States Meeting Transcript - 03/07/2008

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT THURSDAY, 3rd JULY 2008

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................3

1. Esplanade Quarter, St. Helier : Masterplan - rescindment (P.97/2008) (continued) ....3

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ...................................................3
2. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier:....................................................4
3. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:................................................7
4. Senator P.F. Routier: ....................................................................7
5. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:................................................8
6. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................10
7. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................10 Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:............................................11 The Deputy of St. Ouen:......................................................................12

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.......................................................................12

8. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................12
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................13
10. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................15
11. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................16
12. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................19

13. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ........................................................20 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................21
14. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................22
15. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................22
16. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.......................................................23
17. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................24
18. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................24
19. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................26 The Bailiff :...................................................................................33 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................36

2. Comptroller and Auditor General: reappointment (P.101/2008)......................36 [Debate proceeded in camera] ................................................................36 The Bailiff :...................................................................................36

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................38 The Bailiff :...................................................................................38

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................38 PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued)................................................................38

3. Waterfront Enterprise Board Limited: removal of States Directors and Chairman from office (P.98/2008)..................................................................38

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:....................................................................38 3.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................39

1. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................40 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................43 The Attorney General:........................................................................43
2. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................43 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................43 The Deputy of St. John:......................................................................43 The Bailiff :...................................................................................43
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................45
4. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................48
5. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................50
6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................51
7. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................52
8. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................53
9. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................53
10. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................54
11. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:....................................................55
12. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................55
13. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................56
14. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:..............................................................56
15. Senator F.H. Walker :................................................................56
16. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................59
17. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................61
18. Deputy A. Breckon: .................................................................61
19. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:....................................................63

The Connétable of Grouville :.................................................................64

20. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................65
21. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................66
22. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................68
23. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier:.......................................................68
24. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................70
25. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier:................................................72
26. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................72

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................75 The Deputy of St. Mary:......................................................................75 The Deputy of St. Martin:....................................................................76 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................76 Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................76

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................76

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Esplanade Quarter, St. Helier : Masterplan - rescindment (P.97/2008) (continued) The Bailiff :

The debate continues on the proposition of Deputy Baudains. Deputy Le Claire.

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier :

Deputy Baudains yesterday in his speech began by telling us that it was not a revisit of the previous debate and that we should not refer to the elements of the scheme, et cetera, and then went to great length throughout his speech to talk about the scheme in great detail - I found that rather strange. I think everybody acknowledges that Deputy Baudains has done the Island, the States Assembly, a great service on his scrutiny of some elements of the proposals in respect to Harcourt and making sure that due diligence is to be carried out and I think we should congratulate him for that. I am sorry to say that I think this proposition is merely a proposition to throw the whole thing out because perhaps, I may be wrong, but I get the feeling that Deputy Baudains does not like it. I find it strange as well, in the report he says, and it was interesting that you picked this up, Sir, that part 2 and part 1 hold together in his view, and it was ridiculous for the States to debate them in isolation the first time around because 1 and 2 hang together. Yet we are being told today that he is allowing Members the option to vote on items separately if they wish. It seems to me if part 1 is not achieved because it does not have the support of part 2 then we are really only talking about one thing and that is to revert to a scheme that has already had approval from the Planning Minister that really does fall far short of the expectations of many of the people in Jersey who have been working extremely hard and trying to improve the waterfront. Deputy Baudains said that he wondered where the alternatives were and we heard of some of the people who had been consulted upon and with during this process in an extensive way who had been able for the first time, in a meaningful way, to contribute to a States overall strategic plan, in my view. There has been some self-criticism about whether or not Scrutiny should have taken it upon themselves to have undertaken a more thorough review in terms of this overall scheme, and I was looking up my speech from the last time around and I did note that I refer to the fact that under the chairmanship of the Deputy of St. Peter there had been a financial assessment, and under the chairmanship of Deputy Duhamel, our Scrutiny Panel, the Environment Scrutiny Panel, had worked extensively at addressing some of the issues that we thought of concern, in particular for St. Helier. The Constable of St. Helier, in particular, spoke out publicly about his concerns, and at every meeting the architects from Hopkins, the Minister and the Assistant Minister, the Transport Minister and his team all came together to work hard at trying to address those concerns, and they met those concerns. So, in putting forward our views and the design group putting forward their views we believe we did have a different scheme. It was not the same scheme that was placed before us in the beginning, so when Deputy Baudains says: "Where were the other schemes?" we were left with only one option. We only have one area to work with. It is not like we are talking about: "Let us build a waterfront somewhere in

the world", we are talking about the waterfront in St. Helier; we are constrained by the geography. It was that geography that defined our input and it was that geography and our input that defined the outcome, which was a well-consulted upon piece of work and, in my view, a dramatic improvement to what is an unsightly collection of buildings opposite what will become more and more into the future, a very important historic castle. They are not building castles like that any more and as time goes by, and as the years go by, and by the time these leases have concluded in 150 years' time, we should be cognisant of what we will be looking at and what it is that we own in that castle. I am hoping in years to come that the Jersey Heritage Trust and the States of Jersey recognise that far more could be done to bring out the history of that historic castle, far more than has been done to date. I think it is befitting of us to continue to support the proposals that have been put before us in the Masterplan by Senator Cohen because they represent a dramatic improvement. It was not just the ideas of the Constable of St. Helier and Deputy Duhamel and I

that were integrated into the plan, but I know that there were other Members who have not stood up to take credit for some very significant elements of the plan, including the Winter Garden and the Jersey granite. I know those Ministers and those individuals in the States have not stood up on a platform and said: "That was my idea. That was my idea" and I will not embarrass them by saying who they are, but they are to be congratulated for putting forward their ideas. Senator Cohen and the architects are to be congratulated for taking those on board. I look back at my speech as I said, Sir, and in that I recognise that there was another element that we were forgetting and that was the benefit to St. Helier and the surrounding areas from the money that would be coming their way. I look back at my call for more improvements for children's playing areas with children playing on the streets in Jersey and in and around street corners. I thought at the time, as did other Deputies from St. Helier that spoke, Deputy Fox and Deputy Hilton, that a lot of this money could go towards improvements in St. Helier that are badly needed. I did urge and impress upon the Minister that I thought that some of those things needed to be considered. There was some concern about cutting up the pie before we had even baked it but we need to set our mark in the sand. Now the surrounding districts of St. Helier include St. Clement, in my view, and the vast majority of people in Jersey all enjoy St. Helier . So, I am rather at a loss to understand why we would not want to continue to support that. I remember once there was a debate where I thought I had never heard a better retort, or a better response, and it came from Deputy Baudains when he was criticised in the first waterfront debate for always looking in the rear view mirror. His response was: "Well, at least I know where I am coming from." My experience of looking in the rear view mirror is if you are going to go backwards or if you want to park something, and I am afraid to say that if we continue to look in the rear view mirror this morning and support this rescindment motion, we are going to go backwards to the approved plan of the Minister which will fall far short of our expectations, and we will park the improvements to St. Helier and we will park the aspirations of achieving the view that we have lost of our beautiful castle. I hope Members will recognise that there are a lot of questions that need answering in debates that are coming up in relation to Harcourt and W.E.B. (Waterfront Enterprise Board) and some responsibilities that need to be argued about that. But I would hope that Members would agree with me that we need to do better on this waterfront and unless we continue to support this Masterplan and part (b) which enables that Masterplan to be decided upon, we will never have it. We will just never, never, never have it because all of the existing things will suffer viability issues and all of the existing facilities will eventually turn around and claim that they are unable to continue and we are likely to probably see them being pulled down and luxury apartments being put there in their place. There will be nothing except a

divided wealthy quarter on our waterfront with wealthy individuals overlooking our castle and, who knows, in the future maybe as in other places in Europe, they will fence it off and keep the locals away because they ride their bikes and skateboards down there and annoy the residents and tourists. Deputy Duhamel and I and the members of the Environment Scrutiny Panel and the Minister for Planning and Environment have been to Malmö in Sweden, have seen the opportunities that a green, open, inclusive waterfront present, and those have been incorporated into this Masterplan. If there were any concerns from Members about the viability or otherwise of a build on this property, then surely those were addressed by the Treasury Minister's speech yesterday where he quite rightly pointed out that he is not going to authorise one single signature on any of the proposed buildings until and unless he has been given the guarantees, cast-iron guarantees, from an international reputable bank and from his officers to say that they are good. I think Members really do need to congratulate Deputy Baudains for some elements of his Scrutiny and I think that we need to also give credit where credit is due to the Environment Minister, his Assistant Minister, the Transport and Technical Services Minister and his team and the architects, the waterfront design group and, indeed, the other Members that have contributed to this scheme. I think we just really need to keep on supporting it because it is going to take a lot to deliver it and this, unfortunately, is not the way that we are going to change the St. Helier Waterfront into a better place to be.

2. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier :

I am sure Members will have read the report accompanying Deputy Baudains' proposition and they will notice that on page 4 quite a significant element of that particular page is devoted to a quote from me in the previous debate on this subject. The key phrase is probably: "I am concerned that what I understand to be essentially a fabrication that has absolutely no foundation in fact whatsoever is now being propagated as some sort of reason why we should refer this matter back." Underneath Deputy Baudains has noted: "It would surely benefit debate if Members check their facts before impugning the integrity of others and I look forward to Deputy de Faye's apology in due course." I do want to say to Members that I have already approached Deputy Baudains on this matter in private and the Deputy well knows that I have on occasions in the past, in fact, very vigorously defended his personal integrity. But I do want to raise this matter in the Assembly partly because I also referred to the element of Parliamentary privilege and whether Members are prepared to repeat what they say in the Royal Square. It could be interpreted from that that not only was I suggesting that the Deputy was misleading the House, but also that he may well have known he was misleading the House and, clearly in the circumstances, we know that not to be true. I therefore want to publicly apologise to Deputy Baudains and assure Members that I have no doubts about his personal integrity whatsoever.  [Approbation]  But in respect of this particular proposition that is where the entente cordiale comes to a fairly abrupt closure because regrettably a lot of what Deputy Baudains told the House in his opening speech was very essentially muddying the waters, posing questions that, frankly, in many cases, have already been answered. I think Members must realise in the course of dealing with proposition and political debate it would be nice if we had one or more comprehensive reports telling us that what we are about to agree to was absolutely the right thing to do and that all the t's were crossed and all the i's were dotted and there really was no more to be said or done. But as Members all know that eventuality is an extremely rare case; events, in the most part, continue to change all the time. Indeed, there will be an enormous number of issues to come in respect of the waterfront development. While we have a Masterplan before us, all those buildings will still have to go through the normal planning applications procedures as the buildings proceed one at a time. But I do want to deal with some of the issues that came up. One of the main objections, it seems to me, that Deputy Baudains had was this issue of connectivity. First of all, I do struggle with why both Members and members of the public do not see the value of the sunken road. Indeed, when the issues came up in respect of the Island acquiring the underpass it now has, it is my understanding that there were 2 other proposals on the table: both of them tunnels. To all intents and purposes it does appear that at the time the 2 tunnels were rejected for cost reasons. Senator Cohen has told us that he has had advice from a number of leading architects on the global stage, and every single one of them has said this is absolutely the right thing for a waterfront project. It does seem very logical to me because I am sure that Members all know that people generally have an aversion to having to climb up bridges and then go down the other side, and similarly people have an aversion to going themselves into

tunnels or what are more popularly known as subways, where they do have a certain level of concern about who they may encounter in a confined space. So, if anything has to go down a tunnel, it is not going to be pedestrians; it must surely be traffic. By the same token, I think that all Members will realise it is much more pleasant if you are going from one location to another to be able to walk at level, and even a slight gradient sometimes produces a tendency to want to go via another course. The other aspect of connectivity, as I have explained on a number of occasions, is that there will be variations to the traffic flows and traffic management. I do apologise to Members for the inevitable delay that was caused with the Integrated Travel and Transport Plan. Deputy Southern was quite right: I was promulgating my excitement about being able to do this at the last elections, and I can say to Members no one is more frustrated than myself and my personal enthusiasm for this project than I am. But let us just imagine if we were doing things the other way around; it really would be a disastrous approach if this type of enormous project that has a very significant impact on the existing town of St. Helier had not had its traffic management impact dealt with in, frankly, very great detail, and that is precisely what has happened. Similarly, it is not just what is the traffic management situation going to be on completion, the Transport and Technical Services Department has also had to study, with a number of other involved bodies, how we get to completion. In other words, what is the traffic going to be doing during the construction phase? I do want to put Deputy Baudains right when he quoted the phrase, it certainly never came from me, that there will be 3 years of traffic mayhem. No, there will not. In actual fact, traffic will continue pretty much as it has done now because we will continue to use the existing underpass while construction work is going on on either side. It is certainly my intention, and I am sure will be the intention of any future Minister for Transport and Technical Services, to keep the traffic situation running as smoothly as possible. Inevitably there will be some hiccups because all the bits of the scheme at some stage have to be joined up and you simply cannot do those sorts of things overnight. So we do anticipate some difficulties but I have to emphasise we do not anticipate 3 years of traffic mayhem, chaos or any other adjective you care to apply to that concept. Yes, there is an argument to say that the gateway to the Islands will be under construction for a while but I do want to ask Members whether they feel that the gateway to the Island is at the Esplanade. I always thought the gateway to the Island was the airport arrivals hall. If there are a number of gateways between the airport and St. Helier, well, that may be a subjective view of Members, but I think that when the airport arrivals hall was brightened up not so long ago, it did make a very important difference, as was the freshening up of the arrivals hall down on the Albert Pier for people arriving from France. We can make a lot of gateways to the Island, not least of which I would dispute where the gateways are down at La Collette but I will leave that for another day. Tunnel ventilation was another matter that Deputy Baudains brought up, quite rightly; it is an issue if you have exhaust gases confined in a confined space. Members, I think, certainly those who have attended presentations, will know that the tunnel will be built to the very latest demands that are required under European and U.K. (United Kingdom) regulations and directions. There will be no issue with tunnel ventilation; there will be very powerful fans that will extract the air. If we have any worries, it should be asking the question: where are these exhaust gases going now? They exit to

the air freely and effectively there will be no essential difference. I very much hope that, in fact, as the years go by we will have more electric cars, we will have more efficient cars and, in fact, the noxious exhaust fume issue will gradually diminish over time, in any event. I recall that the Deputy also implied: what was the demand for this development? He appeared to be under the impression that there seemed to be only one taker for the premises at the moment. I believe that this is a very critical development for the Island. We are racing almost in Grand Prix Formula One-style on a global competitive platform with rival locations who wish to get their hands on aspects of the financial services industry. There are a number of international global players who offer various advantages to banks and financial services operations being located with them and we know that we have to stay competitive. What better than to have cutting edge, attractive buildings on a specially designated financial services quarter of the town as is laid out in the Masterplan. If we do not get on with this now, if we rescind this, I am afraid we are taking a very serious step back in a very competitive area which I believe would be extremely damaging to the future of the Island. A couple of minor issues to deal with: I cannot tell the Assembly at this stage just precisely what will be discovered when the digging commences, but clearly Members will realise there is a possibility of coming over certain deposits of ash; there is a possibility of coming across asbestos and I can assure Members that the protocols are already in place to deal with these matters in the best possible practice. But to say that we are not going to be able to achieve any recycling, I am afraid, is misleading. Recycling rates will be possible. I will not hazard any guesses at this stage, but I would say that 20 to 30 per cent, I would think, is an absolute minimum and I know that the Minister for Planning and Environment will be insisting that we try to achieve higher levels than that. Yes, of course, if we find some toxic ash, it will go to La Collette where there are specially lined pits to deal with this. So, we are not looking forward to seeing any serious difficulties on that front. The car park: well, the car park will not be a loss to the States in the way it was portrayed because the car park already belongs to W.E.B. and I think it has been elicited on at least one occasion. I am very grateful to W.E.B. who have allowed the States to continue use of it under the scratch card system which means that unlike the Serco car park on the waterfront where that is not

the province of the States Funds, revenues from the Esplanade car park continue to come into the Treasury. However, the fact needs to be made perfectly clear that is not the direction that those funds should be moving in because the car park, the Esplanade car park, is currently in the ownership of W.E.B. W.E.B. will buy back the spaces to ensure that exactly the same number of public car parking spaces will be there in the future but the administration of that, by the time the project is completed, will not come under the States; it will come under the W.E.B. and will probably come, I would suggest, under the same operator as runs the waterfront car park. I think that is all I wish to say, Sir. The States, in my view, have already voted very significantly on both sections of this proposition. I have heard no strong reasons really for us to change our minds. Yes, there has been an unfortunate hiccup in the communications process. I do not think that that was conspiracy; I think it was simply failure of communications. We have all had chapter and verse now on the relevance of those particular items. I think the Nevada lawsuit quite frankly is largely, utterly irrelevant and any other legal aspects, again, I do not believe impact directly on proceedings with respect to this Island. But as has been very clearly pointed out, this debate is not about the developer; this debate is about transference of land to W.E.B. and there are plenty more decisions to be made in the long-term. If I may end just by jumping on one particular bandwagon, Sir, and that is to say - perhaps I should use a visual aid here so that people know when I am being a stand- up comedian - I met a man in the street the other day and he may even have been a local resident. [Laughter] He told me he thought the waterfront project was a jolly good idea. So, I am absolutely certain that at least 95 per cent of the general public support this and we should crack on with it.

3. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour :

While with hindsight the debate in June should have gone into camera and States Members were not informed regarding the pending court action against Harcourt, I no longer see any purpose in rescinding the decision for parts(a) and (b). We have now received assurances from the Minister for Treasury and Resources that States Members will be in possession of all the financial opinion before contracts with the preferred developer are signed. I assume that that assurance will be honoured should a new Minister be imposed at Treasury and Resources. I know, Sir, though I cannot give a percentage and I do not have a red nose with me, there remains concern among members of the public regarding the proposed sunken road and the possibility of flooding. Obviously, the Masterplan will require and get a full environmental impact assessment. The Minister for Planning and Environment, Sir, is almost messianic in his belief about the overall improvements to all of St. Helier that this Masterplan will bring. I believe, Sir, we should proceed with the Masterplan albeit with caution and so, Sir, I will therefore not be supporting this proposition. Thank you.

4. Senator P.F. Routier:

We are today repeating obviously the debates we had a few weeks ago which at that time had overwhelming support. As the Bailiff indicated only yesterday when we started the censure motion on the Chief Minister, the themes of the debates we are now having are, in many ways, linked in different ways. Of course, quite rightly, having these debates again because of what happened just after the original debates I think is probably something that this House needs to have to reassure themselves that everything is in order. It was unfortunate that there was some misinformation out there and some erroneous comments were made during the debates, and that is obviously what has given rise to these debates today. But I accept that we all have to be sure that, now the information is available, we should continue with the Masterplan and the transfer of the land to W.E.B. I do hope that Members who previously supported the Masterplan can still accept that absolutely nothing has been revealed or changed that could or should affect our previous overwhelming decision to support the Masterplan. As the Planning Minister reminded Members yesterday, we would be losing all those marvellous public spaces and amenities and importantly we would be signalling to the finance industry that we are not prepared to provide them with modern offices in which they need to carry out their businesses. We must not forget that we are in competition with other jurisdictions and they are prepared, as we currently speak, to offer the finance businesses in the world, modern offices and we must be able to offer those facilities as well. Turning to the second part of the debate which transferred

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence :

May I seek a point of clarification from the Member? It is in the Minister's role as a director of W.E.B. What up-to-date assurances of information have we had from specific representatives of the finance industry as to forecast demand on office space that has been verified?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I have not had an overall report given to me but certainly I know that there are some people who are keen to get office space on the development. That is probably a question which is more rightly asked of the developer themselves who are taking the risk themselves; it is not the States who are taking the risk, it is the developer that is taking the risk. So I think that would probably be more a question that would be needed to be asked of them if they have the confidence to go ahead and fund the project themselves and to get that backing. We need to rely on them to make that judgment. Turning to the second part of the debate which transferred the road area to W.E.B. and agreed to proceed to compulsory purchase of a small piece of land near the cinema complex, I do hope that Members continue to accept that the previous decision that they made is still a viable decision. Assembling this land to allow the excellent Masterplan to proceed is the step we need to take before we can go on to the next step of concluding a deal with any developer. I understand that although the proposition which we approved was basically just to assemble the land together, that Members have understandably focused on the preferred developer. I think it was Senator Perchard who mentioned yesterday that the proposition was perhaps, on reflection, too helpful. It went on to talk about and give information about the current preferred developer and Members, quite rightly, are now wanting to ensure that the States and the public are protected sufficiently. Regardless of the previous out of date financial capacity report, there will be an up-to-date report carried out. There will be the requirement to have the vitally important bank guarantees. We know that the Scrutiny Panel together with their expert adviser have advised that the deal that is in place with the preferred developer is a good deal and it is W.E.B. themselves that have achieved that and it is recognised as being a good deal for the public. News to me yesterday, and I think to Members as well, was the very welcome announcement of the Treasury Minister that he is going to appoint an independent adviser with specific ability to review the deal and, importantly, he will share that information with all Members. I think when he announced that there was a resounding stamping of feet which I think, hopefully, should reassure Members that the deal will not go ahead unless he has had an independent person look at that and come to us and shared that information with us. I do hope that Members will feel able to maintain their support for the Masterplan and the transfer of land in the knowledge that there are still many more checks to be made on the eventual developer. I urge

Members to reject this proposition.

5. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

I think there is a risk that we are unnecessary prolonging this debate and I am going to keep my comments very brief. I am certainly not going to follow the example set by the Transport Minister who was a self-confessed stand-up comedian this morning, although there are a number of comments he made that have got to be addressed. I think he is very unjust on the proposer of this motion when he tries to minimise Deputy Baudains' concerns about connectivity. I made my position very clear when we originally debated this. Deputy Baudains is absolutely right to point out that the sinking of the road, while it will join up one part of this section of the waterfront, will lead to a very busy road along the Esplanade. I made this comment last time that the officers at T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) have told me that up to 1,100 an hour will be using the Esplanade which is, at the moment, quite an easy road for pedestrians to cross. So we are going to be getting a much busier road separating the waterfront from the town. For Deputy de Faye to

stand up like some apologist for pedestrian rights I really must say sticks in the craw a little given that I have had to bring to the States a proposition to put a pedestrian crossing to the library which he and his officers said was unnecessary. Equally, to hear him speak it in enthusiasm for his transport policy, which is now 2 and half years out of date, also takes some listening to, but clearly he is already beginning to think about how he is going to sell that to the electorate. The fact is to have done this without a transport policy was wrong. The context for the transport arrangements should have been established 2 years ago and then the Deputy 's officers could have worked away and solved some of these transport problems in good time. As it was, it was left very late and the Scrutiny Committee were seeing last minute traffic models which were literally hot off the computer which, frankly, do not remove the worry that many people have about traffic levels both under the road and around this scheme. I think those of us who now support the scheme, who were once opposed to it, have had to balance the obvious disbenefits. There are going to be traffic problems certainly initially and Deputy de Faye himself said on the radio: "Do not come to St. Helier for a few years." He is now distancing himself from those comments, but he certainly originally was very worried abut the traffic impacts and we are worried about them, we are going to monitor them and we are going to do all we can to mitigate them. The fact is there are benefits and I believe the benefits outweigh the disbenefits and without going on to them, I mean Deputy Baudains referred to St. Helier becoming one vast housing estate which is a curious position to take when you are dealing with the main accommodation provider of the Island. Would he rather have his 400 units in St. Clement I wonder. The fact is we do need high quality housing on the waterfront. We do not just want a City of London type business district which is empty after 5.00 p.m. We want people to be living there. Equally, questions have been raised about whether we need a new finance quarter. Well, at a recent presentation by a group that have been commissioned to do a study I raised this question and I was assured that we do and it is only common sense. Any offshore centre in the financial services industry, if they are offered a new finance quarter, what are they going to do? Are they going to turn it down and say: "No, we would rather not have it"? Of course, they are going to have it because it will be very useful for the finance industry, and we all know the knock on benefits that will flow from that as outworn office accommodation is converted for other uses, whether that is for retail in the old town or accommodation. We are going to get, we have been assured by the Minister, the sort of modern architecture that people will come to Jersey to look at and that has got to be a good thing. We are going to get a winter garden and so on. One thing I do want to thank Deputy Baudains for is what he has managed to winkle out of W.E.B. in the report that we have been given and he highlighted this in his proposing speech. The fact is the States agreed the amendment that I brought that would make sure that the receipts from the scheme up to £75 million would be used for much needed regeneration to offset some of the disbenefits that I have just referred to, and to make sure that Cinderella districts like La Motte Street, Snow Hill, Cheapside, Town Mills and so on do not suffer at the abstraction of business and life. That money is vital to make sure these districts are looked after and, yet, we learn from the comments that the first £8 million now are going to be used to buy some parking spaces by W.E.B. Now I have been assured by the Planning Minister and other Ministers that this is not going to happen and, of course, it cannot happen because the States have made a decision that this money is going to be used for regeneration, and buying spaces in underground car parking I do not believe fits that bill. But I do think that the Deputy has done a useful job in focusing attention, particularly on part 2 on the financial issues. My mind, as I say, has been made up after a difficult journey. Certainly there are going to be problems in this scheme and we are going to have to work to make sure those problems .. not only to St. Helier residents but to everybody who makes that east-west journey in many cases, particularly for haulage companies and taxi drivers and so on, many times a day. It is going to be an experience we are going to have to work on to make sure that the Island's main artery is not blocked underground for long periods of time. But, Sir, I believe that we need to move on. We have made this decision. It was made by a large majority. The finances are going to be further investigated. We are going to get all of that money for regeneration of the urban areas and I

believe, on balance, the benefits outweigh the disbenefits.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

A point of order, Sir. I do want to correct the Constable on a point where I think he may have unintentionally misled the House. He was quite right to say that our estimate is 1,200 vehicles will be going down the Esplanade per hour but that is in relation to the hour between 8.00 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. in the morning which is peak time. The rest of the day the traffic levels will be very, very significantly lower than that.

6. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour :

I was one of the few Members, if not the only Member, who abstained on part 2 of the said proposition last time and I did so for very good reasons. Those reasons, Sir, were explained at length to Members in this House. Essentially, it was on the basis that the House was not being presented with a full schedule of all the costs that would have to be picked up by the States or, indeed, by the developer or, indeed, the Parish or any other party. I was given some assurance during that debate that a schedule will be prepared overnight by the directors of W.E.B., but that report did not materialise in a written form and Senator Perchard chose instead to reveal some of the figures and deliver them by way of his speech. So as far as I am concerned, Sir, there is still a requirement to provide States Members with this schedule to show everybody once and for all what the benefit is in financial terms and other terms to the Island in respect of this development, should it go ahead. Although we have had an assurance from the Treasury Minister that an independent body will be set up to look into whether or not this deal is a good one, we do have the difficulty - well, I perceive it as a difficulty - that we have a W.E.B. board which we are told is an L.L.P. (Limited Liability Partnership) that has powers to do deals in its own name and we have the curious situation that some direction still has to be given through this House, through to the Treasury Minister, through to W.E.B., through to the developers and through to anybody else. I am pleased the Treasury Minister has picked up partially on this point and made the useful suggestion that there will be an independent reviewer of the deal. That said, Sir, before determining whether or not I can support the second part of this proposition as I did not do last time, I would like the assurance from the Treasury Minister that should this independent review go ahead that there will be an opportunity to all States Members to put their tuppence worth in - well, it may even be more than a tuppence worth - to be happy that there is a position for States Members to have some influence before the decision is made. The Treasury Minister was quite clear in what he was saying, that the document will be shown to States Members before he made the decision. I do realise that the Minister is given the responsibility for taking these decisions but I would, nevertheless, like to seek the assurance that even before the decision is taken there is an opportunity for all States Members to be party, if you like, to being happy that the decision that the Minister would take, or allow W.E.B. to take on our behalf, would be the one that is best for the Island and that we are assured of that before he goes ahead and finalises whatever deal. That is really all I wanted to say. If the Treasury Minister has an opportunity to give that assurance to the House then that will influence

my vote.

7. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen :

I think, firstly, I am certainly grateful for the Comptroller and Auditor General in his interim report to clarify who is responsible and oversees the Waterfront Enterprise Board. It is quite clear from that report that the Chief Minister exercises the rights of the public as shareholder in W.E.B. Equally, the Comptroller and Auditor General also highlights the responsibilities of the Treasury and Resources Minister for seeking and overseeing more of the financial aspects. I am subsequently pleased that over the past number of weeks that we have had assurances from both the Chief Minister and the Treasury Minister that they will indeed fulfil their roles and responsibilities as described. However, there are 3 areas that I would like and I believe have still not been clarified, and I would ask both the Chief Minister who, unfortunately, does not seem to be in the Chamber at the moment, and perhaps the Attorney General to help with. The first is directed at the Chief Minister. As we notice, and much play has been placed on the fact that capital funds raised from this development will be used to regenerate St. Helier and that it will, in fact, be part of a St. Helier regeneration strategy. However, to my knowledge although obviously reports have been written regarding the possible regeneration of St. Helier, the States as an Assembly has still yet to consider this or debate that strategy. I would ask that the Chief Minister could give an assurance that this strategy will, in fact, come in front of the States to be considered properly and fully, so indeed we can sign up to this proposal. Regarding clarification from the Attorney General, in light of Harcourt being selected by the Waterfront Enterprise Board as a preferred developer in March 2005 and heads of terms signed in July 2007, I would like to know are the States or the Waterfront Enterprise Board contractually committed to Harcourt and what are the likely consequences if Harcourt cannot meet the criteria as set out by the Treasury Minister in his recent assurances and the development agreement that I believe is still to be signed? The third area that I would like clarification on relates to the ongoing liability linked to the underground structures, including the sunken road. I acknowledge and accept totally that the initial construction of the underground road and the underground structures is the responsibility of Harcourt. However, once the ownership of the road and other underground structures are transferred to Property Holdings, as we are informed in the proposition, what will be the extent of the ongoing liability over the period of the 150 year lease? Are we to be responsible for such issues as concrete degradation, subsidence, water penetration and the like? Furthermore, does the liability cover the structural integrity of the tunnel and will this extend to the buildings that will be constructed over the sunken road and the roundabout? Thirdly, what will be the extent of the liability taken on by the Waterfront Enterprise Board if, as proposed, the 520 underground parking spaces are transferred to them? Finally, is the liability affected by the fact that the Transport and Technical Services Department will be supervising the construction of the underground road and, if so, how?

The Bailiff :

Attorney, do you want to deal with those questions at this stage?

Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

Well, as best I can. I am not sure I will be in any better place to deal with them later. The first question was whether or not the States or the Waterfront Enterprise Board are contractually committed to Harcourt given the heads of terms. Sir, this is not a document with which the Law Officers' Department have been concerned at least directly. It is, as I understand it, an arrangement between the Waterfront Enterprise Board and Harcourt and W.E.B., of course, have got their own private sector lawyers acting for them. My discussions with the lawyers in question suggest that as far as the Waterfront Enterprise Board is concerned, they consider that the Treasury and Resources Minister can say no, if I can put it that way, at any stage so although the Waterfront Enterprise Board has signed up the heads of terms with Harcourt, the basis of the heads of terms includes provision for the Treasury and Resources Minister, in effect, to put a block on the contractual arrangements. On the other questions put to me, as I read P.60 the land where the tunnel and the highway are to be constructed is going to be excluded after the construction is over from the W.E.B. lease and returned, in effect, to the public into Property Holdings where it will be under the administration of Transport and Technical Services. I have assumed that before that happens, W.E.B. will have granted long leases or will have committed to grant long leases of areas around the highway and the tunnel. It is likely that both the leases and, indeed, the highway works agreement, which will be a document developed for the purposes of setting out what the liabilities are, the obligations are and where they rest, will contain provisions which are relevant to the substructure and, therefore, relevant to this question of liability which the Deputy of St. Ouen raises. Where the liability lies will, I am sure, be primarily determined by the contractual documentation, and my understanding from the lawyers for the Waterfront Enterprise Board is that this documentation is still in the course of negotiation. It is not documentation with which I am concerned directly or, I think, maybe indirectly and I cannot do more than say as a matter of principle it seems to me that the liability will fall where that contractual documentation puts it and

at the moment the documentation is still being developed. So, accordingly, I cannot really answer the question at the moment but perhaps will add this. It is usual for the owner of land to have an obligation to support adjacent land and it would be unsurprising if Property Holdings did end up having some liability if the land - that is to say the tunnel and the highway - were not maintained and renewed as a result of which damage was caused to adjourning owners. It would be unsurprising if that were to be the result because the obligation to carry out the maintenance is being placed with Transport and Technical Services. Having said that, ultimately liability will almost certainly depend upon the contractual documentation which have yet to be settled. As far as the question of the parking space is concerned, I think I repeat the same answer. It is going to depend ultimately on the contractual documentation. The last question I understand was to what extent will that be affected if Transport and Technical Services are supervising the construction of the road? Well, claims for damages are, in this context, usually based either in contract or in tort. To the extent that Transport and Technical Services are part of the contract for the highway works, if they have supervising obligations then there may be a claim in contract if the Minister or department has fallen down in the obligations imposed by that contract. Even if not party to the contract, if there is, in fact, some supervision there may be the basis of a claim in tort if one can prove that the Minister owed the duty to the person who is making the claim. Unfortunately, without having all the facts it is a bit difficult to say whether or not that liability would or would not exist, but clearly the greater the degree to which Transport and Technical Services are involved in the management of or supervision of any part of the project, then to the extent losses flow, the greater the risk there is there might be some liability. I think that is obvious.

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

In light of the comments made by the Attorney General, and in view of the fact that the Chief Minister is responsible to exercise the right to the public as a shareholder in W.E.B., could I ask, again when the Chief Minister returns to this Assembly, whether he will give an assurance that the public interest will be properly managed and with regard to the legal aspect, and that the Attorney General will, indeed, be involved in reviewing and considering all the contracts that are being entered into by the Waterfront Enterprise Board prior to the signing of it?

The Bailiff :

I thought the Deputy Chief Minister or the Treasury Minister had already given an assurance very much along those lines, but perhaps he would like to respond.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

When I said I would require full advice on all aspects of the transaction, that would extend to the legal aspect and all the aspects of that contractual arrangement, and should I require, and I probably will, advice on the legal implications of that contract then I will turn to the States legal adviser to assist me and give me that advice in order that I can be satisfied. So the advice will extend totally to legal matters just as to all other matters.

8. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

When we last debated the waterfront development I expressed severe reservations about the fundamental linking between the economic and financial case being made out for the development and the nature of the development in its essence. The question today is did we, in that debate, have sufficient understanding and information on the financial and economical case and have we now today? The answer then was definitely, no, we did not have sufficient information on the economical and financial case on which the proposal is based. Today, is it any different? We have received the PwC ( Price waterhouseCoopers) report on the financial capacity assessment and we have seen that, indeed, it contains large areas of reservation and expressions of caution. But we are told, again, we are to ignore the fact that we appear to be running headlong, like some advertisement, with our arms open to a preferred developer. We have to ignore any of those reservations because nothing is signed yet. Yet, our director on W.E.B.'s board who has a duty to keep us informed and to look out for our interests, when asked a fundamental question a short while ago by Deputy Le Fondré, whether the demand for all this office space is proven, all our representative can say is: "Well, I have received an approach by one businessman who said he would like some office space but I do not know what the case is" and expresses complete ignorance of what the proven case is for the demand for all this office space and then says: "You would have to ask the developer." The developer who is not the developer because we are supposed to ignore that he is the developer because he is Harcourt. So if you want to know what the case is, they are taking the risk so ask them but do not pay any attention to any detailed analysis of what they are doing. It seems to me, yet again, that we are taking steps in the blind. Now we are told that, of course, it was not appropriate to show us this documentation then. We did not need to know about that, but if we proceed we are now guaranteed to know every little jot and tittle of analysis that now gets done on financial capacity and due diligence, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, because it is absolutely important that we do; that we can proceed with confidence. In future, you will know everything apparently. In the past, we knew nothing. Not relevant. Do we today know any more about the solidity of the case being made? I do not believe we do. Do we know any more about office demand guaranteed or otherwise? No, we do not. Do we know any more about the displacement of activities whether retail or office space in the old town? No, we do not. Do we know any more about in our case the impact upon the building trade during the 10 years that this goes on and where those builders will come from? Will they be local, will they not be? Do we know anything more about what the profit made over 150 years on this development is going to be and where will it be? We know a little more because we were informed yesterday that Harcourt, not that we are supposed to look at Harcourt because they are only a preferred developer and not the real thing, are past masters says the Constable of Grouville , at hiding profit and I should not be surprised that they only make £2 million profit on £1.1 billion worth of assets because that is what they do; they employ accountants to make sure the profit margin stays low so that we will not be seeing a nice little take of that because it will be elsewhere or it will be hidden. So where is the leakage in terms of this development? Where is the benefit to us? The benefit comes in this £75 million that we are told is going to go to regeneration, to patch up and make good some of the

damage that we are likely to do by going forward with this massive development on the waterfront. Finally, do we know or are we just guessing or are we, as I think is the case, just crossing our fingers and hoping that, for example, this office space will be needed? It will be displaced. It will be; offices moving and it will not be in competition with a dozen office sites already going up and we will not be sucking in new companies, but if we are, that is a good idea anyway, and new employees, and having a recipe, once again, for massive economic growth, massive population growth. Is that the future? I believe this is. I voted against this last time. I will vote against this, this time.

9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I calculated yesterday that the last 2 days of debate consumed in excess of 1,000 hours of Members of this Assembly's time in debate, man and woman time. I am not sure what amount of per hour cost but I calculated that the debate of direct cost probably costs in excess of between £20 and £30. I have to say, what did we achieve apart from perhaps having a cathartic debate on the improvements that are no doubt required of ministerial government? I think it has achieved nothing, and I have to say that this proposition in my view will achieve nothing. I think Members of this Assembly are sending a message that they want to be mechanics and not destructors. Sir, I want to just take very briefly a step back. I think all Members of this Assembly would agree that the current waterfront is an embarrassment. As somebody not responsible for that original Masterplan [Members: Oh!] and those Members that perhaps were, we can look back and we can all say that we are unhappy with a nightclub, fast food joints, cheap architectural, a warehouse cinema, a 6 lane highway. It is not a waterfront that we can be proud of. I think that this Assembly is in a position of having a plan that because of the work of the Planning Minister and W.E.B. that we can develop a waterfront that we can be proud of. Three weeks ago we approved a visionary inspirational plan. Three weeks ago we approved a plan with beautiful buildings, a fantastic opportunity to create public realm, a lowered square, a winter garden; a Masterplan which will, to a great extent, repair the damage of the past. A waterfront which will deliver a St. Helier with a sense of place and a sense of destination, a waterfront that will deliver world class architecture, much needed environmentally friendly, environmentally sensitive modern office space; accommodation that we need. I would venture to suggest that the plan that we achieved and which is sought to be rescinded will lead to the repairing, dare I say it, even to the tearing down of some of the buildings on the existing waterfront. It is a wonderful opportunity and I would be devastated to lose it. I do not think the majority of Members want to tear that down. I do want, Sir, just to address 3 or 4 issues that Deputy Baudains raised. Is there demand for the offices needed? Is it acceptable for there to be one developer? Is the plan deliverable, and are there sufficient controls in place to deliver the plan? I will say just one thing before addressing those 4 points to say that there are, as in the debates yesterday, clearly lessons to be learned in the way that we deliver on the waterfront and there are issues about W.E.B. which we will come on to and deliver. There are opportunities to improve the corporate governance arrangements, to improve the arrangements we Ministers and the board and those will be taken on board, and lessons have been learnt. But just dealing with these 4 issues. Is the office accommodation demanded? I have discussed with my department, with the Planning Department, with Jersey Finance and others whether or not the office accommodation that was set out in the plan of 400,000 square feet is needed and my conclusion is that it is. It is not net new financial office accommodation. It is, in part, some new demand but it is in large measure transferring of existing accommodation in town. There are too many of our financial institutions operating inefficiently out of 3, 4, 5, in some cases 6 sites in St. Helier; old B class offices that need to have an alternative residential use. This plan gave us the opportunity to deliver that. I have no doubt in my position responsible for economic development in informing the Assembly that the demand is there but it is not net new demand, it is transfer and it will give the opportunity of delivering the Constable of St. Helier's vision of a regenerated town, and that is something that this Assembly, I would have thought, wants to warmly endorse. Deputy Baudains asked the question about a single developer and Deputy Baudains asked whether or not the Economic Development Minister was concerned about that with all of the history that we have about putting in place a Competition Law and monopoly divisions and all the rest of it, and it is something that I have given very careful detailed consideration on and, indeed, discussed with the J.C.R.A. (Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority). The conclusion is the following - one developer is needed to deliver the infrastructure under which the site works. Effectively, you cannot have 2 developers delivering a tunnel and a car park and there will be one developer that will, as a consequence of that, deliver the hundreds of thousands of square feet of office accommodation. But is that going to put a monopoly position in the market place? Well, it will not because there is also the opportunity of the period of the stretch of land between the Pomme D'Or Hotel and the existing H.S.B.C. building of other accommodation that will also transfer from other areas of town. There will not be a single monopoly provider of office accommodation and that after having researched the matter, after having taken advice, brings to the conclusion that there is not an issue about a dominant position in office accommodation. There will remain to be a competitive offering of office accommodation supply in the area between the Pomme D'Or and the H.S.B.C. building. I think Members can visualise exactly what that means in terms of alternative

supply. So Members can take comfort from that and Deputy Baudains, I think, will discount that as a reason for going with the plan. Is the plan deliverable? I believe the plan is deliverable and I think the deal that has been negotiated and of course, is subject to, which is the final point, significant sufficient controls, is deliverable. Deputy Baudains is also seeking, of course, the rejection of the second part of the proposition. There have been, I think, some Members understandably so perhaps, confused about exactly what we were approving in part 2. We were not approving the Harcourt deal. We were approving the deal of the transfer of land and I am reassured to hear the additional controls that have been put in place by the Treasury Minister with independent advice and he has, of course, explained to the Assembly that that advice will be shared

with Members. Members can, therefore, take additional reassurance from these greater controls and, yes, greater transparency in relation to the deal. Part (a), as the Planning Minister has already explained, has been perhaps rendered, unfortunately, impossible to achieve because the Masterplan has been adopted. Part (b) Members can take considerable comfort from not only the issues of competition but the additional controls that have been put in place that the deal is deliverable. I urge Members to reject the proposition.

10. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

If Deputy Baudains wants this House to rescind the Masterplan for the Esplanade Quarter and in these comments he states: "That some Members adopt a let us stop talking about this and get on with it." This is the biggest decision that States have made and information is either absent or misleading. Well, Sir, after 20 years of thinking, talking, discussing, planning the Esplanade Quarter then, Deputy Baudains, I put my hands up and say: "I am the one who let us stop talking and get on with it." The House, in their wisdom, recently endorsed the Masterplan. To remind Members, a Masterplan is one part of a series of steps. If the Minister's planning had not brought this plan, then quite rightly the House would be very concerned. The aim of any Masterplan is to provide a coherent and deliverable vision for the waterfront; what we all want. The Minister, quite rightly, wants the best for the waterfront and for Jersey and went to 5 world renowned architects and they all said that sinking the road was essential. But Deputy Baudains thinks otherwise - sinking the road is not essential but getting rid of that awful underpass or removing the 6 lane highway .. but also there will be other improvements for pedestrians, the end of Castle Street, the improvement of Victoria Avenue, and St. Aubins Road junction as well. There will also be easier pedestrian access above ground. Deputy Baudains also comments that roads do not link the old town with the new but I totally disagree. If the Deputy went down Castle Street to the Leisure Centre he would have the choice to walk through the main square, the colonnade area and then cross a 2 laned tree lined boulevard. Is that not more beneficial than crossing 6 lanes? If the Deputy decides to walk down Gloucester Street, you could walk along the tree laned Esplanade to the Winter Garden; then again only 2 lanes of traffic. The Deputy mentioned that the public had contacted him and voiced their concerns but there has been a great deal of public consultation held over 3 months at the end of last year, an exhibition at the old Tourism Office, well over 600 people viewed and commented on the plans. Also, there have been well over 400 separate written submissions. The Deputy says we have failed to carry the public with us. Well, I do not accept that. The Minister has taken into account all the responses. The Deputy obviously comments in his report that: "Members were not offered any alternate design." That is not the point. The Masterplan sets down perimeters to which the developer will work to and ensure it is delivered to high standards. Can you imagine if the Minister brought 3 or 4 alternate designs for this House to decide on? A panel of 53 Members does not bear thinking about. If the rescindment is not thrown out, then we as an Assembly have lost the chance of a waterfront which will have high architectural standards, important open public spaces, a Winter Garden, a financial service centre and also be able to deliver 400 much needed affordable residential accommodation for Islanders right on the waterfront, plus £50 million plus to regenerate Old Town. Do we really want to throw that out? Much has been said about the environment impact study, an amount of recessment, an amount to be recycled, but all this information will be part of the application process and it will go through Jersey's first public hearing prior to the Minister making his final decision. This is an exciting opportunity for Jersey and I urge Members not to support this rescindment. The time for talking

and putting off a decision is gone. The time has come to get on with it.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Can I ask a point of clarification of the previous speaker? She mentioned the word "affordable accommodation". Could the speaker say how, in what way, this is supposed to be "affordable accommodation"?

The Deputy of Trinity :

In the way, Sir, that it will be for Islanders, there will be accommodation and it will be set at market value and it will be for Islanders especially.

11. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Perhaps I expressed certain reservations over the proposed waterfront scheme during the first reference back brought by the Deputy of St. Ouen on the Masterplan. It is not particularly about the look of the scheme. It was certainly not about the road. It was about, in my view, more fundamental matters such as economic impact and those types of things. At the time I remained concerned over the issues but was brought back into the fold, so to speak, by assurances given by the Minister for Planning and Environment quite literally just before the vote. Part 2 of the proposition of the day is and was just a land swap facilitating the scheme. Within the hours of that vote, it became evident that certain issues were not really as were first represented and, as a result, W.E.B. have recently informed us that no deals will be signed off until after the Dublin court case in October. The fact that additional information has come to light has created the public perception that certain elements of either W.E.B. or perhaps even within the States, have not done their job and/or have not passed on the information that they either had in their possession or should have identified as part of the professional duty to properly advise those that they advise [Interruption]. Sorry, Sir, I can hear a conversation murmuring off in the distance.

The Bailiff :

Yes, I wonder if Members would allow the Deputy to address the Assembly.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

The outcome of this has been one of the biggest blows to public confidence in this Assembly, to public trust that I have ever come across. I have to say I have been stopped in the street more times on this than I have ever, for example, on G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax). As an aside, Sir, and this will no doubt be analysed further in the next debate, but I am not entirely sure that that particular proposition is aimed at the right target. It is all very well stating that lessons have been learnt. This is the biggest transaction in recent history on the Island. Well, this is one of the biggest transactions in the recent history of the Island. We have many deals perhaps of several hundred million pounds worth of construction going on.

Senator F.H. Walker :

Sir, I do apologise to the Deputy . I did make a comment which was supposed to be quieter than it obviously was. The point I was making is that P.60 does not refer to the deal.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Sorry, the inference then is that this will lead to one of the biggest transactions in the Island and I take the point, Sir. But, in my mind, this may well be the straw that has broken the camels back, but it was a fairly large straw.  Now, I was pulled up for my reservations over the economic impact upon St. Helier and I do seem to recall that States Members were told somewhere in the debate, possibly on a number of occasions, that all the work had been done. The Minister for Planning and Environment has stated that a rescindment would be destructive, that he is trying to be constructive to do positive politics and great, and I do share his frustration at the levels of negativity that can arise. But, please, do not take a dissenting view as being automatically negative. I revert to the analogy of buying a new car. I have seen one I like. It looks great, the body work is sleek, it seems reliable but I still want to know what the engine is like. I want to know what the safety rating is and I want to know what the price is. It is no good me drooling over something if I cannot afford it. The Minister for Planning and Environment spoke very eloquently. He has encapsulated his vision. He has a dream. His concern that a rescindment will threaten the Winter Garden, the delightful colonnading, the water square, the granite, the whole politeness of a proportionately designed scheme espousing the very best of architectural design, emphasising the Jersey vernacular and these are all things that appeal to us, that is what we want to buy into. Senator Ozouf is correct. This appears to be a good scheme relative to what we already have down there. But I want to know what is under the bonnet. Since that debate I have pursued the reports that have been referred to and which have been produced. I emailed a variety of individuals and the economic adviser very kindly forwarded to me, and I believe subsequently to States Members, the report from February 2006. Unfortunately, he could not provide anything else because it is confidential to W.E.B. The Executive Director of W.E.B. has never replied to my request for information. So from the information I have got the economic review is well over 2 years old and related to a different scheme. The due diligence was prepared between July and September 2007, i.e. at least 10 months ago, just around the time that the credit crunch was starting to be talked about and perhaps not really impacting at that point. During his opening speech on the Masterplan debate, the Minister did refer to certain aspects of the financial benefits arising from the scheme and you can look that up on Hansard. It was a very rosy picture that was painted and provided everything works out on the night, hopefully it will be all right and will come to fruition. But the trouble with the debate thus far is that Members are focused on the visual delight of the scheme. In other words, that is less talking, let us get on with it; it is a good scheme. But this is the equivalent of looking at a car that we may not be able to afford or is mechanically unreliable. Love it, here is my credit card. Therefore, I want to see what is under the bonnet because what about if a different scenario arises? Let us go forward to 2012 where the economic climate has changed very significantly compared to that of now, in the middle of 2008. The credit crunch has reverberated onwards in conjunction with continued rises in oil, steel and cement prices. The developer is in financial difficulty and is not meeting targets. The deal either has to be renegotiated or the developer goes bust. While negotiations take place, the developer does go bust. The States through W.E.B. wish to exercise their step-in rights because otherwise there is a huge risk of ending up with a plighted incomplete scheme and it then transpires that there is some additional unforeseen exposure, perhaps involvement of other third parties or perhaps that a new contractor will charge significantly more to complete someone else's scheme, particularly if the physical works need to be guaranteed. The guaranteed returns have to be ploughed back into W.E.B. in order for the scheme to be completed. There is no regeneration money for St. Helier and in order to keep the site viable because although it has been granted, of course, to the States, it has to be ploughed back into the actual W.E.B. scheme to get it completed. In order to keep the site viable rents are reduced, retailer and restaurateurs do move to the new waterfront when it is fully completely and the impact upon St. Helier are such that the central market has to close due to loss of footfall. There is no money within the States' coffers to preserve the markets and they fall into disrepair. That is an incredibly negative picture, okay? [Laughter] It is not meant to be destructive but I want to know and I would expect on a project of this magnitude that all the research has been done, not just architecturally, not just on what visually it is going to look like but on the fundamentals. For example, on safe guards on various economic and social forces that might result in different economic outcomes to where we are at present and how those will be safeguarded against. As of today, that work either has not been done or has not been presented in such a way that we, as States Members, have a clear picture of it. I do have to say, I think those are fairly reasonable questions to ask and I have become concerned because the information does not seem to have been forthcoming until this became a hot potato. As far as I am concerned, that work should have been done by the professionals as a matter of course not just because it has suddenly become awkward. Therefore, I go back to having the following issues. What is the impact on St. Helier ? We do not know. Will it threaten the viability of the markets, the centre market and the fish market for example? Will putting something like 42,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space in addition to the extra capacity being provided in Castle Quays and on Liberty Wharf have an impact on the main town and what is Island capacity for restaurant retail space? Where is the analysis based on a commercial basis for viability for operating on an Island with more expensive operating costs than the U.K.? Not from economic theory, but on the basis of harsh commercial reality. Now, I believe an exercise is being performed, but it should have been done beforehand and it is interesting to note as an aside that the 2006 economic impact report considers that there is no actual economic benefit