Esplanade Quarter development: Scrutiny review and referendum (P.44/2015) – amendment.

STATES OF JERSEY

ESPLANADE QUARTER DEVELOPMENT: SCRUTINY REVIEW AND REFERENDUM (P.44/2015) – AMENDMENT

Lodged au Greffe on 9th June 2015 by Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade

STATES GREFFE

2015   Price code: A  P.44 Amd.

ESPLANADE QUARTER DEVELOPMENT: SCRUTINY REVIEW AND REFERENDUM (P.44/2015) – AMENDMENT

____________

1  PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH (a) –

Before the words "binding agreements" insert the word "further"; delete the word "preparatory" and after the words "should be started" insert the words "or continued".

2  PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH (b) –

For the words "agree that, following" substitute the words "request the Council of Ministers, within one month of"; after the words "paragraph (a)" insert the words "to lodge for debate a proposition asking the States Assembly to support the  development,  and  to  agree  that";  before  the  words  "agreements  for development" insert the word "further"; delete the word "preparatory"; after the word "started" insert the words "or continued" and for the words "in question have been approved by the majority of those voting in a referendum held under the Referendum (Jersey) Law 2002," substitute the words "have been approved by the Assembly".

DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE

REPORT

Like many, I am disappointed that there appears to have been a rush to enter into a legally  binding  agreement  with  a  tenant, at  a  point  when the  Corporate  Services Scrutiny  Panel  are  coming  to  the  end  of  their  report  and  when  this  proposition (P.44/2015) is about to be debated.

It is clear that delays are likely to have been caused to the scrutiny process by the Minister  and/or  the  States  of  Jersey  Development  Company  (SoJDC)  not  having delivered key information to the Panel in a timely manner, and that unreasonable and, ultimately  unacceptable  non-disclosure  agreements,  have  potentially  further undermined the scrutiny process.

In his statement on 2nd June 2015, the Minister said –

I  know  this  pre-let  agreement  is  being  announced  before  the  States  can debate Deputy Tadier 's proposal, but the heads of terms for this agreement were signed more than a month before Deputy Tadier lodged his proposition. So his proposition was too late for this agreement to be halted without SoJD. having to pay a substantial financial penalty.'

I would hope that the Minister can give us an exact date on when the heads of terms were signed and what exactly the substantial financial penalty would have been, that adjective being, no doubt, subjective. It is disappointing that, even with the scrutiny review in train, and this proposition on the table, the Minister did not give instruction to SoJDC to wait until the day of the debate, to gauge the will of its sole shareholder, the States of Jersey, who would have been able to consider the consequences of any financial penalty in the light of the findings and recommendations of the said scrutiny report.

As such, it is now necessary for me to amend my own proposition, to take account of recent events. I, like many Islanders, believe it is entirely sensible to wait a short time, to consider the evidence of the Panel, before commencing building works.

For clarity, if this amendment is successful, it will read in the following way (the red/italics) denoting additions or changes

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

1. to request the Minister for Treasury and Resources to give directions to the States of Jersey Development Company Limited in accordance with Article 22(a) of the Articles of Association of the company that no further binding agreements should be entered into by the company for the development of new office accommodation on the site known as  the  Esplanade  Quarter,   St. Helier ,  and  no  preparatory building works should be started or continued, until the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel has presented to the States the final report arising from its current scrutiny review of the project;

Page - 3

P.44/2015 Amd.

2. to agree that,followingrequest the Council of Ministers, within one month  of  the  presentation  of  the  scrutiny  report  referred  to  in paragraph (a),  to lodge  for  debate a  proposition  asking the  States Assembly to support the development, and to agree that no further agreements  for  development  of  office  accommodation  on  the  site should be entered into, and no preparatory building works should be started  or  continued unless  the  development  proposals  have  been approved by the Assembly and to request the Minister to give further directions to this effect to the company.

I hope that whatever members' individual opinions of the merits of the Esplanade development or the merits of my substantive proposition are, they will support the amendment, so that it can be debated on its own merits, taking into account the changing events, which were not known at the time of lodging this proposition.

It should also be noted that rather than maintaining the call for a referendum, I have instead suggested that this is a matter that could and should, on this occasion, be decided by States Members, once they are cognisant of all the facts. This should in no way be interpreted as me saying that the matter is not worthy of a referendum nor that such contentious subjects should not be the subject of a referendum – rather, I hope that, in supporting paragraph (b), Members will have the courage of their convictions in taking the final decision on the proposed plans, and thus be judged on that decision if and when seeking re-election in 2018, whilst at the same time save the associated cost of a referendum.

Financial and manpower implications

I do not believe there are any additional financial or manpower implications from adopting  this  amendment.  If  anything,  giving  time  for  the  findings  and recommendations of the scrutiny report to be considered should give a clear steer as to what financial projections are valid, and where any risk lies, ultimately saving money in the long term. As mentioned above, the amendment will also avoid the cost of a referendum as originally proposed.