd known a cabinet system and I've seen some of the things that happened. But when more experienced Councillor, Councillor Brody comes forward and says he wants to set up a working party look at a change of model to governance, obviously supported that paper last July, and it is last July, remember. And the Council of Brody leadership and the steering the working group, a lot of works got into where we are now feedback I've had from members of our party that are in the working, the governor's working party is the officers are happy. Officers are happy. Officers are, yeah, can be done. It isn't rushed. The point was made by Councillor nearly we need a year. We've had it. We've had 11 months, so the works we're going on behind the scenes. We do need a robust system. I agree. We've got to get it right. Of course we have for the island. And if more meetings are needed, then the chair of that committee and the director would arrange more meetings to make sure that business is done properly. So we haven't rushed this. If we're going to do it, we do it now. We do it now. We do it now for the good of the island, because it's not political, it's a good of the island. There's 39 Councillors. Well, that's what I mentioned his experience, there's a lot of experience between the 39 of us. And we need to put that to good use, because of the island now, and do it next year with a change of Council at the same time, be more of a risk, in my view, and it is doing it now where it's embedded in for a new Council when it comes into force. Some of us may be here, some of us may not be here, but to have that system embedded now would help new Councillors come into the current system. But it's working. So, whilst, you know, I've listened to the views of the working party, experienced Councillors, and I will not be supporting the amendment going to do it, we do it now for the good of the island. Thank you. That's a love. Thank you, Chair. Listen to the debate with great interest. Thank you for your comments, Councillor Price. I understand your nervousness about seats being lost, particularly, if you're in a particular group at this moment, I'd like to go to the Parliament. So, I totally agree with Councillor Lillie's comments on this. There are lots of unanswered questions yet for me and I'm being consistent in my approach from this right from the beginning. So, so I think it is important to delay it until 2015. I think it gives us the time to reflect, consider, and be democratically engaged with our population. Because I was disappointed that we voted not to do a consultation, but that's democracy. That's what people voted for. But I would still want to see a greater engagement of the general public out there to be informed to understand exactly what is going on here in terms of the change to a committee system, because it does seem as though that that is the will of this particular house. I support totally Councillor Quigley's comments about, you know, about consultation. People need to understand it. I don't think we've done a very good job of that at all. And why do I know that because because nobody's talking about it. People at least generally have some comments about it, but people aren't talking to me about it. I'm still very unsure about some of the risks, and I still keep coming back to this. What is the benefit to the general public? What is the benefit to them in their daily lives of changing to a committee system. And that I think needs a bit more explanation yet. And that's why I will be supporting a delay and I'll be supporting this amendment, because I think we need to take the time to do it. You know, yeah, I'm not going to say any more than that, because that's what I think that's what I think we need to do. I think we need to take the time. Councillor Love, Councillor Garrett. Thank you, Chair, Councillor Love with you. Thank you. So, a lot has been mentioned about risk, and that the remiss of me as Chair of the Audit and Government Committee with a risk responsibility to address that. And we took a paper on Monday and we found that the appendix regarding risk was spot on. It identified those risks, scored them, and offered mitigations, and I'm sure those of you who have looked at the appendix will find that there are nine areas in which it's marked red, and that it describes in a number of cases that this risk needs to be accepted. So, it's not enough to just accept risk is to take responsibility for risk as well. So I'm very much minded by a metaphor that I've used with some of my colleagues. Actually, I've got a pretty high risk risk appetite. Some of you may know that in the past I've gone rock climbing. It links, but something about that achievement is thrilling and enjoyable and whatever, but when one goes rock climbing on climbs with a climbing partner, you're either leading your, your second thing, and you climb at the level and at the speed of the person who is the least risk has the least risk appetite. I've been there it's it's pretty scary to go up a rock face, which somebody who climbed much better than you achieves. And so I'm going to buy that metaphor and I have responsibilities of accepting risk and I'm also guided by something that was attributed to John Maynard Keynes when the facts change, one change changes one mind, one's mind. I'm an enthusiastic supporter of the committee system. I remain an enthusiastic security of the committee system. But it's my responsibility to weigh up the risks and the partners that we have in this process all 39 of us in this chamber. All the hardware of officers. Can I just say thank you to those officers who pulled off a tremendous job and getting us to this debate. So it may surprise some, but I will be supporting this amendment tonight, not to delay the committee system. If we go to a section like I see resolution tonight we will have place put in place a committee system, but I think we will give ourselves the time to understand that system. So we have provided in place for a new council. Those who remain on the council will have worked within committees already. I chair one. And I've been on others, the Harbour Committee, the pension fund committee. So we have experience of committees whether or not we, we go to 2024 or 2025. And I have concluded that 2025 is the right date for this decision. Thank you Chair. I'll try and keep it brief. I have concerns, but I'm still supportive of the committee system. I'm just not supportive of the current timeline. A big part of that is after speaking with officers and being acutely aware of the stress they're already under. We just heard from the gentleman up in the gallery earlier about how government, local and national can help prevent instances of ill health in officers, leaving to absence from work. I think one great way to do that is to not put on due stress on officers. Dragging the dips out is a great example of not doing that. And this is an opportunity to avoid that on due stress by giving officers reasonable time to implement this well. So for that reason I'll be voting for this amendment. Thank you, Councillor Church, Ben. Yes, Chair. This year, next year, sometime, never. The officers have worked extremely hard to put this all together for which I thank them and I'm sure the rest everybody here does. They've done an extraordinary job. Councillor Brody, too, has done a fantastic job in pushing this through. And I agree with what Councillor Outlaw said when if we pass this now for me in two weeks time. Then we have 39 experienced Councillors who have looked at the risks and assessed them. If we wait another year, we could have half of this Council as new people. And I'm sorry that it's bad enough being a new Councillor, as I'm sure you're all aware. So I personally think we should vote for putting this in for May 24. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Sarah Vedra. Thank you, Chair. I just want to ask, what is the harm in waiting? What is the harm in preparing ourselves for next year? I think if I was to think about this as a business and I were to make such a massive change, there's no way that I would decide to do that in such a short space of time. Because we do have to care about our staff, as the gentleman said, and we also have an obligation to the residents of the island. So in my ward at the moment, we have a really pressing issue with the GP surgery and I have the opportunity to hold the decision makers account to account within the structures we have at the moment. If that were to change in two weeks, there's a lot that could happen, a lot of distractions and things will be delayed, things will get slower. And I've made a commitment to my residents to make sure that I do all that I can, so I don't feel that I can vote for 2024 knowing that it might be a detriment to the things that I need to achieve for them. Yes, so what's the harm in being prepared. Thank you. Councilor Stewart. First of all, I'd like to say that it is clear the level of debate here has been quite substantial. However, I would like to mention something which perhaps I can give the council chamber that other people can't. I have been a senior officer within the civil service. I know what goes on on the other side. And as we say, politicians are pretty good parameters, but to do real politics, you have to actually be inside. And I'm looking at this, and I was convinced until I started really, really looking at it. And apologies for not having done quite as much on this as I might have done on the dips, for instance. When I started looking at it and started talking to the people who know about these things, I made a very firm decision. The committee system is definitely better for the island. It is definitely better for the all of the opposition councillors there. And that includes us because of course we are not part of the Alliance, but it is not good for the actual other half of this, which is the delivery system. The officers who actually have to sit there and deliver it on a day to day basis, having just been slashed and burnt because of the problems with the lack of finance from central government. It is important that we support them in the way that they support us. I feel that there is no choice. Unfortunately, I will prefer to have it as soon as possible. I now see that is not possible. I will be voting for this amendment. It's a little chilly. We think you spoke about a lot, just very quickly. So I support the delay and I support the committee system. But I just want to say I've got more faith in the residence design and the one to stand. And I think the deduction is really good when you first come into council. This is my third year. And actually they'll be learning something new. I think people pick up whatever they do really quickly. So that for me is not, it's not just not an argument, but we have spoken about the right people doing the right jobs. I just want to know, where do I put my CV forward? Thank you, Chair. I shared a lot of Councillor BACON's concerns, Councillor BACON bringing this amendment, particularly at the turn of the year where we'd heard painfully little from the working group about what was going on and what their proposals were. And I and others voiced those concerns and particularly through corporate scrutiny committee cross party committee. It's apparent in the last few months, there's been a lot of work going on behind the scenes to take us to the point of being able to deliver this this year. Should Council vote for it tonight. So I think it's a red herring to suggest we've only got two weeks from a standing start. If we were to vote for it today to come in later in the month, because a substantial amount of the work appears to have already been done. Due to extraordinary amount of counts of Councillor and officer effort going on. And when making a decision about all of these things you look at the alternative. It's possible the documentation around the committee system could be a little rough and ready to start with that seems to be implied in the papers, but there could be nothing worse than the current constitution of this Council under a cabinet. The current constitution is inconsistent and a complete embarrassment. And this Council has known about it for the last three years has done nothing to improve it. Such that just a couple of months ago. The deputy monitoring officer and I, in my position as chair of corporate scrutiny, couldn't really work out whether the constitution was lawful on simple calling procedure. For the screwed need to call in a cabinet decision or delegated decision. If we carry on in that vein, we will only reinforce the public's opinion that this Council cannot make decisions is drifting and doesn't have the public's interest at heart. This is an opportunity to change that in two weeks time and try and deliver some things to the silent in the year that remains before the election. Thank you. Thank you chair. That's the ward. Thank you chair. And I've sat here and I've listened to people going on about all it's wrong. We won't be able to get it right. We will this this up. We'll know that. You know, we're finding false. You need to do the system to find the false. Okay, it's as simple as that as a long standing engineer, until you start to use that bit of kit, you won't find the false. Okay. So what you will be responsible for. All those of you who are supporting this amendment is in a year's time handing over an untried system to brand new counselors who may not know, you know, one end of a stick from another. That's what you will be responsible for. And that's what you will be responsible for to your residents. But think of that. Councilor Love said, well, what do my residents get out of it? Well, I tell you what they get out of it. They get a counselor who can actually make decisions. Get into debates and things like that, which the majority can't at the moment. At the moment, our residents are suffering and you want that to continue. Do you do you really want that? Okay, being, being, being prepared. That's what you've got to be. That's what we owe the new council is a system that we have worked, we have debug and handed over working. If you don't do that, you have failed your community. Thank you. Mrs Stevens. Thank you, Chairman. I came in an elected counselor of the Isle of White Council in 2001. A newbie inexperienced. Found the front door. Didn't know there was a car park at the back. You know, usual thing, but, but don't short change your officer capacity within the Isle of White Council. We had superb induction and training. We had progress reports on each counselor. So don't think if you're, if you delay this, that you will find that you're coming in with our plates on and know where to go because that's not the way this local authority is operated. I came into a select committee system. Left the committee system that Paul had left. I came in as two in 2000 as I say, we changed it in 2013, I believe it was 2014 to the present day model. And the reason we, we changed it was that we as independence wanted to go to a select committee system. Sorry, from a select me to a committee system to a total committee system. There was a part of this over here on the left or a group on the left that actually voted it down, which was a bit of a shame because having all gone on board at that time, we'd be a committee system now. So, to be quite honest, we're all for over this side the chamber. I'm pleased that you've actually come and seen that that's the way forward to give everyone a voice, but we've got to be prepared. Now, we, we, we, I came into a prepared on a white council back in 2001. I want people to come into a prepared on a white council. Next May, when there will be induction trainings sorted staff will be briefed and taken into, taken into consideration in the way that they should be looking at the draft terms of reference for service committees. I can congratulate Jeff and his as working group already do, but there are elements within the within page 46 at the top there that some of these committees need to be linked at the back. And that's, and that's the situation where we've got, shall we say, resources, and then we've got economy regeneration and an up in the other one adult social care and housing. There's got to be some pulling together there and I'm, I haven't been involved in the general conversation, but I'm not fully convinced that these these elements are in place. We've just gone through a transformation with our staff, and all I'm going to say is, let's give it a year, work it through gently because, quite honestly, we've got to look after the staff will look after us in the long term, and we'll get a settled way forward next May. Thank you, Councilor. Thank you, Chair. Find the false, Council Award. Find the false. And the first goal for, it's my recollection, the Royal Marines were issued with the mark on SA-80, which fell apart when they were an operational duty. Just when they needed it most because of poor engineering. So, moving on, in the military, the brass often put a can-do attitude on it, and as we all know, we know this in, it's the people on the shop floor that carry it forward, often with a disregard and a devil may care about the duty and just try and get the job done. Sometimes it works, sometimes people die as a result. We're not in the military, we're in Council. We have time on our side, nothing is time specifically, we don't have to get it squared away in two weeks. We need to take our time. I highlighted last time we were in this chamber, at least three or four of the risks that were in the paperwork. Councillor Brody's working group has done a fantastic job. I also reflected that, but we don't have to get it turned around in short order. And my concerns are actually internally, because no matter how resilient the officers are and the staff, this is a huge amount of pressure. No matter how much resilience an individual has got, this is a monstrous piece of work. There's no other way to look at it. We have a very tumultuous year ahead of us. We have the school closures to get our heads around later this year. That's going to take serious office of time and council of time and council of time. We have all the issues to do with those parents ourselves, looking after our children and other people's children. When we move forward to that, Councillor Redgrass already noted the closure of the wooden surgery. We've stuff like that to do with, in Bensted, in Benbridge, in Montgomery, we have the flooding to get nailed. This is going to cause us so much angst and anxiety to fulfill what we are supposed to do with our time as Councillors. We're in no rush. We don't need to get this done in short order. We have time. I'm all for it. I said that last time and I said it right from the beginning and I fully support Councillor Brody on this and everybody else that wants the committee system. We have only a limited amount of money. We have only a limited amount of time and resources, all of us, all the staff. So in the interests of everybody and most importantly, the individuals we represent as ward Councillors. And in the interests of the future generations, the little people that don't have a say in this room tonight. My three-year-old and my six-year-old, please, let's take our time and let's get it right in their interests. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Spink. Thank you, Chair. We've heard a lot tonight about risk, but there is a risk in postponing this for a year. And those risks are set out in the risk assessment of page 59. Those no-changing governance arrangements. Well, that only needs to be changed to no-changing governance arrangements if postponed till 25. And the main reason, as I understand it, that we're moving to this system is because in a minority administration, it's difficult to get things done. We've seen many examples of that, but in particular, the amendments to the budget, which were the democratic will of full council, the minority administration is holding those up. It's not, and it was two Councillors made a press statement, but just because it's passed by full council, they don't wish to do it. They don't have to do it. That is not very democratic. The biggest risk of not doing it for a year is the third one at page 59, which is a high risk, a high risk that for one year, there will be a negative impact on non-executive decision making in a minority administration, causing inefficient decision making and use of available resources. So when people say what's the harm in waiting a year, that's the harm inefficient decision making and use of available resources. That's the harm to, with great respect, he endorsed six year old, no decisions being taken efficiently for a year. That's the harm to our residents, no decisions being taken efficiently for a year. That's the harm to democracy. Now, it's the case that there hasn't been compulsory, as it were, or extensive consultation with the public, but there has never the lesson is detailed in the report being consultation. And most of the criticisms that I hear of the council is that they want to get people want to get rid of party politics. They want the squabbling to stop. And they want people to get on with policies. If we continue with this system with a minority administration and party politics playing a large part, we will not be getting on with the job. We will not be satisfying what the electorate want. And I should be voting in favour of this to take place immediately. One final thing I would say is only a council could say we're rushing this, we've been taking a year over this. Any, any business, any business would have got this done long ago. Thank you, Councillor Spink. I think we've debated it with all the placemuses. Councillor Brody, would you like to come back on that now at the end? Well, I'd like to be a contribution of it, but it isn't my right of reply, because I've lost that now to Councillor Jarmon. I'll put you on the list, then. Councillor Brody. Yes, I mean, I've listened very, very carefully to everything that's been said, and I don't think we've had a more rational and sensitive debate in this council team for a long time of, such an arcane subject, to be frank, which is quite bizarre, to be honest. If we could have debates like that about the budget and planning and need for decent housing for people, it would be, it would enhance this Council a great deal. I've had no bones about it. I have always opposed the cabinet system. I think it's undemocratic in the extreme and then marginalised quality Council is at the expense of less good Council, should I say. Well, about a month, well, it would be about three weeks ago, perhaps, but not even that too. I was on the red jet. Most people know I'm heading to South out in the hospital on a regular basis these days. And as if that wasn't bad enough, I got this draft report from clash and with all the lists of risks, et cetera, you know, and my immediate reaction was I've got to edit this down to a free set of the 17 or whatever. I don't want to take out of the mandrel, so don't call me to that. You're going to edit that down to what I couldn't do that because it was a fair reflection that there are always has been risks in this. And I've worked as the chair of the group on the basis that it was deliverable. If the officers told us it was deliverable. And that was what we were consistently told once we brought them into the circle. So it was exclusively councillors till early December, then we brought in brought in the officers, et cetera. And they always said it was deliverable, but it will be tough. And we've known that all the way through. Now, one of the, one of the partards I'm hoist by in my many years of this council is that I have never, ever abstained on an important issue. I think people who abstained shouldn't be councillors, to be honest. I see people do that on a regular basis. I think I've never abstained on a major issue, even though it's so much difficult. And I do, I feel like I'm spending on this because I'm wary about the consequences for stuff that work for the council. I'm wary in a major way about putting pressure on hard press stuff that I've seen over recent weeks. But I'm also very wary that one of the main reasons I brought this in is I wanted to move away to something that Peter spring referred to a second away from the personality politics, the party politics, et cetera. I'm a political animal, but you know, this is an overall control council, but since this started to move towards a position of likely being delivered. I've, I've had evidence of plotting and scheming behind the scenes, try and take over this council as soon as possible. And that is not why I wanted to do this. But democratic reasons, not just so that somebody can take it over. For that reason, and I'll just say, I'll conclude in a second, for that reason, I will be supporting a delay to 2025. I don't want to have to stay on anything. I do that with great difficulty. I haven't consistently supported this church end, but because of those reasons, I will support a delay. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you. We've come back to, I think we've debated it quite well enough. I'll come back to Council Jarmon now, will we go to the vote. Yes. No, it comes to the bacon. Bacon first. Okay. That's a German. Yeah, that's a john. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to add my voice of thanks to the staff who have worked extremely hard and diligently over the last month. And to Council, really for chairing the working group so efficiently over that time. I'm just going to finish with a final phrase, which may, again, cause a number of people to reflect on how they approach this. Democracy delayed is democracy denied. I'll leave it at that. Everybody must vote according to their conscience. I believe that delaying democracy here would be a fatal flaw. Thank you. Thank you very much, but then we can delay it no longer and get to the votes on that amendment to the motion. So those in favor of that amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That's that's 19 for an item to get. So I use my costume vote to say that I am for that. That's makes it means that it's passed and it becomes part of the substantive motion, which we will move to now. So I will confirm the substantive motion now. I might just need a little help to be sure what we have decided over that last hour. But ask Mr Fernandez just to make that clarify that, please. Thank you. Thank you chair, and that's a motion. That's the substantive, the original motion. He had the original motion, which is counselor. He was then ended by the jobs. So, how's the baking smoking now? From that motion. So without going to the basically. And that is the motion. Thank you, that makes it quite clear for us. So we can now. Open the debates on the substantive motion. Do I go to council of bacon. That's. The counterbacon. Yeah, and we'll have the right. Can we have some more German. I think we need to move on. This debate. Yeah. Okay, comes the bacon. Thank you chair. What's happening here. It's not now re proposing it. But what I would suggest, Jen, I'm going to formally move. You had an extensive debate. You've got another major issue on the agenda. And we're going to finish in an hour and 22 minutes that we moved to the water now of the substantive motion. Thank you. Yes, that would be. Yeah. Could I just say that's pretty much what I was going to say, but I was going to do so. Alongside saying thank you, Jeff, for everything you've done to get us to this stage. I know how much it means to you. And I think things have become difficult for you recently, and we feel for you in that regard. But I think what I wanted to take the opportunity to do, whether it be now or at the end, is to offer thanks to Jeff from everyone here for what will be an important major lasting, I hope, a meaningful change to the council and the way it operates. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Brody, so now we are moving to the vote on the substantive motion, which was confirmed by Mr Fernandez. So those in favor of that substantive motion, please raise your hats. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] And those against. [BLANKAUDIO] Okay, thank you very much. So that motion is carried, and that concludes the future governments item. So I think we probably do need to have a five minute comfort break, but I will be really strict on this. We have to get back as soon as you can. So I will be starting in five again in five minutes time. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Yes, the planning committee, which often gets the blame for decisions that are made, I've been on since I was first elected, certainly doesn't have much in the toolbox for delivering what's appropriate and what our residents are expecting us to deliver. I'm still far from happy with where we are, this should have been pleading exceptional circumstances. I was clear on that from the start. If there was ever something that we should be pleading for exceptional circumstances on, it's planning. We have limited scope for what can take place in the future without building over rafts of greenfield sites, which everyone says they're against, but there's no other option, I'm afraid. So I haven't quite made much decision on whether I'm going to support this tonight. My knee joint reaction would be to not support it, because I still feel that we should be pleading exceptional circumstances. If I do support it, what I'm not supporting is the housing target that's within it. But I see the risk in not supporting it. There's likely likely to be a change of government at some point in the near future. And when there is, it's highly likely that if labor in, let's face it, they're going to be pushing housing agenda. And I can tell you now, anyone that thinks that's a good thing, there's going to be bits of it that will be good. But our residents will not agree with that, I can assure you. So having this in place will at least provide us some protection and will allow the decision makers to use those tools to determine what is and isn't appropriate. So, like I say, I think if anyone else is going to speak, I'll listen to the debate. But I think certainly, you know, giving our officers and the planning committee, the right tools. This isn't perfect, but it does go some way towards it. So at this moment, I'm just wavering as to what I will, what I will do and how I will vote. Something that has made me more supportive of it is the. Well, I actually want to go back and show and reiterate that I actually derailed the island plan when it was put forward by the Conservative group I went against my own group on many occasions because of the island plan. And that was because of allocations, totaling over 1200 houses in my ward. And I can say that the cabinet at the time listened, it took a lot of convincing and a lot of shouting in public about it. But the, the 880 houses are fairly farmers removed and it's obviously still not in there so that helps me support this. So obviously my time's up, but I just want to say that the my preferred approach still going back to the start would have been exceptional circumstances. Thank you. That's the quickly. And I think most people in this chamber since 2021 since I arrived, I've agreed. And it's one of the few things we've all agreed on that more affordable housing is needed on this island. We've got 2400 households on the housing list, 200 families in a temporary emergency accommodation, and the figures of reducing the target to 70 or 90 which have been put about by certain members of the chamber would mean 34 years just to clear that backlog. But more importantly, we've been forced down a route and I think disingenuously of looking and focusing only on housing ignoring all the other good things that council full of mentioned around health outcomes education, increased incomes for islanders, and I think that's a mistake. I think replied to Council door at length saying he wanted decisions to be made for the future of his children, but his sole purpose appears to be that delaying or stopping dips. So I will just paraphrase something, Council German said, and that is housing delayed is housing denied. Thank you. Council attachment. Yes, like, like my colleague, I'm really into minds about this. This does absolutely nothing to solve the housing problem at the lower end of the market with which social or private. If we get locked into this, as I said, we're not solving anything. There are 2000 houses for sale amongst our estate agents. The last thing we actually need to do as an island is build more private housing. After the war, there was no such thing, everything that was built was council housing. And in a way, this country has almost got to that stage, where we should just concentrate on building houses for our youngsters. Because another part of the problem is the youngsters leave the island because they can't afford or have nowhere to live. That means we can't attract companies to come here because of no workforce. So we're going around in ever decreasing circles. And quite frankly, the dips does absolutely nothing to solve that problem. Thank you. That's a monster. Thank you. I don't think there was anybody in this train boat who have hasn't debated read the dips, been part of the dips. If there were a council. Councillor Pre here, we've discussed the dips. I remember when it was with Barry Abraham, we were discussing the dips. Don't get me wrong, there's stuff in there that I wanted to remove. I do not want an industrial estate, but on the field at Santon airport because actually it gets rid of the piece of land between lake and apseath. It just all becomes lake or it's byward, so apseathful, sorry. The stronger will always win. But for me, it has to get a planning. All of this stuff that's in there has to go to planning. So it's not that we're going to pass the dips and it's going to suddenly, there will be this industry at Santon airport. There will still be the concerns that it's a dodgy road. My feeling is we've all debated it. If you haven't read it and you haven't debated it, well, know what's in this by now, then you shouldn't be a councillor. So my personal suggestion is we just move to the boat and then I can go home and get that bottle of prosecco that's in my fridge. I do have a few more people that would like to speak. So I think I would. Be not wrong with me to not give them that chance. So, Councillor Robinson. I agree with Councillor Quigley to the extent I would not be looking at a dips which radically reduced the amount of houses as compared to the current one. But it's not just about housing numbers as Councillor Quigley says it's about where those houses are allocated for building. And it frankly makes a mockery for any councillor to say they would like to see a greener council, a greener island and reduce sewage spills, while simultaneously voting for a strategy document to build thousands of homes on Virgin Greenfields, because that is what this dip does, it allocates thousands of homes worth on Greenfield land, including on Westridge Farm, where Councillor Lily is trying to bring together a judicial review to stop housing, while at the same time, apparently voting to put that entire site within a 15 year land supply, which puts it at risk for 15 years of building homes. I cannot see how current draft is consistent with the aspirations for a greener council, a greener island and reducing sewage spills. There should be far more brownfield allocation and far less Greenfield allocation. And that's why I've consistently voted against it and will continue to do so. I still love. Thank you chair. I completely agree with councillor Mosdale in this in many ways, because in actual fact we've now spent seven years. We just had a debate earlier. How we do things in a timely way. Well, after seven years, we're still talking about it. Now, let's take the politics out of it. We will all have different opinions about this, this plan. It's the nature of the beast that we're dealing with. And I think it's time to bring it to an end, but it's not an end, because we still have it being discussed with the, I was going to call it director, but they, you know, the officers. And so I believe that we should now try to draw this to an end. There's still opportunity to amend and discuss moving forward, but we have to draw this to an end, 600,000 pounds has been quoted as the amount of time and offices and being spent on it. I don't think that we should go on any further with it. We've all had lots of opportunity to think about it. We've all had lots of time to discuss it with our residents. It's not just about housing. It's about a way of life. And, and, you know, we have to recognize within this plan that, you know, we've got a rapidly aging population. We've got a demograph people moving to the island to retire, which eats up housing. What's affordable what's not affordable to you each individual person is different. So we caught in a conundrum really, and I think it's time to bring it to an end for now, while still considering it, because the fact is, we might or might not get a, you know, a reduction of housing. Who knows, but what we've got to do is get the best now. And my understanding is, and tell me if I'm wrong, that, that if we don't actually deal with this now, we're right on the edge of being able of having to start the whole process again. And that's more money that we don't have. That's more time wasted in trying to get people on low incomes or don't have proper housing into housing. So I'm saying, let's please make a decision and let's bolt this through. And then we can have more debates about it. That would be my, my position. Thank you. Can you cast us to it. Thank you everybody and please indulge me for, I think, three minutes. I may even make it shorter. First of all, my committee considered this very carefully in a special meeting which I called, which was an exceptional meeting on a single issue so there wasn't a problem there. Which was simply on the dips, and we all looked at it, and I insisted that all counselors had full access to that meeting as opposed to the standard questioning, because I wanted to make sure that everybody who had anything to say again. Said it. And I was really grateful for, and I have to single them out, Councillor Spink and Councillor John for coming along and putting their cases very eloquently. At the end of that meeting, my committee, which was a cross party committee, but for seven recommendations. Those second, seven recommendations for the dips were accepted. Now one of those was a particular favorite mind about ancient woodland butter zone. I will explain it to you, but not here it will take too long. We have endlessly looked at this. On top of that, my colleague, Councillor Lillie did specifically raise the issue of allocated site. When a change to dips, as given him, the authority in himself, to consider that this dip is a way forward. And I have to say the amount of effort and work he went into persuade us to persuade the Council and to persuade everybody else that that was the way forward was exceptional. So I have to say thank you to him as well. If I come to exceptional circumstances, I'm afraid I can give you some detailed knowledge about this. That was added as a soap to an MP we won't describe which one that so has no meaning whatsoever as the legal opinion has established. Given that if we do not pass the dips, we are entirely lined up on where we are at the moment, which is not a good place in my ward. And both myself and a neighbouring Councillor against it. There are 70 house development going ahead, which is round against the ancient woodland sorry I'm sorry I shouldn't mention it again I did promise not to too much. It's also not compliant with the new dips. So the final point I will make is that, yes, we all know if we don't pass it we're in trouble. But if we do pass it, it has an authority immediately to be applied, not entirely it will directly, but it can be considered by the planning committee in certain circumstances. Now that doesn't mean of course it's fully gone through you have to do the consultation you have to go to the planning inspector has to come back here and all the rest of it. But passing the dips this evening gives us as an authority, a chance to proceed. I'm sorry I've used me three minutes I'll shut up now but thank you very much. Can I speak. I think I'll be relatively brief. The amendments that I asked for at the last meeting, and it was then sent back to cabinet. To in particular those amendments that have particular relevance to the communities that I represent. And indeed, people who represent rural communities might like to listen to. Have been refused. I, although people will no doubt laugh. You could say that it's not me holding up the dips if those agree amendments had been agreed to, I would have voted for it because I recognize that there comes a point when we have to bite the bullet. Now that the problem is that the amendments that I asked for are consistent with the MPP F, but for some reason, they've been refused the first is to bring rural exception sites in line with the MPP F which is small sites up to about 20 houses. Now the dips for reasons best known to itself wants to build sites developments much larger than that it's paragraph 7.78 I don't propose to read it out. Why, why do we want to have these large housing estates contrary to the dips in rural areas it will create problems for rural areas. It is unacceptable the second thing that I asked to come out was allocations in the dips, which are allocated for what's called best and most versatile agricultural land. The dips doesn't prevent development on agriculture most versatile agricultural land, but it offers caution as it were, and it should be carefully considered because such land is very important. The land in my ward has an allocated site of 120 I think it is houses on best and most versatile land, contrary to the MPP F. Why, I don't know, ask the people who drafted this. Finally, as far as exceptional circumstances of concern I've been trying to take this forward, since I first became a counselor at my first corporate scrutiny committee in July, 2001. It feels like I've been a counselor since 2001 but I guess I have, and to say that I've called delay, if we grasp exceptional circumstances then we might surely will have had it in place by now. Finally, on the legal opinion point of view I think it's very poor show that none of the reports have included the two legal advices from a leading planning barrister that my community have obtained at their expense. And indeed, somewhat ironically we've just hit the target today of crowdfunding for the demographers report to be pressed the button on that the barrister recommended. So those are the point I shall vote against which I know will come to an enormous surprise to you all and I imagine it will go through. Thank you. Nice to speak. Thank you. I would actually like to comment firstly Councillor Spink on rural developments. There's a very good rule development which was Branston, and it actually provided social housing and it provided jobs and employment, and it actually fits very well within that community. And I know Council model will probably agree with me on that side. The particular point is, if we don't pass this tonight we are back with the 2012 plan, which actually is out of date, and the particular thing is therefore it's Wild West. It is a labels, developers and landowners to actually laugh at this Council, which has put forward planning applications with a planning committee has very little teeth to actually oppose. The particular thing on allocated sites was to do with 6.15, and it's very clear the change of the wording, which the cabinet agreed and is in the document tonight says that if a site is allocated because a landowner has made it available. It has to go through all the hoops, the same as any application, whether it was a windfall or whatever, to go through. It will not get any preference. That wording is very, very clear. And if you look into the document, you will actually see that. And that actually helps my community, because my community suffered because there wasn't a plan. And now this future plan, if this is agreed, it actually gives a document. And if something goes to judicial review, and actually all that happens in judicial review, it comes back to committee, at least this document will be here within that. I think the people in my community, and particularly on the east, actually benefits from actually having a plan for that reason, I will be solidly voting for it and clearly explaining to my community. That actually it's a benefit. And when I talk to people, they get, they absolutely get it, including people from Benbridge. Thank you. Councillor ADAMS. I've listened to everything what's been said tonight. When I come in this evening, I was actually going to support this, which isn't what I've supported since I've been a Councillor. I don't think this will provide anything for Islanders. I have been getting back to Councillor Robinson's remarks. I'm very, very serious concerns about the sewage discharges. This is ongoing. And if I had my way, I would have a complete, complete moratorium on the planning, until we get our act together on the sewage. All this nonsense about the SPA zones and various things, keeping the water clean, the nitrate pollution. We have very, very serious issues, which aren't being addressed. We are an island. We have a unique opportunity to show to the country, develop to the country, and to clean up our sewage and get our act together. If we can't do it here, we can't do it anywhere. And I think all the work that Councillor Spinks put in on this, now he's got the funds to get his demographically pulled together. I think we should give him the courtesy of one last throw at a dice, that's all. That's the door. Thank you, Chair. I wasn't actually going to speak on this tonight. It's been quite an interesting discussion so far. At the moment, anybody can put in it. So they got the land, they could knock in an application for 2000 homes in the West White, calling it Midland Meadows, I'm sorry, just rolls off the tunnel. And through the process, it would have to go through. This isn't perfect. Far from it, actually. I've got allocation in my World for 21 bungalows in an area that is prone to flooding. So there's issues there for myself also representing the residents. However, the dips would give the planners more tools to address that. At the moment, it is very much a free for all. I'm reassured by this, as I said, right at the beginning, it goes through various different stages and we've got options to bail out to every single one. So there's these parachutes all the way. It's got to get a bit of public consultation. It's tested for soundness and council price is right. The deal, the deal may change when or if government changes. And so we can react accordingly, reflexive, well enough to do that. But in its, in its current form, no, it's not perfect, but it does give us the level of protection from the outset. And councilor Stuart picked up on that too, and having speaking to the planning office, it gives us some of the tools that can be implemented from the outset. So, I think it was Councillor Churchman that was talking about going around in circles. Well, let's just stop. Let's put it through. We've got a level of protection and middle of meadows won't exist. Perfect. Thank you, Chair. But a long journey for us, hasn't it over the last three years. I'm sure we're all feeling tired in that journey, but feeling tired and having a bad plan in front of us isn't a reason to simply pass it to have a plan. Our community has opposed this for a long time. I've been given very direct guidance from them at multiple resident meetings, almost on a monthly basis with their objections. The disregard of our local neighbourhood plan is contrary to the advice we were given at the beginning of the process, that our neighbourhood plan afforded us the best level of protection we could. Those sites which were most precious to our community. We have sought to have category two, high quality agricultural land, specifically excluded from this, and that has been rejected. Our neighbourhood is requested repeatedly for the current boundaries to become hard and not to be extended to adjacent boundaries. Those have been rejected. In fact, I cannot think of a single measure put forward by our local community, which has been embodied within this revision of the document. They have all, to my knowledge, been rejected. That is appalling. It is our local communities who must have a greater voice in deciding what it is they need and what their infrastructure and community can support. And so I am left with no option at all here, but to reject a bad plan. We do have a plan 2012, 2027. I agree at old, but it's still there. It doesn't mean that we should rush forward. Now, at this point, having known that before this meeting, legal advice that was paid for and community funded was not distributed in the pack, knowing that a demographic report called for in that legal advice is now imminent. I understand within about 10 days. And now we want to rush forward, knowing the imminency of that information and make a decision. How irrational can that be? Thank you. That's a lever. Thank you chair. I'll try and keep it brief. I'm just, I'm struggling with the logic of the previous bow. Views to, despite all the risks, wanting to push that through in two weeks time. And then, basically using the opposite of that, against putting the steps through, which essentially just putting it through the first hurdle. If you, if you've got grievances with it, there are plenty more opportunities to air those grievances. Let's just get it through that first bit or so we're not delaying this any further. It's been seven years. Let's get it past this stage. You've got plenty of time to air those grievances next. Thank you. I think we've had quite a lengthy debate and I've got cancer Brody. There we go. Thank you. Thank you chair. I'm trying to come in at the end of these days. It's good. And again, we'll have it. We're having a good debate. It started to touch on housing issues, not in the depth that I would prefer to see. But unusually for a counselor in the period that we've been doing this seven years now, I have not been approached by a single resident about the island plan, not a single resident. Do you know why, can I just calculate then 40% of the residents of my ward live in a state that was approved under the one before the island plan. When you remember the unit redevelopment plan, which allocated land where Pan Meadows is now with 850 homes, many of them horns for people who needed somewhere affordable to rent. So I think the payment right don't like all the nimbies don't like. We knew they needed housing. My residents didn't oppose it. Matthew prices, but one of my neighboring counselors, things all islanders are going to be open up. I couldn't care less. I'm one of his residents. I know that people need homes to live in affordable homes to live in. And this is why, frankly, I'm going to vote against this because I'm fully expecting a change of government this year. Unless, unless the bridge people have to lose their marbles entirely. There's going to be a change of government. And this is going to be ripped up because they're going to impose targets. And we're going to have to start building housing for people who need them. So why the rush into this. Once again, I'm dead against Russia's tonight, aren't I? Why I'm consistent, why the rush here. Let's leave it. There is some good stuff in this plan. I must admit, Paul, then the officer has done a damn good job on this a lot of good stuff about the economy and such like, but you know, it's always talk about where's the brown field allocations. Well, where are they? Nobody ever comes up with anything serious. You know, where are they? You know, you have to build on green fields some of the time. And this is one of the main reasons I left the Alliance three and a half, you know, two and a half years ago, because of the nimbees who sit in the middle now are against building on anything that's green. Because I can see that I couldn't sit and share with that. When I represent people who need homes to live in, I'm going to wait for a change of government until then I will consistently vote against this dips. I'll continue doing and hopefully we'll get a change of government. It's not going to be the greatest government in the world, but it's a level of better than what we've got now. Thank you. On that note, we're going to Councilor Fuller to come back on his motion. Thank you. Thank you very much. There's been a lot of issues raised. First of all, we had exceptional circumstances and members will note that that did go to independent planning consultant. And the advice back from the independent planning consultants that we approached was that the housing numbers on the island could increase and not be reduced to that level for that reason. We felt that the 453 that we were counting as our special circumstances would be allowed. The government allows us to set our housing targets. And this was an example of that more social housing really important for all counselors in the chamber. We've got policies that encourage deeper discounts for people that will mean building social housing. Developers will have more pressure put upon them to build social housing. That's what we want. Social housing for rent. That is one of your babies, Jeff, and I'm quite really disappointed that we don't see Jeff supporting this plan because that is the reason he was in, you were, you were involved, Jeff, in making sure those policies were within the plan. And I'm disappointed to hear that that doesn't get get your support. We have policies H5 C15 and F one, which are all policies to encourage local Islanders to have a front door, which is something that is lacking at the moment. So which spells we have work we are insisting on working with infrastructure providers, some water we are working with to make sure that what we do flooding wise does not encourage more spills into our into our waterways, which is really important. Flood risk, we have lots of policies in here to discourage flood risk. I was a gun for the other other week. And one of the things one of the rest and said to me was why was this plan, why was our housing development allowed. What is the council doing about putting in better infrastructure to prevent flooding happening. Well, we have policies, EV 14 policies, EV 18, which actually covers flooding into into new homes. We don't want to see a flooding anybody that's had to deal with flooding and talk to residents about flooding will understand that and I know there are a lot of members across the chamber that have dealt with that. We have a policy in the plan for agriculture policy, EV eight, that says that we will not develop, or we will, we will, we have a policy reason for not developing on high grade and agricultural land. That is grade one, grade two, grade three, it's all within the plan, it gives you members of the planning app planning committee, the opportunity to raise that if you are concerned that we are losing agricultural land. Planning seven, a policy paragraph 7.78 which was raised by Councillor Spink, that is incorporated within the report within appendix one, the demographics report, the evidence we have, we have shared that evidence with members of the, with, with members of the council, and you can see what that is they, and they give an explanation to why those housing numbers should be higher. And again, with what is happening on the island, people moving to the island, the fact that we've got so many people waiting needing homes that are living in temporary accommodation will potentially raise that figure even higher. So I've been in dialogue with the MP, and the MP was very strong on getting the exceptional circumstances argument within the NP PF, we don't really have meat on that bone to be able to to look at that at the moment. However, we do have our special circumstances, which are unique to the island, and that is shown with the amount of houses we give permission to each year. We, you know, we're in the range of 300 to about 500 times every year I think we made a record last year of being near 500. So that was, when I say a record, it was a record for the letters since, since we were in, in, in during, going through austerity. So I have been talking, and we've had seven years, seven years of consulting with residents on that on this plan. Seven years, we have been engaging with residents and adding their feedback to this plan, thousands of residents, thousands of opinions were given to us, and we have listened to them where we can, and we have accommodated them where they can. And when they're consistent with government policy, and particularly the new NP PF, which is something we've all welcomed. I've presented the report, and I hope that members feel that they are able to support it, even you, Jeff. Thank you. Thank you. We can now move to, do I need to give it to the seconder? No, you're back to onto the vote. All those in favor of the motion raise your hands. All those against. That motion is kept. Oh, any abstentions. Sorry. No extensions. One, one. Okay, that motion is carried with 27 votes. Thank you very much, and we will move on to item six. This is member question time of the leader or the cabinet. I've got no written questions, but take them in the floor. So, kind of quickly. Does the leader agree that as help for flooded homes exists under the flood rescheme, and there is a non-existent scheme for businesses is actually appalling, and that we should do everything we can to help. If I want to help for affected businesses, and I realise that is a very difficult ask of the council, because the money needs to come from government. Thank you, Richard. Absolutely agree with the on this. We do have in place a relief scheme. It's got the scheme, but nonetheless, we deliver it for residents affected by flooding. No such can exist in the businesses. We do have responses to to flooding through our emergency planning team through our senior officer team. And we are going to work hard and do work hard at providing support for our communities, both business and residential. In, in right when the flooding occurred and businesses and homes were affected. The town, I'm pleased to say the town council did stand up and help the flood efforts there in terms of providing for things like skips for a clear up. And for personnel that were down there helping people and businesses in distraught situations. You're absolutely right, Richard. We need to see how we can do more to help that part of our community is vital to our community, that our businesses continue and survive and sustain and employ people and generate income for our community. So that they are as important as in the big picture of our community as our residents. So absolutely agree with you, Richard. And happy to talk more about how we can be specific about that. I would just say I would also like to have seen the town council do as they did it right, which was really stand up and and help the community. But thank you for that question. We'll talk about it often. That's the price. Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, a couple of questions, but more almost comments as well, which to the leader in his role is cabinet role. You've always been very helpful to me when it comes to particularly highways issues. And I apologize if I'm stepping on another council's toes about this particular issue, but it's come from a. There's been residents of mine regarding an accident that happened a few years ago at vidfuels cross where there are around 30 people injured and someone sadly lost their life. Who's connected to this resident. There's been another serious accident there this week. And it would certainly highlight that the measures that have been put in place to to reduce how dangerous that crossroad is has not worked. There's nothing to warn people that don't know the roads that there is a concealed junction there. I'm just looking to you for some words of comfort that this can be looked at again. And again, I apologize for stepping on the local members toes on that, but it's I'm sure that local member would like to engage with you about the serious accident that happened again. Secondly, the, the chaos of road works that are going on around the island. I mean, Newport is just being brought to a grinding halt at the moment. And I think we all understand that there's, there's lots of stuff that he's doing. Utility company seem to be a law unto themselves and I know that you don't have much control over that, but I just wonder if there's anything that you can do to, to help bring some of these road works to a more organized program of works because at the moment they just seem to be happening there's sprouting up on a day where there's no warning to residents, you know I'm watching for where road works are coming up. And all I get is people saying to me they're arriving at a road and it's closed that day with no warning. Now, how many emergency road closures can we allow to happen when it's just, you know, sweeping something up in the middle of the road and that kind of thing so I know it's a bit of an open ended requesting questions but I just look to you for any help and support that you could give on that matter. Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Two questions, vital fields. I will. I will give you an assurance that we will revisit that. We know those that know the cross on forest road. We've made some amendments to some changes to the crossing by making it more visible. We've had some issues of land acquisition on one side of the road map that I think you know about that made the, the fall extent of the visibility is more difficult to deliver. The same problems, we'll get it looked at a guide, Matt. Same problems are there in the sense that from memory, there were concerns about the hump of the road and the speeds of 50 mile an hour road, and it has put you, you come over the hill without any knowledge of traffic that's problem still remains. I don't know if there's a fix for that. We'll have a look at that. Fire lights, lower the speed limit, those kinds of things. We'll look at it again. Sorry. No, no. I'm sorry, Matt. You misunderstood me. I'm saying that to put lights in, for example, some of the concerns previously have been that you come over the brow of the hill. 50 miles an hour, or they're about because that's the speed you're allowed to drive on that road. And you could come up quite quickly to a set of lights that are not there now at the moment you carry on and people pull out. We had hoped that by increasing the visibility on the left hand and right hand side, would have prevented, would have enabled those cars coming out onto the main road, either side from Guernard and from, where is it? What's the pub up the hill? Black horse. Black horse. Black Smith. Black Smith. They will be able to see both ways on that road. So we'll take another look at it, Matt. We'll get your right. I was concerned as you about it. We hope that those changes would have reduced the number of incidents that we're seeing. It can't carry on. I'll guarantee that we'll take another look at it. And we'll keep your voice. I'm sorry, we'll keep council advice. The road works well, Matt. You're probably voicing the experience of every single one, including Mo, by the way, that it appears every single turn you make that there's an obstruction. You can't use your own. It is complicated and complex. However, for planned works, just to assure you all, for planned works, that's road works that have to be done under contractual obligations. There is a schedule of works and our highways team have to agree that schedule of works with the provider. So just so that you're aware, our contractor doesn't just give us a schedule of a piece of paper and say that's what we're doing. We will look at that. And there are amendments made to it. I could give you some examples where planned works might coincide, for example, with the festival. I'm not necessarily just close to the festival. It could be as far away as got to, but we, we agree or disagree and get those works rescheduled. I think you mentioned, Matt, the biggest problem. In certain areas, we've had the problems of landslides, landslips, debris on the road in some areas, some roads are quite unsafe. Add to that utility companies, particularly the water companies that are suffering from this excess water that's coming down. We have certain powers, the utilities have certain powers. Now, we as a highways authority have to agree to allow works to be carried out, even in emergency. But in reality, in emergencies, we are unable to prevent those works being done by utility company, whether it's electric gas or water. So in effect, we are told about the emergency could be the same day or the day before could be immediately in the same hour. We have to agree. Those works to be carried out. And so what you get is a perfect and by the way, white fiber, a utility company, they're getting towards the end of their work. But nonetheless, I pass a few of their works die. Nonetheless, they're a utility company. They do have a plan and they work to the plan. One of the problems that they have done is apply for work permits in multiple sites, instead of one site, and they move their teams around. It's not the best outcome for us to be frank, but that's there. They're able to do that for water and gas mainly water. The roads get closed. I mean, I just share your frustration. I expect we all do. I'm looking at all of you and we are all suffering from this. There is a moratorium coming up in June, so that the level and extent of works is reduced in terms of land surfacing. But finally, if I just add to this, I'm also frustrated about the condition of the roads. And it's really problematic on the one hand to complain as I do, and I hear many of you and many residents complain, whether it's potcalls or just the condition of the road. And then when the works are planned and they come to do them, they complain that we're doing the wrongs. So, I don't see it's an easy win. Highways repairs are disruptive to our community in our town. The only comfort I can give all of you is that as we have a 20 in our highways team now 1820. We work hard trying to keep the network safe, secure and moving. And often where a road closure seems illogical or unworkable. There's been very few other opportunities in terms of how you divert or when you carry out the works. I think I just share your frustrations, Matt, but we continue to work to try and make this better for us. I won't talk about the PFI contract per se. That's for another day, probably not in the full chamber. Thank you, Councilor Price. I think that echoes from me that I'm glad to brought that question forward because I have lots of residents and obviously asking Council Jordan and on a road to daily, why we can't get out of our villages and towns. Thank you. On to the next question, I have Council Jarman. Thank you chair. The question is why is community funded planning legal advice, including that on exceptional circumstances and demographic evidence and infrastructure in adequacy evidence excluded from the information pack circulated to members. And will the leader and cabinet commit to circulating what has been produced, community funded and all future community funded evidence. I'm not sure if I understand this, we will give you a written answer on this. Chris, I need more information on what documents are not being circulated and why. So we'll give you a written answer on that. I need to find out myself. Thank you, Chair. You can guess what I'm going to ask about. We are continuing road closures and event that are making a cause in the town, not just distress. We are getting to the point now where businesses are closing jobs that are going to have been going, they're going to continue to go. We are situation moment where with the closure of lower girls with road, you have to come into vent the via ocean view road. Or you go down slow and shoot, but say we're not advertised, we will do that. Actually road has parking on the moment, which slows down traffic. It has to put up with a minimum of 10 buses an hour. It can be up to 18 with the school buses going through it that grinds the town to a halt. We need frustration comes from lack of timeframes, parameters, or any information at all about what's going on. The closest we've come to a parameter being offered about lease and road, for instance, which is the only parameters involved with any of the road closures is that boreholes are going to have to be done in lease and road at some point in July or August. So there's not even set dates on that. Also, there was a sign picked up in the last public meeting columnar only mentioned that emergency funding would be available to local businesses. If the situation continued, that was back in February. The situation is very much going to continue. So what I would like answered very quickly is what emergency measures are going to be brought in to help them, which is something actually asked for back in my first council meeting back in January. And effectively, I didn't get an answer at all. Still have an answer. I haven't had replies to any of my communications to what I said, mainly a letter I sent to Council Jordan. A lot of the residents that are communicating to officers and to counselors or to to cabinet members are not getting answers or if they are, they're just getting a statutory answer. There is now a crib sheet that we sent out to you in advance if you don't want to bother answering, asking for it. What what we desperately need and preventative Lawrence is clear answers, clear timeframes, clear parameters that we're working towards. So we know we can make assured decisions about our own businesses, our own futures moving forward because right now it's just a giant question mark. Thank you. I don't, I don't recognize half of that, frankly. Quite frankly, that's what the residents feel we don't recognize half a vendor. I'd like to answer him then, Joe. I don't think we've finished. I would like to be your the Council leader, Councillor Jordan, so you better. I think we should let the leader speak. He hasn't finished his answer. Then you get an answer. I'm really happy to answer. I didn't recognize. I was telling why I don't recognize it. Firstly, we've held one public meeting. There's another public meeting next week. We send out media releases through social media. We send out letters to the keep vent the moving group that two have gone out recently. This doesn't sound like we don't know what's going on to me. That's why I don't recognize it. We're working as hard as we, whereas working as hard as we can to restore the roads in vent there in a very, very difficult situation. Circumstances are very difficult. I wrote to the minister this week and to the DFT to ask for funding for this Council to deal with the landslides. We're working with the roads that are closed and to deal with the A3055 in general, including the military, the military road part, the A3055. Our officers are working hard. You've been out. You've seen the damage to hunts road, which is 50 yards away from the undercliff. A road that you want open. A road that you keep asking to be open. 50 yards away down the hill. The houses are sliding down the hill and yet you continue to ask for the undercliff to be reopened. Of course, we're not the question. You can't reopen the undercliff because much of it is down the hill. There isn't a road to open. You have to rebuild a road at a cost of about 10 to 20 million for the undercliff, something like that, 10 million. This Council doesn't have 10 million. In the parish council, some years ago, asked government for funding. Government said, but you already get funding. You've had 300 million from us. It's called your PFI. We've written since then, asked government more recently. In fact, we asked on a regular basis to DFT, officer to officer. Can we have the money to look after our roads, the military road that's under threat, lease and road that's under threat and the undercliff and some of the other roads are grabbing both roads. We're waiting to reply. I'm pretty sure the reply will come back as we've had before. This government doesn't have the money to help us in our hour of need. We continue to work. Why can't we give you time frames? We can't give you time frame because we started monitoring lease and road. We may have to dig boreholes, but that's another matter of the boreholes. We've put monitoring in. The monitoring will have to give us data. My understanding in a short period of time is there are slight movements in the land at least in road. But our data is needed or comfortable. The data is needed to make a decision about whether we can reopen lease and road. Either both wise or under light singly. So that's a decision to be taken when we have the data. Some of the other roads you know about, it's been told to you that where the landslips have occurred, just clearing the boulders away is not sufficient because the cliffs around it are unsafe and liable to further falls. Some of the walls that have collapsed are on private. They're private walls. There's a process for dealing with the private walls. We're entering into that process. Clearing away the debris is only part of the problem. The risk remains. And this island has seen this huge, huge mainly inventor, but huge devastation. The pictures of our landslide, the largest landslide that this country seen for a very, very long time. I've been sent to government, along with my letter, asking government to help us. So that's why I don't recognise this. We are conveying this to you to your residence. We are holding public meetings. I don't know why you're shaking your head. Still not answering the question. Just one. Are you disputing? Are you disputing that we are conveying information to your residents and holding public meetings? Or not, we're asking government for extra funding. Are you denying that? No, but that's not the question I asked. I was also asking about support for business. When can we have parameters after you met? What monitoring are we looking for? What time scales are we looking for? Are we seeing no movement in three months? That's what I asked the question. I also asked what Colin Rowland promised that there would be emergency funding if the situation went on. The situation is very much going on. I'm sorry, but I totally agree with you. Yes, I get that there's information coming out, but there's no physical facts in it. We're still monitoring. Brilliant. What are you monitoring for? What are you looking for? What time scales? What parameters? That was the question. And all you've done is just say, yeah, we're talking about it. We're brilliant. But what are you talking about? It's a word talking once. Not once did I say we were using my basic finger English doing something about it. That's entirely different. Thank you, Councillor Blake. You come on this subject because I have this subject. Yes. On this subject, I'd like to assure Councillor B like I'm very happy to have conversations with you concerning this. I know Tashdix has got a very good relationship with residents down at St Lawrence that has been affected. One of the things I would highlight is the land is still moving. We don't know how long that land will continue to move for. A lot depends on what happens within the weather over the summer. If we have more rainfall, the land will continue to move. If we have a drought this summer, the land will continue to move. What we need to do, Ed, is maybe have a conversation about how we move this forward. Yesterday I met with the Environment Agency and key players in the Environment Agency. I met with the chairman of the SRFCC who was very anxious to come to the island to actually see what was going on here. And when he visited St Lawrence, he was absolutely knocked back by the amount of damage that occurred down there and continues to occur down there. I'm very happy to have this conversation with you at any time, Ed. So, please, please, let's touch base. Thank you. Councillor SPINK. Thank you. I'll be quick because we've only assessed some of the meetings extended against the rules of the Constitution again. I don't know, but I'd better speak quickly in case we decide to abide by the Constitution this time. Councillor JORDAN, I just wondered, sharing your frustration with the roads, given that we just voted, or some of the Council has just voted to build 453 more houses a year. And if that doesn't pass the inspector, we'll be obliged to build, I think it is 750 houses a year for 15 years, where you continue to share your frustration with the island roads situation. With residents, or do you have any plans to accommodate that number? Very much, your concerns about that, Peter, very much so. Well, we'll build more rides, shall we? Councillor ADAMS. Do you have a question? We've got 30 seconds, but I think as we've got no questions, we will close this meeting. Thank you very much for those attending online and in the gallery and those Councillors. Good evening. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.