States Meeting Transcript - 05/06/2008

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

THURSDAY, 5th JUNE 2008

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................6

1. Esplanade Quarter, St. Helier : Masterplan (P.60/2008) (continued)....................6

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ................................................6 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):.......................................................6

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................7 Senator J.L. Perchard:..........................................................................8 Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:.................................................................8
2. Senator F.H. Walker :....................................................................8 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour : ......................................................8 Senator F.H. Walker :..........................................................................9
3. Senator P.F. Routier: ....................................................................9
4. Senator T.J. Le Main: ....................................................................9
5. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier : ...........................................................9
6. Senator J.L. Perchard:....................................................................9
7. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:....................................................9
8. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:................................................9
9. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ............................................10
10. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................10
11. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier : ................................................10
12. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :...............................................11 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................11 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................12 Senator F.H. Walker :.........................................................................12
13. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:....................................................12
14. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................12 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................14

2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................15 Mr. Timothy John Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:....................................16 Deputy S.C. Ferguson:........................................................................16
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................16

1. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................18
2. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................18
3. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:......................................................18
4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................19

5. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................19
6. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................20
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................20 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................21

4. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................21

1. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................25

2. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey:...............................27
3. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................27
4. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................29
5. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................30
6. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................30
7. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................31
8. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................31
9. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................31 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................34

2. Draft Non-Profit Organizations (Jersey) Law 200- (P.63/2008)........................35

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):...............35

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................38
2. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:.......................................................39
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................39
4. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................40
5. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................40
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................41
7. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:....................................................41
8. Connétable G.W. Fisher of St. Lawrence:..............................................41
9. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................42
10. The Connétable of Grouville :........................................................43
11. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John:......................................................43 Senator F.H. Walker :.........................................................................44

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................44 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................44

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................45

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER .....................................45 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................45 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:....................................................................45 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................45 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:.....................................................................45

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued)................................................................46

12. The Dean of Jersey:..................................................................46
13. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................47 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................49 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):............50

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................50 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................50

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................50
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................51 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:.....................................................................51 Deputy P.N. Troy : ............................................................................51 The Solicitor General:........................................................................51 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................52
   3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................52

1. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................52
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................53

4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................53

1. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................53
2. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................54
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................54
4. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................56
5. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................58
6. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................58
7. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................59
8. The Connétable of St. Ouen:............................................................59

9. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................60
10. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................60
11. Deputy A. Breckon: .................................................................61
12. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan:.................................................................62
13. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................62
14. Deputy P.N. Troy :...................................................................63
15. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................63
16. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................63
17. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................63 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................65

5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................66 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................66
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................66
7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................67

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................67
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................67

8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................67 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................68
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................68
10. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................69 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................69
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................69

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................69

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................69
2. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................69
3. Deputy A. Breckon: .................................................................70
4. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................70 The Deputy of St. Ouen:......................................................................70 The Solicitor General:........................................................................70
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................71 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................71

12. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................72

2.12.1 Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................72 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................73

13. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................73

2.13.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................73 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................73

14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................73 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................74
15. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................74
16. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................74 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................74

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................74

2. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian : ..........................................................75
3. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................75
4. Senator M.E. Vibert :................................................................75
5. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................75
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................76 The Solicitor General:........................................................................76 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................77 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................77

17. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................77 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................77
18. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................78 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................78

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................78
2. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................78
3. Senator M.E. Vibert :................................................................78
4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................78
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................79 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................79

19. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................80
20. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................80 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................80

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................81 The Deputy of St. Martin:....................................................................81 The Solicitor General:........................................................................81
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................82 The Solicitor General:........................................................................82 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................83

21. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................83

1. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan:.................................................................84
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................84 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................84

22. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................84
23. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................85 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................85

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................85
2. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................85
3. Senator M.E. Vibert :................................................................85
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................86 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................86

24. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................87

1. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................87
2. Deputy J.J. Huet:....................................................................87
3. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................87
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................87 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................88

STATEMENT ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY.........................88

3. Statement by the Chief Minister in relation to legal action concerning the proposed developer of the Esplanade Quarter, St. Helier . ........................................88

3.1 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):.............................................88 Senator M.E. Vibert :..........................................................................89 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): ................89 Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):....89 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................90 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................90 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:......................................................................90 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................90 The Connétable of St. Clement:..............................................................90 The Deputy of St. Mary:......................................................................91

4. Public Employees Contributory Retirement Scheme: Committee of Management – appointment of Chairman (P.69/2008)..................................................91

4.1 Deputy I.J. Gorst (Assistant Minister, Treasury and Resources Department - rapporteur): .........................................................................................91 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................91 Senator M.E. Vibert :..........................................................................92 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................92 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................92

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................92

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Esplanade Quarter, St. Helier : Masterplan (P.60/2008) (continued)

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well, the debate now resumes on paragraph 2 of the proposition of the Council of Ministers relating to the Esplanade Master Quarter. Deputy Baudains?

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement :

Thank you, Sir. What I would like to do this morning is respond to some of the comments made by the Chief Minister yesterday in his opening speech. Because it does seem that we have a difficulty with this proposition in that yesterday we were not allowed to deal with financial issues, it was down to part (2), but of course part (2) is likewise constrained so I am restricting myself to the matters raised in the Minister's opening speech. First of all, he asked where Deputy Baudains' proposed new offices should be built if not on the Waterfront. Well, I am happy to oblige him with that answer, Sir, and I have no hesitation in stating what I have maintained for years, that the [Interruption] I have no hesitation in restating that I believe they should be built in the west of the Island, perhaps near the airport because that would address 2 issues; easier travel for the much- vaunted visiting high-flying businessman, no pun intended, and resolution of our traffic problems, because as long as we build housing in one place and offices in another we create the need to commute. Offices in the west would enable people living in that part of the Island to get employment that did not involve driving into town. So I hope the Planning Minister will take note of that. Another issue the Chief Minister raised yesterday, Sir, was the fact that apparently we had had various checks done on the preferred developer for financial robustness and gearing and that sort of thing and I have to ask, I hope in his summing up the Minister will address whether this was done before or after the subprime crisis, Sir? I would like to ask him why, for instance, we have not been told that the company apparently 18 months ago owed its bankers 345 million euros? Why we have not been told that apart from excellent people such as Andrew Parker-Bowles being a director there were previously directors such as former Sinn Fein vice-presidents arrested for prevention of terrorism, questioned regarding I.R.A. (Irish Republican Army) money laundering and that sort of thing? Why were Members not told that last month the firm that we are about to deal with was actioned in Las Vegas in a billion dollar lawsuit, which may be highly relevant to our proposition, Sir, because the lawsuit alleges breach of contract, a failure to [Interruption] I

thought I was speaking.

Senator F.H. Walker :

The Deputy is misleading the States. There has been and there is no lawsuit in Las Vegas. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

As I was saying, Sir, the lawsuit alleges breach of contract, failure to perform funding obligations and breach of fiduciary duty. Apparently the company defaulted on its funding obligations only last October. I think we should remember, Sir, that in the U.S. (United States) if you are found at fault, you not only pay what you owe but punitive damages as well. So what I would like to suggest, Sir, is that we have a reference back to enable us to get an up-to-date and full analysis of this company. It does not appear to me to be the company that was described by the Chief Minister this morning, Sir. So I would propose such an event because I do not think it seems to me that either the information we were given is out of date or it is inaccurate.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I just need to clarify, Deputy , the precise grounds for the reference back are that simple issue that you wish the States be provided with further information on the company with which W.E.B.(Waterfront Enterprise Board) intends to transact under paragraph (2) of the proposition?

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I beg your pardon, Sir?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The precise grounds for the reference back are simply on the simple grounds that you think the States require further information about the company - the development company- there are no other grounds?

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

That is correct, Sir.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): No other grounds for the reference back? Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

No other grounds whatsoever, Sir. The fact, relating to what we were told by the Chief Minister yesterday, that apparently checks and balances have been carried out. What I want to be certain of before we enter into any contract with this company is that the facts that we have been given are correct and not as laid out in various publications as I have laid before the States this morning.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is the proposition for a reference back seconded? [Seconded] Well, I am prepared to allow the proposition, therefore Deputy Baudains has proposed that the part (2) be referred back so that further information on the preferred developer can be presented to Members.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The debate is open on the proposition for a reference back. Deputy Southern ?

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

Indeed, yes, the financial and economic implications of the deal we are about to enter into which formed, if you like, an adjacent part of the previous reference back on the paragraph (1) are now coming to light. While it does not form specifically part of this particular reference back from Deputy Baudains, there are further issues that

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well, I think we need to keep to this one at the moment, Deputy . We can always have another one later.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

That impinges on why Members may consider that they do not have sufficient information in order to allow them to vote for, at this stage, paragraph (2). For example, in the Corporate Services report on the Waterfront  proposals, they refer  to  but have  not  concentrated on the economic adviser's report to the Council of Ministers on the economic impact of the proposals for the development of the Waterfront in February 2006. Now I think they, whatever those comments are, should be made available to this House because this is central to what we are about to do. What is the economic and indeed social impact of these proposals? Now, I have been seeking

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Deputy , I must stop you going too far down this route. There will be a further debate resuming, there may even be, dare I say it, further grounds for further reference back, but at the moment there is a very narrow issue before the Assembly which is do Members wish further information about the preferred developer? You can come back to these issues. I am not saying you cannot debate them at some stage today. We must not go too far down this route unless it is relevant to

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I know and I wish to tag them on to the reference back because only this morning I was refused access to that documentation. Now that leaves me and my panel in a dilemma. Despite our work, the workload we have at the moment, I am seriously tempted to call in this particular the second part of this particular document for the economic aspects which is the brief of my panel, not the contractual or the corporate services aspects of this particular deal which is my brief. Now a reference back will give us some time to examine not just the aspects that this reference back is made of, but also other aspects which are of deep concern both to me and my panel, without the necessity to call in and do a 6-week quick review on what is going on. So I am supporting this reference back because I do not believe anybody in this room has sufficient information about the financial and economic aspects of this deal to, with their hand on their heart, safely say they can confidently go ahead at this stage and we do need a little time. This is one way of getting that time and getting further information.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Point of order, if I may on the last speaker. Will the chairman of the Scrutiny Panel that looked into the Waterfront deal with Harcourt confirm that the socio-economic impact assessments were made fully available to the panel?

Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter :

If it assists the Assembly, yes, they were, Sir, and they were reviewed in the light of the terms of reference of our panel.

2. Senator F.H. Walker :

Can I emphasise first of all let me say: "Here we go again", any excuse to get a reference back and to delay taking a decision. But the Deputy did mislead the House in his earlier speeches. There is no legal dispute in Las Vegas. Has there been an issue between Harcourt and one of their proposed partners in Las Vegas? Yes. Has there been a legal suit on the back of it? No. Has the partner or the former partner invested any money in the scheme? No. It is purely a Harcourt financial deal and to suggest that there is a legal suit is quite, quite misleading. In terms of due diligence, the ruler has been run over Harcourt so thoroughly on so many occasions and they have come up A1 in every instance. I would refer the House to something I referred to in my speech yesterday, the Price waterhouseCoopers financial capacity audit which confirmed that Harcourt are low geared, very well placed particularly since the subprime crisis, very well placed because of the capital available to them and their low gearing to undertake this development. Also another report was commissioned by an outfit called Risk Advisory and they did a sort of Dun & Bradstreet check on Harcourt. They checked into the business activities of Harcourt, they checked into the probity of Harcourt and they checked into the individuals who sit on Harcourt's board and their dealings as well. You could not have had a much more thorough review of the company if you tried. Sir, it grieves me that the Deputy should again wait until we are in this debate to raise what may be legitimate questions but which could so easily have been answered had he bothered to approach anyone - me or anyone else - to ask those questions. I see no basis on the facts I have put before the House on this, no basis whatsoever that justify a reference back. All the investigatory work has been undertaken and Harcourt have come out of it in good shape and we have no hesitation at all in recommending that they should continue to be the preferred developer.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour :

On a point of clarification, could the Chief Minister reassure the House that the specific allegation made by the Deputy of St. Clements re. a link to terrorist financing, that was indeed investigated and an exoneration was obtained? Was that indeed what happened?

Senator F.H. Walker :

Yes, Sir.

3. Senator P.F. Routier:

I would just like to re-emphasise the point the Chief Minister has made about the due diligence which was taken out on the company. I have sat in meetings myself where there has been very high-level discussions about the specific issue that the previous speaker has spoken about and they have been given the all-clear on that. There has been obviously there were some concerns raised in the early days and that has been confirmed that there are no concerns with regard to the probity of the company. The most recent issues with regard to the financial standing of the company they are a top company; they have a very low gearing; they are able to provide this development to a very high standard; they are working in so many different jurisdictions currently and we would be really foolish to miss this opportunity of working with this company.

4. Senator T.J. Le Main:

Just to confirm that several weeks ago I was in Ireland and I made inquiries about Harcourt. They are a highly-regarded development company in Ireland and particularly in the Dublin area and have a very high standing.

5. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier :

This is going to be my shortest speech ever, Sir. As a director of W.E.B. could I say in complete agreement with Senator Routier, the word is "ditto".

6. Senator J.L. Perchard:

Also, it is a responsibility that falls upon directors of companies to ensure that those that they do business with are creditable and it was as we were talking seriously with Harcourt that we decided at W.E.B. to undertake a second due diligence of the company and we engaged Price waterhouseCoopers to do that. As the Chief Minister said, this last year the report from Price waterhouseCoopers on Harcourt was a glowing one, saying that they are a very lowly geared company, dynamic company and they recommended them as a suitable developer for us to talk to. There were no concerns. So the Deputy 's claims which I think he must have researched on the internet last night from somebody's blog, are completely false. The due diligence has been taken out on Harcourt, they are a reputable company and I urge the States to ignore the sleight placed upon them by the Deputy . It is the responsibilities of directors of companies to ensure that those they do business with are creditable and I know that we have, we have at W.E.B. taken these rumours seriously and we have double-checked by engaging PwC to do a due diligence on the company. Sir, I personally am satisfied that they are a very reputable business.

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

On downloading some articles from the Las Vegas business firms yesterday evening, it is alleged that there are court actions with Harcourt, both in America and certainly in looking at the commercial High Court action list for Dublin it would appear that Harcourt Developments are in negotiation or discussions or whatever - court cases - as one would expect any development company to be. Whether or not there is anything to be worried about is debatable and I think this is one of the reasons that Deputy Baudains is asking for further information in order again to assure himself and others that the due diligence has been performed and indeed the credentials of the company have been properly looked at and everything is above board.

8. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

I rise as a member of the Economic Development Scrutiny Panel and speak in a degree of support for the chairman who, I think, is doing as his heart dictates in that the to the responsibility of the Economic Development Scrutiny Panel to look at these things. However, one has to look at the end

result. Harcourt have been scrutinised twice now, we hear. They have been scrutinised in depth. What are the Economic Development Scrutiny Panel going to do, how are they going to do it? They will have to employ a third company, probably top accountants, to do probably exactly the same thing. So the result will be, I strongly suspect, the same. The costs will be in addition and I feel there is very little to gain. So, regrettably, chairman, I do not think I could support your moves.

9. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

In my Scrutiny work, the panel has, on a number of occasions, made reference to the fact in our reports that this House is not presented with enough information when propositions are brought forward to make an informed decision. I believe that in this case, those who have brought this forward should have anticipated questions of this kind being raised within this House. In that anticipation they should have put something to the effect that this has been going on, that due diligence has been undertaken on this company and perhaps even appended some of the due diligence that has come back from, in this case, Price waterhouseCoopers and I think it is naïve of them to bring a proposition of this substance without having done that and without being prepared to answer the questions. I would urge all of those bringing propositions in the future to be aware of this and to acknowledge that this House wants the information and should have it beforehand.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

On a point of clarification, Sir, the court case was filed on 30th April this year.

10. Senator F.E. Cohen:

I am very uncomfortable with some of the comments that are being made. I do not know, as I have said many times, much about the detail of the deal. I have not been involved in the negotiations of the deal or in any of the due diligence, but if I were the developer I am not sure that I would like to be exposed to this sort of debate in public. It may be perfectly appropriate that Members ask questions, but I think if we continue in this vein it would be appropriate to go in camera.

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

In relation to if I may assist the Assembly, Sir, the information which we are talking about is in the public domain.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

It is the inference that is being put upon information that appears to have been derived from downloading from websites. You can get any rubbish that you want from websites, I do not know whether the material that has been downloaded is accurate or not, but I do know that if I was Harcourt I would not be very happy about this sort of discussion taking place in the public domain and I therefore would propose that if it is to continue we go into camera.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well, it is your prerogative to propose the Assembly sits in camera. Is that proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to speak on the proposition that the Assembly should sit in camera to continue this part of the debate?

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

Yes, simply I do not think we should continue this part of the debate in camera because I want to speak on the reference back, I will have one or 2 words about use of parliamentary privilege and its appropriate use. But I think that is about as far as we have gone. The damaging statements have already been made, so I really see no point in pulling the shutters down at this stage.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

We will put the matter to the vote. Those Members in favour of the proposition of Senator Cohen kindly show? Those against? Assembly will continue in public Assembly. Deputy de Faye?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

Really to continue on what I have just referred to. Parliamentary privilege is a very important feature of democracy and partly because of that we really should treat it with some respect. 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. It is my understanding that in fact there is no lawsuit. There is a bit of whiff and puffery going on on the internet, but that is as far as it goes and Members perhaps ought to consider what they say in this Chamber and whether they would be prepared to repeat it in the Royal Square. That is a point, I think, worth bearing in mind in this instance. But whether or not there is indeed a lawsuit going on in another jurisdiction has, quite frankly, absolutely no relevance to this proposition. This proposition is about the contract that relates to the proceedings that will follow on from the Masterplan and I think most Members who have a bit of worldly-wise knowledge will immediately appreciate that as soon as you are a company or organisation of a certain stature, it is almost inevitable that you may well be finding yourself handling some form of legal proceedings somewhere in your international operations while your other operations are proceeding entirely smoothly in the remaining jurisdictions. So, whatever indeed is going on and my understanding is that there is absolutely nothing going on, as has been alleged. As I say, Sir, it is of absolutely no relevance to the proposition before this House and indeed the contracts, as I understand it, are being effectively guaranteed and insured by various very substantial financial organisations and banks who certainly would not have stuck their necks out in that way if there was any form of blemish in respect of the company with which we are dealing. I think that once again we have a number, a small cadre of Members, fighting a Dunkirk-type action to divert us from the appropriate course. A completely unnecessary reference back. We should not waste too much time on this. We should simply vote this out and get on and approve what is going to be an excellent development for the Island that will take us into a sure future.

12. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

Anybody who has done business, or is doing business in the U.S.A. must be prepared for litigation and especially in the construction/property business. It is a way of life to sue for a billion dollars when in fact you may have no claim at all, or a very small claim, in order to get a small settlement. This is normal. After all, what do you expect from a country which has about a million lawyers? I can only remember quite recently we had a situation in Jersey with the cavern in Snow Hill where I think the agreed figure was something like £8 million and the bill sent in at the end was £32 million. Now, I do not remember us settling for £32 million. I remember litigation going on and I remember a settlement being reached. These things - million dollar, billion dollar suits - are just a complete waste of time. They are not real life. You are talking about an American way of business, not a way of life. Thank you, Sir.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

A point of order, Sir. I made a point of order before. It is brief, Sir. I have asked the executive at W.E.B. to produce for Members a copy of the most updated due diligence report prepared for the board of W.E.B. on Harcourt and this report is dated October last year. It not only summarises the circumstances of the company at that date, it summarises their circumstances historically and their ability to cope with future pressures on the business. So, that report will be made available to Members shortly. They are busy doing that now and there was also a professional risk advisory group engaged by the Board of the Waterfront Enterprise to research the conduct and financial circumstances around the individual directors and their other businesses. That again will be made available to Members. Sir, this is a diversion. It is no surprise that Deputy Baudains has brought this because he was against the proposition yesterday and this is another desperate attempt to bring down the motion. I urge Members to ignore it, study the reports that have been made available to W.E.B., to our lawyers. This has not been taken lightly by the Board of W.E.B. and I reassure Members that copies of the due diligence and a copy of the report from the risk advisory group will be made available to Members very shortly.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

May I question the representative for W.E.B. while he is on his feet? Is he prepared to release the Economic Adviser's report to the Council of Ministers on the economic impact of the proposals to the development of the Waterfront of February 2006?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

It was released to Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, Sir. Senator F.H. Walker :

I am in a little bit of a dilemma. I have spoken, but there are 2 pieces of information which I think the House should have in the interests of a full decision, which I should have..

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Do you wish to clarify your previous speech? [Laughter] Senator F.H. Walker :

Well, Sir, I thought it was crystal, but, no, there is an additional piece of information but it is information which I think the House is entitled to have because it would be wrong to take a decision on anything other than full information. What I should disclose is that there is a court case involving Harcourt in Dublin at this time. It is a dispute but it is being vigorously defended by Harcourt in the courts and I would liken it in many ways to some of the court cases that the States finds itself in, in the Royal Court in Jersey. I would emphasise that no decision has been reached and Harcourt are vigorously defending the action, but I think it is only fair that the House should be advised of that so they can take a full decision. If I may just add, Sir, when I was in Belfast and Dublin recently, on States business, I did ask senior politicians their view of Harcourt and the unanimous response I got in both cities was a very good report indeed.

13. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :

I am reassured to hear that in the first speech by the Chief Minister, if I may put it like that, the developer has had due diligence undertaken upon it by Dun & Bradstreet and by PwC ( Price waterhouseCoopers) as well and that gives me great comfort. I think it is a matter maybe, Sir, of Members either accepting those professional organisations or perhaps what they read in the media. I must say, however, that I am rather surprised with Members attitudes this morning. We now seem to be concerned about unpleasant odours around the preferred developer. Unfortunately I believe that it is the nature of international developers, and even some local developers, that they will have upset people and they will have created enemies. It is the nature of development. It is my view, Sir, that when Members decided yesterday that they wanted this Masterplan they were - and they knew they were - supporting a single developer for the whole of this site. I was against that yesterday, Sir. I still believe that we made the wrong decision, but I certainly will not be supporting this reference back because it is the single developer and Members knew it was this developer. It is exactly what they voted for yesterday, Sir.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): I call on Deputy Baudains to reply.

14. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I would disagree with the previous speaker, Sir, that what we agreed yesterday was that we would accept the Masterplan and various other issues but I do not see anything under 1(a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) that we would be signing contracts with this particular firm. Just a couple of issues I would like to raise, Sir, because it does seem to me that some of the Members who have spoken have not addressed the issue but attacked me instead which tends to show their argument is somewhat weak. Deputy de Faye, for a start, Sir, again disappoints me. He suggests that I am abusing parliamentary privilege. I would ask him to withdraw that scurrilous allegation, Sir. I at least do my homework. Possibly he does not. But what is the situation? On the one hand we have information given to us yesterday by the Chief Minister telling us what a wonderful firm it is we are dealing with. Well, it may well be a wonderful firm. The point is, without the further information we do not know and certainly the information I am receiving at the moment suggests otherwise than what the Chief Minister has told us, and it does not come from some blog, as he has suggested. I have done my own research. Sir, I am not asking to throw out this developer or not to go ahead with the partnership. I am merely asking that we get up-to-date information. Senator Perchard, Sir, tells us that we are about to receive some latest information. Apparently the report is of October last year. I would suggest to him, Sir, that that is a complete waste of time because the events I am talking about have happened since then. Senator Perchard again is one of these people who suggest that I have an ulterior motive here; because I did not vote for the proposition yesterday I am merely trying to delay and frustrate and otherwise derail the process. I find such suggestions completely scurrilous and unacceptable because they are not only scurrilous they are totally untrue. Until I had this information I was going to support part (2). So, we can all learn something. It is a pity that the Senator does not do likewise. He really should do his homework, Sir. I am trying to do my job and my job is to ensure that the public of Jersey gets the best deal, that we do not enter into something which all falls apart later on. That is my duty and it is a pity some other Members do not take it as seriously. Sir, we were told that due diligence was carried out by PwC. In my opening speech I asked when that was done. We have not been told, except from Senator Perchard saying that W.E.B. have a report that was done in October. Well, I am afraid this is a very good reason why we should have a reference  back because October is too old. These events, as I  have said,

happened since then. It does seem to me that that alone is a very good reason to.. Deputy I.J. Gorst :

Perhaps my colleague would give way. I am not sure if he is going to be prepared to. I appreciate what the Deputy is saying regarding the age of the particular piece of due diligence but I am afraid, if I understand him in his opening speech correctly, he was concerned about the credit crisis, the credit crunch and financial institutions. I believe that was already well underway and known and in the public domain in October of last year. It might have worsened since. It might worsen further, Sir, but it was known at that point.

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I agree entirely, Sir. Of course the credit crunch was known at that time but of course the effects are only just starting to pan-out. The effects that translate across the Atlantic to Britain and further afield are only now beginning to have effect. It is not the beginning that matters, it is the peak that matters. I have to say, Sir, that some of the issues here that I have been relating to, if translated into our plan for the Waterfront, could be extremely relevant. We learn that the company defaulted on its funding obligations in October 2007. Is that before or after this due diligence? It seemed to be about the same time. The law suit is as I read it out earlier, Sir. It is quite specific and for the Chief Minister in his speech to suggest that it really did not matter I think is stretching credibility. Should such an event have the same effect on us it would be quite important because it is a matter of financial working. Not only is this company alleged to have defaulted on its funding obligations - and I pointed out to Deputy de Faye that I am quite happy to say things elsewhere and that I am not abusing parliamentary privilege. All this information is in the public domain, so I should imagine that if these allegations are found subsequently to be in any way inaccurate Harcourt is going to be

rather busy suing hundreds of thousands of people. Do we not owe it to the public to at least check that our information is correct? That is all I am asking for with this reference back. It is not a delaying tactic. It is not a derailing tactic. I need the information that the firm that we are dealing with is as robust as the Chief Minister outlined yesterday. That is all I want to know. If it is, that is fine, let us go ahead. If it is not, we need to re-think. To make such a monumental decision for Jersey; it may be a small enterprise for this particular firm with its worldwide activities but the Waterfront plan is a major construction for Jersey. We cannot afford to get it wrong. We cannot afford to be working with a developer who part of the way through the development pulls out and leaves us not only with a partly finished exercise, but also with the liabilities that go with it. We cannot afford that. This Island cannot afford that. We have a duty to make sure that everything is in order. I cannot see a reference back would take terribly long for that information to be found and then once we have that information we can move ahead. I maintain my proposition.

Senator F.H. Walker :

I am sorry, but I do have to re-emphasise the factual nature of the position in Las Vegas. No legal motion has been filed in Las Vegas involving Harcourt in this development and I think the Deputy is again at severe risk of misleading the House.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The Deputy has made the statements he will stand by them. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Could I just say, Sir, that if that is the case then he can prove that in the work done in the reference back because the Chief Minister is misinformed.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The appel has been called for. Members are in their designated seats. The Greffier will open the voting which is for or against the reference back.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well. The debate therefore resumes on paragraph (2) of the proposition. Deputy Ferguson.

2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade :

As I have said earlier in this debate Members want reassurance that the taxpayers are getting a fair deal and Members must remember that the essence of a good deal is that both sides benefit. Looking at the proposition, on page 9, paragraph 4.2 it states that a summary of the financial and other terms is attached at appendix 4. Frankly, I would have preferred more numbers and less verbiage. There would have been more reassurance. The Minister for Treasury and Resources, who is unfortunately not in the House, is dealing with the terms of the acquisition and paragraph (2)(b) states that the Minister for Treasury and Resources will agree the terms of the lease. Can we be reassured that as well as the Attorney General, Jersey Property Holdings will review the terms of the lease? While I am sure W.E.B. are more than capable when dealing with leases it is always useful  to  have  a  second  pair  of  eyes  review it,  particularly  by  a  department  where  there  is considerable expertise in large property deals. The heads of agreement. It appears that the heads of agreement have already been signed. It says somewhere that they have been signed, Sir.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I think we were told yesterday they were ready for signature. They are not signed. Senator F.H. Walker :

For clarity, the heads of terms have been signed. The development agreement has not. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

There is therefore, if I can think about this, a letter outlining the terms of the agreement, which has been exchanged. Is there any sort of proviso on that saying that it is subject to contract or subject to anything else? I can have the assurance of the Chief Minister on that?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): When he sums up.

Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

Because I understand that under Jersey law there are legal implications when you exchange a letter with agreeing  terms of an agreement  in principle, unless  you  mark  it: "subject to", or  "with reservations".

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I think the Chief Minister will address this in his summing up, Deputy . We cannot have a personal question time.

Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

What a pity, Sir. I also note that in the Scrutiny Report .. perhaps the Solicitor General would care to comment on that at some stage, Sir.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Binding nature of the head of terms agreement.

Mr. Timothy John Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:

I think the only comment I can make at this point, not having seen any heads of terms or any particular letters of agreement, is that the legal effect of such a document depends entirely upon the terms in which it is written and the caveats placed upon it in the circumstances in which it is created, and unless I can see it and have a chance to consider it I do not think I could properly advise the Assembly further.

Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

In the Scrutiny Report the recommendations by the adviser are: "Subject to my comments in previous paragraphs and also subject to the bank guarantees this [which are the rearrangements attached to the tunnel] would seem to be an acceptable financial structure." He goes on to say: "I would have expected that the cost of the public works be capped in relation to the financial arrangements insofar as if their cost falls below the capped figure the monetary payments rise, but if they exceed the figure that is the developer's risk. In order to incentivise the developer on cost I would expect such an arrangement to work on a sharing basis." He has other recommendations. That there will be a development agreement with the usual protections in the lease and development agreement. There will be a parent company guarantee. I would like the Chief Minister to confirm that these recommendations have been followed in full and perhaps in his summing up he would give us an outline of the terms in the well, if it is not the heads of agreement, in principle heads of agreement. He may wish to do this in camera but I think perhaps this is the information that the House would like to know.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I rise to my feet after the reference back, which rather caught me by surprise, but to state to the House that I will be proposing that the debate be suspended so that my panel can have this part referred to it for the following grounds, and that is not an abuse. We have heard time and time again about various financial and legal queries that have not been answered. The facts are that yet again this Council of Ministers is behaving in a way that committees used to, Presidents used to, which is bringing propositions to the House (a) in principle, and then without the detail, and we have agreed the principle and therefore we have to go through with the detail, come what may.  It is the old way of doing things. Under Ministerial government we were told that that was to finish. However, what we have seen today is a debate on exactly those same principles. Members are sitting around here. Are all of us confident that we know what we are about to commit to? Can each of us put our hands on our heart and say to our constituents: "We knew what we were doing. We had the information, the financial, the economic impact, the legal terms"? No, we cannot. I do not believe a single Member can do that. Perhaps the Chief Minister can, as he is presenting this. Perhaps the Chief Minister can do, as they always used to: "I know what I am doing. Trust me. I am a politician. Trust me to lead you in the dark." But we are in the dark. We do need some clarity. We do not have sufficient information. In a relatively short period of time, and we have Article 79 which allows us to suspend a debate so that a Scrutiny Panel can examine particular issues and report in brief in a short time turn around and report back, saying that it is satisfied, or that it has these problems, or has these worries still, or that it is an all clear; it is satisfied that we can safely go ahead with a particular course of action. Now, in our case, and I know we do not have complete unanimity at this stage with my panel, and that is nothing to be worried about. [Laughter] I accept the reservations expressed by the Constable previously. I am not joking,

Senator Le Main. If I may be allowed to continue with my speech, Sir, without interruption from the Minister for Housing I would be very grateful. Thank you. Sir, is that parliamentary behaviour to call a Member who is on his feet a big gob? Sir, is it parliamentary behaviour to call a Member who is on his feet a big gob? The Minister for Housing just did so.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well, it certainly would not be. I did not hear any of those words myself.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I heard it clearly, Sir. In which case I shall return the compliment. I shall call him a sweetheart. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Could we get on with the speeches?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I would if I could. The particular reservations I have, and it is very specific and it need not take a long time, we can get this back to the Members in short order, I am sure. It is in the report of the Corporate Services Panel which says that they did have a chance to see the Economic Adviser's report to the Council of Ministers on the economic impact of the proposals for the development of the Waterfront in February of 2006. That economic impact is key to the whole thing and yet while the Corporate Services Sub-Panel did have access to that it was not part of their remit. It was not part of their terms of reference to examine that. Now, I believe that economic impact should be known to Members - aspects of it - and the economic impact is vital to making this decision in confidence to go ahead. Just to explain. The Chief Minister has described the review of the Corporate Services Panel as a full and comprehensive review. It is far from that. I believe I quoted you correctly, Sir, early on in your speech. Just to put the context on it there is a letter here that I have from the Corporate Services Panel to Senator Walker and I have permission to quote from it: "The President of J.C.C. (Jersey Chamber of Commerce) forwarded to me a copy of a letter he received from you dated 19th February 2008 [this is to the Chief Minister]. In your letter you state that terms of the deal have been subject to investigation and verification by the Corporate Services Corporate Affairs Scrutiny Panel. You also state that an independent risk assessment has already been undertaken through the Corporate Services Panel and other expert advisers." Now, the chairman of that sub-panel says the following: "I believe it is important for future debate on this subject to make clear that the sub-panel carried out a preliminary investigation into one aspect of the proposed  development, namely the commerciality of the proposed  heads of terms agreed between W.E.B. and Harcourt." After a brief examination of the process the sub-panel adviser reported that he was satisfied: "I am anxious that our preliminary review should not be represented as a full investigation for the entire Waterfront development." So, what we have is an examination of a very small part of the heads of agreement and that is all. It was not part of their remit to look in any depth whatsoever at the economic impact of the deal. I believe that economic impact is central, crucial, essential to going ahead with the deal, so therefore I wish to ask the House to suspend debate so that my panel can examine that report and the economic impact thereof in order that we can return to the House in short time in order that we may go ahead with this confident that

we know what we are doing. That is the terms of the suspension and that is what I wish to do. Senator F.H. Walker :

Could I first ask a question? I probably missed it. Is the Deputy suggesting that this should be referred to his Scrutiny Panel?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Indeed, Sir. It is the economic impact and it is the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel.

Deputy , this is a slightly unusual situation. I do not think we have been in this situation before since the Standing Orders came into force in 2005 because we did effectively have a proposition under Standing Order 79 yesterday from Deputy Duhamel, but that proposition was indeed to suspend the debate so that the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel could consider whether the proposition should  be referred  to that panel. You are now making a separate proposition,  I understand, that the debate should be suspended so that the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel could consider whether it should be referred on the economic grounds.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

If I may, Economic Affairs obviously is a wide-ranging brief. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I think in those circumstances it is a separate proposition that can be correctly put if it is seconded. Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition of Deputy Southern ?

1. Senator M.E. Vibert :

I have not spoken so far on any of it because I felt that so much of it was prevarication from those people who just do want to block this at any effect. Deputy Southern wants us to believe that this is a genuine belief that he wants his panel to look at certain aspects of it in the public interest. Perhaps I would be more inclined to believe that if Deputy Southern had not supported every other attempt to block this Masterplan going through. I am afraid I do not believe him and, Sir, I wonder what is next. Is he going to go out and set off a fire alarm so we have to suspend the States so we cannot get on with it?

2. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

There are a number of very genuine Members who work hard on Scrutiny and many of the Members of Scrutiny must be shaking their heads this morning because I have rarely seen so much damage done to the concept of Scrutiny as I have witnessed in the last 5 minutes. [Approbation] The one great fear was that Scrutiny members would start to use their powers as a parliamentary tool to disrupt proper proceedings in this Assembly, and I think we are witnessing one such event now, but I do not hold out great prospects because I have every expectation that the reputation of Scrutiny will be buried even deeper in around 3 weeks' time. But even on those sole grounds I would suggest to Members that we should simply vote this suggestion down. In my view it is not the proper way to conduct Scrutiny and a clear message should be sent now.

3. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour :

I will be brief. The reference is in regard to economic impact and I have not seen anything, maybe I have missed it, about the effects they would have on existing business and trade. I mentioned this yesterday. If we are talking about such developments, what would the effect be on the town, traders in the town in retail, in catering and other areas? I do not think anybody has taken that into consideration. It is a bit like, put your finger up in the air and see which way the wind is blowing. What would be the effect on them? I said yesterday, if I had signed a 21-year lease at Colomberie for a restaurant I would be wanting to get rid of it. So, who has considered those people? I do not know if anybody has. If there has been a report from the Economic Adviser somebody must have taken some of this into consideration and I have not seen it personally. Also, what would the effect of that be? Do not forget some of these people have spent a lifetime in this business and I think we owe them that. Show them some respect. Even people within 100 yards of this House, whose business could be ruined by what we may do down there. They cannot all move down there. It is known that people will not walk distances, even that distance. We have talked about the separation and I think it is worth another look and I think to treat it any other way is disrespectful to many people who have spent a lifetime with some of their business in some of the industries - the hospitality industry - that we all enjoy.

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

As I expressed my views yesterday, I would ordinarily have a lot of sympathy for what Deputy Breckon has just said and what has been said by the chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel. However, Sir, if my understanding of the present position is correct then what we are debating today is a land swap. We are essentially looking at authorising the States to acquire some land from W.E.B. and then exchange a complete parcel of land back to W.E.B. It is inferred that gives the go-ahead to the deal but the legal responsibility that we are dealing with, as I understand it, is between the States of Jersey and W.E.B. on a land swap. It is the directors of W.E.B., and obviously there are 3 directors here today, who have a statutory responsibility to act in the interests of the company and who have to do the appropriate levels of due diligence on the contracts between W.E.B. and the developer and that, in my view, includes due diligence obviously as to the probity of the developer, as to the financial viability of the developer, it includes assessing the risks of any downside of the transaction as well as upsides and that whole remit. That is their statutory responsibility while they are acting in the interests of the company and on our behalf as shareholders in that company. On that basis though, in my view - and I concur precisely with the views of Deputy Gorst - that was the debate we had yesterday. The House simply voted on that and that was the decision arrived at. Today we are dealing with a land swap and therefore it is not appropriate to try and we are over-complicating things, in my view. I would, as an aside, say that I can see nothing to stop Scrutiny doing an economic impact analysis, as it were, of the transaction because the Minister has already said that feedback can be put into the public inquiry. On that basis, Sir, I will not be supporting any reference backs or any referrals to Scrutiny and I will be supporting the actual proposition.

5. Senator F.H. Walker :

I will be very brief, but I do think some further points need to be emphasised here. This has been scrutinised by the Scrutiny Panel already and we have heard from the chairman of the sub-panel. The problem here is - and I agree with Deputy de Faye - that Deputy Southern is doing more to damage the reputation of Scrutiny than any Minister or anyone else has done since we set it up. [Approbation] The problem is he is so intrinsically opposed to this development that he wants to have a go at it. He is basically saying: "I do not like the answer the Scrutiny Panel came up with so I want it to come to my panel so I can work my own opposition into it and I can spin everything as far as I possibly can." That is not what Scrutiny is there to do. This is an abuse of process and if that is how he feels the Deputy should have got his panel to do this assessment many weeks ago. Why did he not? He has completely failed to do his job and what he is trying to do now is just paper over the cracks and put up a pretence that this will be a legitimate, independent, evidence- based Scrutiny Report. That is what we have already had and if it goes to his panel with his views we most certainly will not get that from him. This is just a charade to try and find, to concoct some form of opposition yet again. But I can say to the House, Sir, the Economic Adviser's report to which the Deputy refers did go to the Scrutiny Sub-Panel and, as far as Ministers are concerned, that was its proper place to go. I accept what Deputy Mezbourian said about information coming to the House but we did a thorough job in terms of releasing every piece of information that Scrutiny asked for, which was confirmed by the chairman yesterday. Every piece of information they asked for they received. No problem. No problem whatsoever. I accept there is a balance between how much information goes to Scrutiny and how much comes to the House, and perhaps we are still learning in that respect, but we were completely full and free with the information, nothing to hide, did not seek to hide anything at all. The economic report is overwhelmingly positive, overwhelmingly positive. I am tempted to let the Deputy have it for his Scrutiny Panel because I defy even him to come up with a negative based on this report, but he probably would because he is inventive enough and he can spin well enough to do it. But basically, Sir, this request for suspension represents the Deputy failing to do his job and at the eleventh hour seeking to delay the debate to support his intrinsic opposition of it and we should have nothing to do with these shoddy

tactics whatsoever.

6. The Connétable of St. Brelade :

I rise once again to repeat my words earlier on and just to add a few others. One is that I feel that there is little to be gained from drawing this into Scrutiny except additional cost. My attention is drawn to the fact that the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel in their report indicated that they were aware, and I read from the report: "The panel was aware that there were highly significant social, economic and environmental issues relating to planning, traffic and waste disposal, however these issues were clearly outside its remit and it was agreed that it would be appropriate for these matters to be examined by other panels." Now, Sir, the Economic Development Scrutiny Panel has had the opportunity, decided not to examine this at a much earlier stage, and quite frankly we have heard the evidence in depth from the Chamber of Commerce regarding retail in the town. We have had a plethora of information. We do not need any more. If we cannot make our minds up on the information provided so far I feel, Sir, as States Members we are sadly lacking. Let us get on with it. We need to move this thing on. We have had all the information and I feel that really some Members are avoiding making a decision. Let us move on.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): I call on Deputy Southern to reply.

7. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Senator Vibert does not believe me; that is his choice. I do not know what I can do to convince him that I am dedicated to the purpose of Scrutiny and I believe it is a serious concern. Deputy de Faye accuses me of doing so much damage and disrupting the process of the House but I remind him that one of the prime concerns of Scrutiny is to engender informed debate, and I put it to the House again that we are not fully informed on the economic impact of what we are about to do and I do not believe any single Member can, in all honestly, say that he or she knows what they are doing today if they vote this through. Deputy Breckon pointed out once more again to the impact on traders in town but I take that further, and I mentioned it yesterday, the impact of such a spend on inflation because we are supposed to be keeping down our spend in order to restrain inflation. The impact on the building industry. This is a massive project over the next 10 years with building projects going out all around it. What impact has that on the economy? We need to know. Deputy Breckon asked us to show some respect for the people out there. I do not believe, if we go ahead today, we are showing them that respect. Deputy Le Fondré seemed to confuse the issue and talked about the role of the directors of W.E.B. to look after W.E.B.'s interests and therefore implied the interests of the Island on a wider basis. I remind him that the people who are here to look after the interests of the Island on the wide base is us - is this Government - not the directors of W.E.B., but this Government and each and every one of us and I believe if we go ahead today again we will not necessarily be looking after their wider interests. Senator Walker , and I do take it as a genuine compliment to get a compliment from Senator Walker , that in some way I am a respected spin master and he used the word twice. Well, chapeau, Senator Walker , that is coming from one who knows. He then referred to a legitimate report that we already have. Now, which "we" was he referring to? I know which "we" accurately he was referring to. He was referring to the Council of Ministers because there is a report from the Economic Adviser, report to the Council of Ministers on the economic impact of the proposals for the development of the Waterfront, dated February 2006. The "we" is the Council of Ministers. This House - this Chamber - takes decisions like this and we, this Chamber, do not have that report. It has the assurance from Senator Walker that the report was overwhelmingly positive and I go back to what I said before about pre-Ministerial government. It was a case of: "We know what we are doing. Trust us" and that is exactly what we are getting. This House should see, or should satisfy itself and satisfy itself through the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel, that that is correct and that there are no glitches in the system. I believe that this is an entirely appropriate way to proceed and while I am here I will mention the Constable of St. Brelade. We have to agree to differ. I apologise to him for the late notice. It only came to my notice yesterday in a real sense that there was a document that I believe we should - and I agree we

should - already have looked at. We have not, but there is this mechanism which enables us to do that in short shrift to get the thing back on track, should we so decide, or to at least examine it and come to the House and say: "This is what it says" so the House is fully informed and that is all I wish to do. I maintain this proposition and call for the Appel.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Members are  in their designated seats. The Greffier will open the voting for or against the proposition of Deputy Southern .