States Meeting Transcript - 12th September 2012

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 12th SEPTEMBER 2012

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................3

1. Incorporation of Ports of Jersey (P.70/2012) ............................................3

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):....................3

1. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : .........................................................6
2. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:..........................................7
3. Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement : ..........................................................8
4. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : .........................................................9
5. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................10
6. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................10
7. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................12
8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................13

2. Incorporation of Ports of Jersey - proposal of Deputy Tadier that the matter should be referred back to the Minister under Standing Order 83 ............................16

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................16
2. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade:......................................................17
3. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................18
4. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................19
5. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................19
6. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................20

7. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................22
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................22
9. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................23
10. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................24
11. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................25
12. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................25
13. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................26
14. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................31

2. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: extension of provisions to Jersey by Order in Council (P.71/2012)......................................................................33

2.1 Senator B.I. Le Marquand ( Deputy Chief Minister - rapporteur):.......................33

1. Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade:.................................................35
2. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A, The Dean of Jersey:................................35
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................35
4. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................35
5. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................36
6. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................36

Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ..............................................37

3. Draft Price Indicators (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations (P.72/2012)................38

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................39

1. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................40
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................41
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................41
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................42
5. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................42
6. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................42
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................42
8. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................43

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................47

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................47
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................47
3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................47

4. Use of Electronic Devices in the States Chamber: trial (P.73/2012)....................48

4.1 The Connétable of St. Helier (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):......48

1. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ...................................................48
2. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................49
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................50
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................50
5. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................52
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................52
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................53
8. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................54
9. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................54
10. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................54
11. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................55
12. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................55

5. Jersey Appointments Commission: appointment of Chairman (P.75/2012)...........57

5.1 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister - rapporteur):..................................57

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................57
2. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................58

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................58

6. The Connétable of St. Helier (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):......58

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................58

[9:30]

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

1. Incorporation of Ports of Jersey (P.70/2012)

The Deputy Bailiff :

We now resume matters of public business with P.70/2012 Incorporation of Ports of Jersey lodged by the Minister for Economic Development. I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of the opinion (a) to approve the incorporation of Jersey Airport and Jersey Harbours as a single limited company, wholly owned by the States of Jersey, to be known as Ports of Jersey, as set out in the attached report; (b) to request the Minister for Economic Development to make the necessary action to prepare for incorporation, including the preparation of legislation for the Assembly's consideration, with a target date for achieving incorporation of 1st January 2015.

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):

Good morning. [Laughter] Let us hope so. Some Members may recall that the States established 4 trading entities back in the early 1990s. Those were Jersey Telecom, Jersey Post, Jersey Airport and Jersey Harbours. Since that time, Jersey Post and Jersey Telecom have gone on to be incorporated with significant success and notable benefits for the Island, including strong returns for the shareholder, the States of Jersey of course, and enhanced services and more competitive pricing for local consumers. This proposition seeks to build on the valuable experience, lessons learned and success gained from those earlier incorporations. It seeks Member support to undertake the necessary work to fully prepare Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport for potential incorporation. Perhaps it would be helpful at this point if I state what this proposition does not represent. It does not represent privatisation or, as some might put it, selling the family jewels. Indeed, there is little or no material asset disposal assumed in the programme. It does not represent any intention whatsoever to move away from the public service obligation of maintaining and operating outlying harbours across the Island, or from the existing commitment to fund and operate the vital coastguard service which is expertly delivered by our staff. Another emotive yet vital point is that it does not represent a mandate to increase charges to users of the airport or the harbour. Indeed, the assumption in the financial analysis set inflation at 2.5 per cent per annum and, by exception, the airport dues are forecast to increase by inflation minus 0.5 per cent. Incidentally, the commercial harbour dues have been frozen for the last 2 years, and it is anticipated that they will be in 2013 as well. An incorporated Jersey Airport and Jersey Harbours will continue to play their role in maintaining Jersey's competitive advantage. Finally, this proposition does not, in any way, represent the final word on incorporation. That is because this proposition is, by default, an in principle decision until the legislation to which it refers comes to this Assembly for consideration and approval in 2013 or 2014. That proposition will contain the detailed case and legislation for incorporation. Let me turn briefly to remind Members of the scale of these 2 entities. Today, Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport are very substantial businesses, employing over 200 people, with a combined revenues of £43.7 million. In 2011 the ports handled the movement of 2.2 million passengers and 488,000 tonnes of freight and fuel. In addition to the commercial port activity, Jersey Harbours provides marinas and moorings for local boat owners and visitors. Jersey Airport provides a comprehensive network of commercial routes, facilities for business aviation and for the local and visiting aircraft. The strategic importance of our ports requires the highest possible standards of commercial and operational governance and management. For many years

there has been criticism that our ports were not as efficiently managed and operated as they should have been. Many of these criticisms may well have been unfounded or unjust. However, it is clear that there are always other ways, and perhaps better ways, to manage and operate any organisation to enhance its performance. That is why, following a thorough review of these businesses, I was able to announce in July 2010 in this Assembly my intention to appoint a shadow board. This was a critical step to improve the long-term performance. The intention was to appoint a quality board comprising of highly-qualified professionals with private sector, maritime, aeronautical and

business expertise to oversee the operation of these 2 substantial businesses. Following their appointment in late 2010, I formally asked the shadow board to advise as to the most appropriate future structure for these businesses. Following a thorough commercial evaluation, that advice firstly led to the appointment of a Group Chief Executive. The aim was to bring the 2 organisations more closely together under a single leadership point to be more efficient and more cost-effective. That objective is now well advanced and has already delivered significant productivity improvements and cost savings of around £1 million a year. Remarkably, it has been achieved in less than 12 months and with little fuss, as staff have been taken along as an integral part of the process. As a result, today the ports have one finance team, not 2; one H.R. (Human Resources) team, not 2; one I.T. (Information Technology) team, not 2; one operations team, not 2; one commercial team, not 2; and one customer service operation. Through this consolidation of the management, we have increased the ability to identify best practices that can be applied to the Harbours and Airport businesses. Critically, the process started from the top down and was fully transparent. It is the way this change programme has been constructed and managed that sets it apart from previous attempts to change the structure of our ports. A great deal of hard work has taken place over the past few years to enhance the financial position, and incremental improvements have been made. But, be absolutely clear. More needs to be done to deliver sustainable commercial operations that will not represent a potential future drain on the public purse. As a result of the work that has been undertaken since 2010, there is a much greater understanding of the actual financial position of the ports. Importantly, there is a much better understanding of the future revenue forecast, the long-term capital programme and future funding requirements than at any time in the past. The lack of such robust management information was another critical reason why a change in structure of the ports was not progressed previously, despite being discussed for many years. While the work on the capital programme has been undertaken by the Harbours and Airport operational and financial teams, it has been independently validated by Capita Symonds. The information has been used to develop a combined long-term 20-year financial model. The financial model, which is summarised on page 8 of the report with detail being provided under appendix A, also indicates a cumulative return to the States of Jersey of £76 million by 2032. While that sounds impressive, perhaps even dramatic, it should be noted that both revenue and costs increase at an average of only 3 per cent per annum over the 20-year plan period,

which is both prudent and conservative. [9:45]

In addition, Parishes will benefit from the receipt of occupiers' rates payable by the incorporated body, a point I am sure that will bring a smile, at the very least, the Constable of St. Helier. Unfortunately he is not here, [Laughter] but one remains optimistic he might be listening. Members will note, though, we do have the Constable of St. Peter who is smiling, and of course the airport sits in St. Peter and he will also be the recipient of such rates, so good news for the Parishes. An incorporated Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport would be a financial as well as a strategic asset to the Island. As an incorporated body the ports can grow, in part, through prudent management and development of the assets under their control. Not, I may add, by raising charges to users to an unacceptable degree, and not, I may further add, by selling assets. The 20-year plan only includes one potential disposal, which is La Folie, with the process for any such sale to be set and clearly defined with shareholder agreement. The shadow board, appointed very early in the process, has provided a positive influence in defining the future direction and improvements in current operations. The appointment and quality of the shadow board is another factor why this time it is so different to previous attempts at restructuring. The integrated organisation has worked across the States to develop this proposition, in particular with the Department of Treasury and Resources, Property Holdings, Law Officers, law draftsmen and colleagues at S.o.J.D.C. (States of Jersey Development Company). Any organisation is only as good as its most important assets, its people. The workforce of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport have been actively and positively engaged in the change process. Again, a critical factor that did not happen in the past. You cannot change anything successfully unless you take people with you. Importantly, staff have helped in setting the direction of the integrated businesses and, importantly, the development of this report and proposition. The programme of integration of the 2 organisations means that the green shoots of positive culture change can already be seen across the organisation. In addition, there has and will continue to be a constructive dialogue with the trade unions. Some understandable fears have been raised by the unions in a recent letter. I have hopefully addressed and dispelled these. In particular, staff would transfer from the States of Jersey to the incorporated company on their existing terms and conditions, including pension rights. Based on all the work that has been done to date, I am confident that incorporation of these trading operations is the most effective mechanism for delivering significantly improved performance above what has already been achieved. It is the most effective way to make the next important step change. Incorporation will enable the potential of these strategic assets to be fully realised. The alternative would be to do nothing and to endorse the status quo. While in such a scenario further small incremental improvements in performance may be possible, the current governance arrangement is the antithesis of a commercially agile organisation. We are seeking to provide a culture to capture lost opportunities and maximise the financial and non-financial returns which could be provided by a more commercially agile Ports of Jersey. I mentioned earlier this proposition is not the final word on incorporation. Indeed, what today's proposition seeks is States approval to incorporate and the endorsement of States Members to undertake the work outlined in the report to prepare detailed plans, legislation and regulation for further approval by this Assembly. Only if such approval is forthcoming in 2013 or 2014 would it be possible for an incorporated Ports of Jersey to be created. Staff from Harbours and Airport have undertaken an extensive briefing and consultation exercise with all stakeholders. I would like to thank all Members who were able to take the opportunity of attending the detailed briefings on this proposition. Those who have will appreciate the extensive analysis that has been undertaken to arrive at the recommendations captured in this proposition, and the passion shared across both organisations to realise the benefits for the Island that incorporation could bring. I hope Members will share my enthusiasm that the future of an incorporated Harbours and Airport will offer the most effective structure to safeguard our vital transport assets long into the future. It will offer the greatest opportunity for business development and revenue growth in a way that would be difficult to achieve under the existing structure. A successful, sustainable, commercially-focused organisation is far less likely to be a future drain on the public purse. In fact, as the 20-year plan highlights, it can be a valuable contributor to States revenues and an important contributor to wider economic success for the Island. The shadow board, the senior management team and, I believe, the majority of staff support the next step on the road towards incorporation. Clearly a great deal more work is required to prepare the detailed case and legislation for the incorporation debate of 2013 or 2014. But everyone concerned needs the confidence that this Assembly is fully supportive of the intent to move in that direction. I urge Members to give the vote of confidence to management and staff at our ports by supporting the proposition so that work can begin in earnest

to prepare the full business case and the legislation. The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded?  (Seconded) The Deputy of St. Martin . Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter :

If I may, can I just ask for your ruling? As St. Peter and St. Helier have a direct pecuniary interest in this incorporation going through, would you rule that we should retire from the chamber?

The Deputy Bailiff :

You do not have a personal financial interest, Connétable , as far as I understand it. You are talking about the rates that will come into the Parish.

The Connétable of St. Peter :

Absolutely, and as a point of clarification also, we will not only get occupier we will also get the Foncier rate as well. Thank you for your ruling, Sir.

1. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin :

This proposition is about meeting the challenges in the future. It is about moving forward. It is about moving quickly and it is about taking opportunities. Before I speak about Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport I will just refer Members back to a presentation that some of us attended when Jersey Telecom put up their financial forecasts some months ago. I would venture to suggest that the performance of Jersey Telecom would never have been achieved if it had stayed in States management. How does this incorporation of Harbours and Airport differ from Jersey Telecom and Jersey Post? I think the big difference for most Members will be the actual tangible assets you can see. Jersey Telecom have the old exchanges; they have staff and infrastructure; and Jersey Post similarly, with post office and vans, and people work for them. But Jersey Harbours and Airport have large areas of our Island and, quite rightly, many people question what they will do with these crown jewels, as they are so rightly described many times. Some Members will say that the proposition does not contain enough detail and my Scrutiny Panel certainly agreed with that. This was pointed out to the department and we had 3 or 4 meetings, including meetings on site, to discuss with the officers elements of the proposition that we have before us today. I might just list a few of those questions and bring them to Members' attention so that they can be satisfied about some of the items we have looked into. I would like to think they are the sort of things they too would have questioned or answered. We questioned the figures and the reports behind the proposition. We felt there should be more. But we were highlighted to reports by various companies in 2004, 2005, 2008, and, in particular, as the Minister said, the most recent report from Capita. We asked about the cash return to the States over the 20 year period and how easy that would be to calculate. We were satisfied that had been done properly. A lot of concern has been raised over the historic harbours, and again, when you come from a country Parish, most country Parishes have their own small harbour and we are all very keen to make sure they were going to be looked after properly in the future. The Harbours and Airport proposition also supplied my panel with maps of every historic harbour. We also asked for the boundaries where the responsibility would cease and where it would start, and we questioned the level of money that they have

attributed in their report to historic harbours over the coming years. We were satisfied that major - and I mean major - millions of pounds have been spent and will be spent before incorporation maybe happens, especially in St. Aubin and in the coming months in Gorey. We feel that the historic harbours probably will be in as good a position as they can be before we incorporate. We asked specifically about the red line and I hope Members have looked at the red line on the maps around St. Helier harbour and the airport. We asked specifically about the red line around St. Helier harbour and I personally wondered why it had not been extended further. I had visions for a new harbour south of where we currently are, and I questioned why that line had not been extended into the reclamation site. I am satisfied with the answer. We asked for a list of all the Harbours' and Airport's property. Because, like me and my panel, I am sure Members will have seen a harbour and an airport listed but know that there are a huge number of other bits of property which they own. We were provided with an extensive list of values and responsibilities that Harbours and Airport have for those buildings, and we were guaranteed that there was only one particular site at La Folie which may be the subject of disposal in the coming years. We were concerned some of these outlying buildings would be sold off. We have been assured that is not the case. We asked for an assurance about the transfer of liabilities. We want to make sure that any liabilities which Harbours and Airport currently have are transferred to the incorporated body and I have some detail here about how that will be done. We asked for more information, and quite possibly this is one of the most important questions, about the control of the States over the incorporated body. I think if there is one lesson that has been learnt about the incorporation of Jersey Telecom and Jersey Post, it is a necessity for the legislation to be written before the incorporation takes place, and not the other way round. We need to remember that this legislation is not finalised yet and will have to come back for ratification. Finally, I mention the concerns of local boat owners who feel that their mooring charges over the last few years have gone up, far exceeding the inflation rate. We have had an assurance that this incorporation is the best way for those local people who use the harbours and airports to see that their mooring rates and the facilities they are charged for stay at a low level. Because if we carry on as we are, the only way that the Harbours and Airport have of increasing their income is by charging. I am satisfied that the work done so far is sufficient to bring this, as the Minister says, in principle proposition to the House today. I think it may well have been foolhardy to spend many more months and thousands of pounds preparing an even more detailed proposition, only to have it rejected. I still have questions and I look forward to being able to put those to the Minister and his officers and in reading the reports, even most recently, I have come up with some items that I will question. One concerns the cost of replacing the LO/LO or the "load- on/load-off" facilities on the New North Quay in another part of the harbour. There is a figure in the report which I find astronomical and I will want to find out why it is going to be so expensive. I would like to assure Members before I close that at this stage in this proposition certainly the

Scrutiny Panel are well satisfied and would like to see this move forward as quickly as possible. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

May I seek clarification from the last speaker if he accepts it? It is regarding the comment he gave there that the panel were satisfied with the answer they received as to why the red line around the harbour only extended as far as it did. But he did not inform the Assembly what those reasons were and I think we are all waiting with bated breath. Would he be able to follow on from that?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

We were satisfied at the time that the area inside the red line is what Harbours require at this moment in time. We are assured that there is a principle in place for the transfer of States property from one department to another, and that if the harbour needed to be extended further south in the future, this process could be enabled.

2. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

I would just like to make a few comments on this, and I am pleased to follow the Chairman of the Scrutiny Panel because I want to say that I am disappointed to have heard what he said today, rather than have it presented to us in some form of report.

[10:00]

Clearly, the panel has been busy. I know the Medium-Term Financial Plan has taken up a great deal of time. But I would have expected something as important as the incorporation of the Harbours and Airport to have necessitated something being presented to the House by the Scrutiny Panel. I have been chairman of a panel myself, and I am sure that had this been in front of us, we would have put something in writing. I say this because the Chairman has said: "I am satisfied, I

am satisfied", but there are also questions that he still wants to ask. I think it is an opportunity missed from the panel. I have a couple of other comments on a more positive note. First of all, I do not have any problems with the intention behind the incorporation. I have attended a couple of presentations and have been satisfied myself with what I have heard. I am not sure whether I missed it but I do not think I heard the Scrutiny Panel Chairman mention the employees when he spoke. This is a concern of mine and, I am sure, of many other Members, because we do not have any T.U.P.E. (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)) legislation in place, and I think it is remiss of us all to expect this to be carried through when there is no guarantee of protection to the employees in legislation. I think we have been given guarantees by the Minister today, but there is nothing in law to protect the employees. I am disappointed to read on page 4 of the proposition that the Policy and Resources Committee report 2000 and Beyond: Strategic Policy Review, which was endorsed by the States in 1995, sought an in principle approval for the incorporation of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport. So, it was approved by the House in 1995. Everyone was aware that this was on the books. The intention is that it will happen and yet no one has married up the fact that there is no legislation to protect our States employees. They are employees of the States of Jersey at the moment. That was touched upon in the letter from the Civil Service union and Unite. So, I want concrete guarantees today from the Minister that, although he has told us this is an in principle proposition, I do not see the words "in principle" in the proposition itself. Clearly it is not in principle because we are being asked to approve the incorporation of Jersey Airport and Jersey Harbours; to approve. This is not in principle. This will be a done deal if we support it today. So, that is my problem, Sir and Minister, and I hope you will be able to answer this. I do not have a problem with the in principle thought behind this. I accept that improvements will be made. I accept that improvements have been made and we have heard already that savings of £1 million have been made since the shadow board has been in place. The Minister needs to assure me and, I am sure, other members that the staff will not have detrimental terms and conditions imposed upon them if this goes ahead. I would also like him to explain how long he thinks it will be before the culture change that he has referred to is going to be met. We keep hearing about the hospital improvements needing to be made. There will be or should be a culture change and we keep hearing this is going to take many, many years. The Minister referred to a positive culture change. If there is a positive culture change there already after a year of the shadow board, how has this been reflected in the service delivery for the general public? The Minister said that the Assembly should be fully supportive of the intention to incorporate and I reiterate that I believe I am almost fully supportive. I have reservations about the transfer of our States employees to the incorporated company and I hope that Members will give that some thought when they decide whether or not to support what we have been told is an in principle

proposition that, if we read the wording of it, is clearly not in principle at all.

3. Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement :

While I understand the reasons behind incorporation and the need for a greater commercial focus, and will therefore be supporting the proposition, there are 3 points that I would like to be clarified. Detailed business plans have not been included in the proposition. Can we be reassured that the business plans for growth are robust and achievable? For example, bulk buying of fuel to potentially encourage customers to refuel in port may not compensate for high landing fees. The considerable assets that will be transferred on incorporation to the new company play a big part in the forecasted income stream. How has the value of these assets been assessed? Is it on current value or projected development of these assets? An example is La Folie at the old harbour, which the Minister mentioned earlier. As another example, upon incorporation all the rentals for units at the Harbours and Airport increase significantly, forcing, for instance, fishermen out of business. I understand that many of the leases are due for renewal next year. With acknowledgements to the concerns of the Jersey Civil Service Association, Prospect and Unite, the States will have the

opportunity to debate and vote on the Harbours and Airport law after incorporation. I hope there will be continued efforts to address their concerns. Every economy in the western world has growth based on projections; it has not worked. My concern is that Jersey Airport is a destination, not a hub airport, and that makes a difference to the growth forecasts.

4. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

Broadly speaking, I would say to the Minister for Economic Development that the time has come to move towards incorporation. But I have a number of questions which perhaps he can answer in his summing up. It relates to what the Deputy of St. Martin said, but it relates also, more specifically, to what the Constable of St. Lawrence said. When I read the title of P.70 it says: "The Incorporation of Ports of Jersey", but in terms of the ports, the incorporation of what? I ask Members to bear with me while I go through the text of this. There are a number of references to assets in the text of P.70, beginning on page 5. "The process of incorporation will transfer the defined assets from the States of Jersey into the ownership of the 100 per cent States-owned company." 100 per cent States owned: that is our first assurance. On page 6, paragraph 3.5: "The Ports Estate. There is a clear need to preserve the integrity of the ports and the operational integrity of the States to ensure the ports can adequately address future demands." So, there we have a second reference to the Port estate. The next reference is on page 7 "Customers"; the second paragraph: "Incorporation will allow the ports to leverage their asset base for development and growth." Then, on page 8, we have "Heritage Services", the Island's historic harbours which I know will include all the harbours of the north of the Island; Bouley Bay, Bonne Nuit, Rozel, Gréve du Lecq and then St. Aubin, Gorey and St. Catherine's and all the rest. But it seems to me that, as I read through this, there is very little reference apart from the Parishes. It refers on page 10, paragraph 4.5, to the Parishes of St. Helier and St. Peter , but there are a great deal of Parishes that are involved in the Ports of Jersey and I wonder why they are specifically focusing on St. Helier and St. Peter . On page 12 "Property", it says: "All relevant land and buildings owned by the public and under the operational control of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport at the point of incorporation will be transferred to the Ports on a basis to be negotiated and agreed with the Minister for Treasury and Resources." Good luck on that one. What I would like to know is: "It is proposed that the assets to be transferred as described in appendix C", and if Members go to appendix C on page 24 and 25, all we have is a map of the airport operational area, and on page 25

we have a map of the port operational area. I would say to the Minister, to say in the last sentence: "It is proposed that the assets to be transferred as described in appendix C" is not very accurate. I do really want to support the incorporation of the Ports of Jersey, but what are we incorporating? My point to the Minister for Economic Development and his Assistant, Deputy Baker, is that we really could have used a fixed asset schedule as to what we have, as distinct from the existing operating income profit base or projected operating figures for the Ports of Jersey to be incorporated. I feel that the Deputy of St. Martin has given us some comfort that his Scrutiny Panel, and I respect his Scrutiny Panel and his work on that Scrutiny Panel, that we really are missing a key component of this report and proposition. I really want to support this incorporation; I really do. So, I would suggest to the Minister for Economic Development that in his summing up he may want to refer to some of my queries on this and to give States Members who want to support this some comfort as to what we are incorporating. I think it is very important that the schedule of fixed assets, and particularly the schedule of historic and heritage ports, is dealt with, and how his team at the Port of Jersey as it is will schedule these historic assets, how they will schedule and list these heritage assets and how they define what is included in St. Aubin, Gréve de Lecq, Bonne Nuit, Bouley Bay, Rozel, St. Catherine's, because some of these areas have potential, in my humble opinion, for development, particularly if one looks at the land area of, say, St. Catherine's; I mean commercial port development. Also the Deputy of St. Martin made relevant reference to the red lines, and if we are to have an expanded commercial port of St. Helier which

may go south towards the Dog's Nest, There is absolutely no reference as to what fixed assets may be needed to do that in the future. In summary, I have reservations about appendix C. There is a great deal of information that should be in this but is not in it, and I really want to support it so I am hoping, hoping, hoping that the Minister for Economic Development and his Assistant will give me some comfort.

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

I recall several years ago under the committee system of government that it was proposed before we went into ministerial government to incorporate Harbours and Airport for the simple reason it did not fit within ministerial government. I do not know whether much has changed since then, but in the end it got bolted on to Economic Development as the only place it could comfortably sit. Regarding the incorporation, I do not have a great deal of problem with it, but not with the possibility of loss of accountability. For instance, I have attended the various presentations and I am very pleased to see that the management structure has been improved, because it was at one stage quite unsatisfactory.

[10:15]

I am glad to see that the financial accounting system is now one that people from outside Harbours can understand as well. It was dire before. But, as I said, my concerns are basically around accountability. At present, if a Baudains has problems, his focal point is the Harbourmaster, or it used to be until recently. Whenever the public has problems with a ferry or whatever, they can get questions asked of the Minister. The feeling I get, if other examples are anything to go by, is that in future those questions will not be able to be asked because presumably the only question you will be able to ask relates to the company via the Minister for Treasury and Resources. I am not sure the public will be satisfied not being able to get answers to the various issues that trouble them. The Minister in his opening speech assures us that harbour dues and mooring fees will not rise to finance the enterprise. I wonder where the funds will come from because I do not believe there is a great deal of opportunity for growth. What about salaries? Will they rise substantially, as we have seen in other areas that we have incorporated? As Deputy Power said, what about the issue of the outlying harbours? That is a liability which Harbours tell us they will take on. I do not know where the funding for that will come from. Of course, we also have to be aware that the outlying harbours are more than just harbours that are facilities for boats. They are also recreational areas for non-boating people, the general public. So, there is a cross issue there; it is not quite as straightforward as it may seem. I am at the position where I am not sure whether I will support this or not. At the moment I am minded not to, but I would raise the point that the Constable of St. Lawrence raised, and I really wonder if we should refer this back to the Scrutiny Panel to have a proper report on it, because it does seem that there is a lot of information missing and frankly, without any disrespect to the Deputy of St. Martin, I do not believe that an oral report which is partially incomplete is acceptable.

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

It seems there is a growing feeling that this particular proposition does not have the legs that it requires to go through this House, and it is a very major decision that we are about to make. If we are to incorporate, this is not an in principle decision at all. This is not in principle. The wording of the proposition says: ".. ask the States to approve the incorporation of Jersey Airport and Jersey Harbours as a single limited company wholly owned by the States of Jersey, to be known as the Ports of Jersey, as set out in the attached report." This is incorporation. Whenever we refer to incorporation of Harbours and Airport in the future it will be a decision this House has already made. It is not in principle. This is a decision to go ahead, to approve the incorporation along the lines of this report. This report is insufficient in its depth and analysis to support, I believe, that

proposition. For example, let us turn to page 8 where we are given a projected balance sheet over a 20-year period. The key element there perhaps is that we only have the balance sheet projected. Where is the extended business case that justifies this particular set of figures? Not existent; not before us; we cannot look at it. Let us have a look at the line that says: "Retain for investment"; £64 million over a 20-year period. What does that represent? That is the entire infrastructure of the airport, which costs a fortune to maintain, the entire infrastructure of the harbour and all the heritage, historic ports. The problems at St. Aubin, I believe, cost something in the order of £4.5 million. Problems at St. Catherine's could cost vastly more than that. That is £64 million; £3 million per year, put aside for infrastructure. That makes no sense at all. Where is the detailed risk analysis? Where is the report that says that we are going to get St. Catherine's and all the other harbours up to scratch in time for incorporation; do not have to worry about it? Where is that data? It is not in this proposition. It should be. This is a woefully inadequate piece of work which requires far more detail on many issues. Not the least, one that has already been mentioned, okay, we are transferring on the current conditions all the staff. What control do we have over what that then incorporated company, pushing for commercial success and to increase its bottom line, does with those staff? We are assured that the only piece of asset that is likely to be sold off is La Folie. But if we incorporate we give up control of that company. If, for example, Jersey Post tomorrow decided it was going to close half a dozen of its Parish post offices for commercial reasons, we would be able to do absolutely nothing about it. Time and time again we try to control the activities of bodies that are already incorporated, and we are told we have no control over the day- to-day running and we must not interfere with the commercial operation of incorporated businesses. That is the reality. We are about to give up .. I will give way.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Point of order.

The Deputy Bailiff :

A point of order has been raised. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but I do believe he is misleading the Assembly in relation to the ability of this Assembly to ultimately control what happens to States-owned entities. I seek your ruling as to how I can deal with this, because I know the Deputy does not wish to, but I believe he is inadvertently misleading the Assembly on the issue of control of States-owned entities.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I take the view that that is probably not a point of order in the sense that you are not asking the Deputy to withdraw something as being deliberately  misleading. It is a question of political argument and you will be able to respond to Members to give your view as to why the Deputy is wrong in due course.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Time and time again I personally have asked this Minister for Treasury and Resources to intervene in activities of incorporated bodies, and he has time and time again refused to do so. He says he cannot interfere, despite being the representative of the shareholder, us, because of the commercial activities, the commercial ongoing activity of that body, and we have given up that control. That is the reality, and that is the reality of what we are about to do on the back of a mere 30 pages completely lacking in detail, down to even a list of the assets that we are about to give away. If we pass this today, we are passing it completely blind. I am absolutely appalled that we do not have a written report, an extensive written report, with the responses that the Chairman of Scrutiny says he has received but has not passed on to us in any way, shape or form. We should have a detailed report of the investigations that have taken place, the answers that were achieved and an analysis of the balance of the risks, costs and benefits of this particular proposal from the Scrutiny Panel themselves and, failing that, from the department itself. We should not need to go through Scrutiny to give us the detail. That detail should be before us today and it is not. So, a detailed business plan, at the very least, is essential. A risk analysis on the £64 million for infrastructure over 20 years is, I believe, potentially woefully inadequate for the costs that are required. A detailed inventory of what we are giving away is absolutely essential. I believe this House, if we get no further information, should reject this proposition out of hand, although it may be that a Member may wish to ask for reference back with some of the detail I have mentioned that is woefully, inadequately absent from this particular document.

Deputy S. Power:

May I make a point of clarification?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Do you mean to ask the Deputy to clarify something he has said? Deputy S. Power:

Through you, Sir, through the Chair; the Deputy said that we are giving away the company. It says quite clearly on page 5: "The process of incorporation will include the transfer of defined assets or shares into the ownership of a 100 per cent owned States-owned company."

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are you asking the Deputy to clarify what he meant by saying that? What did you mean by saying that?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

What we are giving away is control of those assets. That is what we are doing. We are not giving them away but we are giving away control of those assets. We have no control over them in the future.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

On a point of clarification, Deputy Southern referred 2 or 3 times to problems at St. Catherine's. Could he clarify exactly what those problems are, please?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I thought I referred to potential problems at St. Catherine's. The Deputy Bailiff :

I think that is you, Senator Bailhache .

7. Senator P.M. Bailhache :

I am sorry, Sir. My hearing is not what it was. I just want to say a few words about this question of whether or not the Assembly is being asked to make a decision in principle. Deputy Southern suggests that is not the case, but it seems to me that the reality is the Assembly is being asked to make a decision in principle. There comes a time when decisions have to be made and, as a matter of our constitutional position, it would have been open to the Minister not to bring this forward for approval of the Assembly at all. It would have been open to him to carry on and to prepare the legislation, perhaps in consultation with the Scrutiny Panel, and to come to the Assembly with a law or more than one law, and to ask the Assembly to give effect to the transfer of the Harbours and

the Airport to the newly incorporated entity. The Minister has not done that and the Assembly is today acting, in effect, as part of the Executive. This is not a position in which many parliaments find themselves. Most parliaments are legislative assemblies; they deal with legislation. This morning the Assembly is being asked to act as part of the Executive and for my part I feel in 2 minds about this. On the one hand I think the Minister is entirely sensible. The Minister has come forward with this proposition because, if it is approved, there is a considerable amount of work that has yet to be done. I have a number of questions and I agree with Deputy Power very much in what he says. I have a number of questions as to how the legal regime will operate and what is the extent of the land to be transferred to the new company. What is the extent of the obligations? Will, for example, the company have the obligation to maintain St. Catherine's breakwater? It is responsible for the harbour at St. Catherine's. What is the extent of the legal rights and obligations that will be transferred? But this, I think, is a matter of detail for the Assembly to deal with when the legislation comes before the Assembly. It is very tempting for this Assembly to want to micro- manage the way in which States businesses operate. I was interested to hear Deputy Southern refer to the closure of post offices. This is not the business of a legislative assembly. This is the business of whoever is responsible for the operation of that particular business. It is not for this Assembly to decide whether post boxes should be painted yellow or red, white and blue in honour of a particular Olympic athlete.

[10:30]

We ought to be looking at things at a higher level. I said I had some reservations about the fact that the Minister had chosen to bring this matter to the Assembly, but I think he was sensible to do so. It does give Members the opportunity to decide in principle whether it is sensible to incorporate the Harbours and the Airport. I have no doubt it is sensible for all the reasons that the Minister has given and, unlike perhaps some Members, I am very comforted by the fact that the Scrutiny Panel has got its teeth into this and has examined the matter carefully, asked a number of questions, no doubt will be asking a number more questions as well. It may be that a written report would have been helpful but, for my part, I am perfectly confident in the ability of the Scrutiny Panel to have looked at the matter in sufficient depth to be able to advise the Assembly that at this stage it is sensible to move on to prepare the legislation so that the Assembly will be able to look at the detail in due course.

8. Deputy M. Tadier :

I think listening here as somebody who has not been perhaps in the centre, if you like, of the incorporation as the Scrutiny Panel and the Ministers may have been; certainly the Ministers anyway. It seems to me that we can argue, as Senator Bailhache has said, that the Minister for Economic Development did not have to bring this today and it is good that he brought it. He could have brought it at a later stage when perhaps there was more detail and it was to do with legislation. If we take that in good faith and accept the fact that, although it is still a moot point, it is good that he brings it to the Assembly so that at least we can get the "in principles" out there. The question remains, and I think can be answered, that what we have seen today, both inside the Assembly, is that we have a report and proposition that has not fully been fleshed out and has not been scrutinised to the extent that we would normally expect it to be. That is obviously because I am sure the Scrutiny Panel has done the best job it could in the time limit. It could be the fact that it has been over the summer holidays. It could be the fact that they have competing pressures to do with the M.T.F.P. and it could be to do with the fact that they do not have enough members on their panel. All of which, I say, I think they have acted in good faith but, certainly in terms of an Assembly, the job of scrutiny and information has not been done. That is the first part in terms of internally in the Assembly, but I also think that the external consultation for something of this mammoth size, whether it is in principle or not, there is no doubt that if this is passed today, it will signal the beginning of incorporation. We are not going to pass this today and then say: "Let us not have incorporation." It was almost strange that the Minister in proposing was almost apologetic for the fact that we are incorporating. He said: "This is just an in principle thing. It does not necessarily mean we are going to incorporate." It seems perhaps, in my mind, it is a case of sophistry because clearly we are going to have to incorporate sooner or later; we do not bring a proposition like this. We have also heard lots of what I would call "media speak" that would have made Alistair Campbell proud; things like "green shoots of positive change"; that the staff have been "actively and positively engaged" and that the staff support it by and large. But we have not been given any evidence as to what the consultation process engaged in with the staff has been. We do hear from the media yesterday that certainly the staff at Harbours and Airport are concerned. We hear that the unions that represent them have been on the radio and have been making noises quite rightly, because they do not know what this entails. They are worried about their jobs. As the Constable of St. Lawrence says, we do not have the T.U.P.E legislation in. These are our own staff and we have not engaged in the correct processes we should have with our own staff. So, the consequence of that is fear because people fear the unknown. It could be quite right that incorporation is the correct thing to do, and we have heard many speeches saying: "I am not opposed to incorporation; in principle I support incorporation." Others are perhaps more tentative, but without having the meat on the bones, the devil remains in the detail. We can all, of course, subscribe to something when we do not know what it means, if it is a vast and blurry objective. But once you get closer and once we look at the detail, which we do not have today, you say: "Well, I do not like that. I do not like the fact that certain controls are being taken away from the States." I think it was a very pertinent point that Deputy Baudains mentioned that these are not simply commercial assets. When we talk about St. Catherine's Harbour where I like to go fishing sometimes, and I can tell Deputy Southern that there are and have been problems down there to do with the structure. I think most of the work has been done now, but there have been ongoing difficulties with shoring up the end of the pier there, which is not an easy thing to do when it is three-quarters of a mile out to sea and you have rough water there. There are more simple things, like there is no soap in the toilets, so if you want to wash your hands after you have been fishing for mackerel for a day, you cannot do it satisfactorily; you have to wait until you get home. There are small things like that even, which I have noticed. But tourists go down there. People like to go down there for cultural purposes as well. So, these are not simply hard assets to do with landing

fees and yacht fees. It is also about how we manage access to our ports and to our airport as well. What I would suggest, and I think there have been several calls and people are skirting round the issue, is there are definite grounds for a reference back here. First of all, we have not been given the information from Scrutiny. I would have expected at the very least, given what seems like their absolute support and the fact that they have been engaged very well with the Minister and been given all the information that they required. At least issue some comments, that that is the least that we would like to see. It would give us something tangible to read through and so clearly the work has been done here and we are quite satisfied that Scrutiny has done its job or issue a report at least and if they have not had time, delay it for a month or 2 so that we can have an actual report with the officer engagement there to give us the hard facts and say, by and large, this is what should have been done. So, I would like to move for a reference back under Standing Order 83 and I think on this occasion I will not refer it to Scrutiny but back to the Minister and I would ask for the following pieces of information.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , would you say that again? Deputy M. Tadier :

Under Standing Order 83, I would like to invoke that to seek specific information from the Minister, which I do not think we have already. One is the Symonds Report which has been referred to. We do not have copies of that. As far as I know, it has not been put in the public domain and those should be circulated to States Members at the earliest possible opportunity so that we can look at those. If it needs to be done in a confidential format or via a presentation by the Minister, I know he has done presentations already, I was not able to attend as I have already stated to him personally due to constituency commitments, but we should have the full copy of that report. We also need

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , could you just remind me where the reference to the Symonds Report comes in the report? Deputy M. Tadier :

It was in the opening speech, Sir, and I think it is the Capita Symonds Report was the name of it, but there are other pieces of information I seek as well.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes I just want to be clear what you are asking. At all events, the Symonds Report, yes. Deputy M. Tadier :

The other piece of information I would like to ask for is what formal consultation has taken place with employees and unions because we have been given information suggesting that they are supportive and, I am sure, clearly to compile a report you need to engage with certainly a minority of staff members who are helping you compile the report at certainly senior Civil Service level. But I suspect that engagement and real engagement with the staff has not been entered into. So if there has been any consultation, I would like that to be put into the public domain but I suspect that there has not been a formal consultation process and I would like that to be invoked before we proceed with any incorporation propositions coming back to the Assembly. So those are really the 2 main parts. I think there is lots of other information that Members may want and I am sure they can speak to the Minister in advance, but certainly those 2 pieces of information I think should be engaged in first and brought back to the Assembly before we have the rest of this debate.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the proposal for a reference back seconded? [Seconded] I rule that the proposal for a reference back is in order on the 2 counts which Deputy Tadier has set out, the question of the Symonds Report and the question of what formal consultation has taken place with employees and unions. I am not clear whether the Deputy was saying that there should be a reference back for the purposes of information from Scrutiny but I have to say that in my judgment, my order would be that that is not a suitable ground for reference back because it is not a reference back to the Minister for the Scrutiny Panel to do something. It is not within the control of the Minister.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Can I clarify on that? I think that is correct. I would like Scrutiny to independently consider producing at least comments in a report if they have time but that is obviously for them. Could I ask for a third part to the reference while I am on my feet? There does not seem to be a list of properties throughout the Island and in the various Parishes which will be affected by this proposition. I think that is another key piece of information which is right both for States Members and for the Parishes to know so we know exactly what we are dealing with.

The Deputy Bailiff :

No list of properties which will be affected. That also, in my view, is in order. So the proposal for a reference back has been made and seconded and we will now open a debate. There is nothing further, Deputy Tadier , you wish to say on the proposal for reference back? Then the debate is now open on the proposal for reference back.

2. Incorporation of Ports of Jersey - proposal of Deputy Tadier that the matter should be referred back to the Minister under Standing Order 83

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I will, perhaps unsurprisingly to Deputy Tadier , be strongly speaking against this reference back. I very much hope that by the end of the day, we will look back in a few years' time and take this day as a positive milestone on the journey of Harbours and Airports. I think that this proposition, and Deputy Tadier in his specific answers or requests to the proposition, did say there is probably going to be lots of other things that Members may want to have. I think that probably we may be in the position that Deputy Tadier and some other Members, which I totally understand, will never be satisfied in relation to some of the answers that they may get. I think that we must be very careful that we do not attempt to try and have a reference back. If those Members are against incorporation, then they need to vote against the proposition and they are perfectly entitled to do that. I understand that there are some Members who will have an ideological view that incorporation is a bad thing. I am going to answer the specific issues and no doubt the Minister will also answer and respond to why I do not believe that it is appropriate that there is a need to reference this proposition back to the Minister because I think that Members can take notwithstanding the fact that there may well be questions. I have questions. There may well be enormous amounts of questions that Members may absolutely legitimately have to answer in relation to the incorporation. Those answers are not required today in order to make what is an important principle. Senator Bailhache mentioned what "in principle" means. Every journey starts with a first step. This is the first step and just because you get out of bed in the morning and take a first step on whatever journey, it does not mean to say that you are going to reach your destination. It does not mean to say that there is certainty that you are going to get out from where you want to get to and this is a journey of incorporation. There are many, many steps that need to be taken. This is, without doubt, the first step and there is going to have to be in that journey a lot of constructive tension between various different parties of which the Symonds Report, of which the list of properties, is going to be important steps on the journey. I stand here as Minister for Treasury and Resources and with my Assistant Minister, we have Property Holdings. We have some, and I must say have had, continue to have, and will be important stakeholders in that discussion of which properties are included. The Minister has been helpful in setting out effectively some red lines and some areas that are potentially going to be part of the law that will eventually come forward but certainly as ultimately the shareholder in Property Holdings, we want to know what the justification is for every single property that is going to be transferred. We want to know what the obligations are of that property. I am afraid just simply a list of properties, I say to Deputy Tadier , is not going to help us. There is the indicative principle of decisions that has been taken that, of course, we are going to be putting generally the port. Of course we are going to be putting generally the subject of the historic harbours but we cannot possibly be, in this first step of this journey, having every single servitude, obligation, conveyance, detail in relation to the properties because it would not be, I think, satisfactory for Deputy Tadier to take that first journey

on that step just to have the list of properties. [10:45]

He would want to know what the valuations were, what the particular obligations were, what the particulars were, and all the rest of it probably. I have no doubt that there are massive questions that need to be answered before we take that final decision. In relation to the Capita Symonds

Report, the Minister himself can answer that and he can, I think, I hope, explain as to the reasons why we do not need to have a copy of that report before us and I will leave that to him. In relation to Scrutiny, I know that this was rejected as a reason for a reference back. I thought the Deputy of St. Martin helped us enormously. He has clearly done a lot of work with his panel. I think that this is an example of Scrutiny asking tough questions. I had a meeting last night with one of the Chief Executives as one of the other utilities and we were talking about non-Executives. I think the non- Executive function which is being carried out by Scrutiny is very healthy and they have got a lot of work to be done. There is an enormous amount of work to be done on answering all of these detailed questions in relation to this. What I think would be a shame is that clearly this matter of incorporation of Harbours and Airports has been going on for an awful long time. It was in 1998 that this Assembly first was presented with this but did not take a decision of incorporating Harbours and Airports; 1998. There was a further debate in 1999 on incorporation and there was a further debate in relation to Trust Port and by the way, Trust Port was giving away control, this is not, but I am not going to talk about this in this reference back. So we have been discussing the in principle decision of whether to incorporate Harbours and Airports for something like 14 or 15 years. In that time, we have seen how other incorporated entities do organise themselves in such a way that benefits both staff, customers and the shareholder which this Assembly is ultimately the shareholder. I do not think that there are many Members of this Assembly who doubt ultimately that probably incorporation is the right model for Harbours and Airports, 100 per cent owned by the States of Jersey but operating. In referring this reference back, I think that we would be doing a disservice to the staff and to the management of Harbours and Airports and the Minister himself explained earlier the huge progress that has been made by the new Chief Executive and the Board. It is a massively positive change in terms of efficiency, taking £1 million out. This is excellent and this is the early indication of what we can do in terms of not only simply saving money and this is not about cutting staff remuneration levels. This is about what I find a really wonderful word that the Chief Executive uses. He wants to "delight" his customers. Delighting customers means bringing more people through the port, more airlines to Jersey. We want an incorporated body which is going to be responsive to market demands, going to deliver efficient services, going to delight more customers and provide a good working environment. The Deputy in relation to the not accepted part of the reference back spoke about staff consultation. I have informal consultation with many staff at Harbours and Airports as I walk through the harbour and the airport regularly and I think there is a spring in the step of employees of Harbours and Airports who are looking forward to a new world of incorporation. I think we will be doing a disservice once again. After 14 or 15 years of abortive attempts to incorporate Harbours and Airports, we should be using this opportunity as a positive way forward, as a first step. We are not sure we are going to get to the destination but certainly we need to take the first step and give a vote of confidence to the Shadow Board to give confidence to the Minister to get on with this important work and this important endeavour. I respect the fact that some people do not agree with incorporation. I do. I think this reference back is not necessary in terms of that first step. We are not at the destination. It is a first

step and we do not need a reference back to stop that first step.

2. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade :

I rise as one of those Members that are not in the group that the Minister for Treasury and Resources described, those who will never be satisfied. I am a Member that feels that the direction of travel is the right one. We have a proposal that has got, when one reads through it, sound business sense. There are some big differences between Jersey Post and Jersey Telecom that when we discuss a substantive proposition if we do, I would like to bring out. But my main concern is that we are required today to make decisions with, I think, an inadequate level of detail and I thought as a Member this is such a big decision and there are so many issues raised outside by constituents, members of the business community, employees and others, that think we need a

greater level of information in order to make that decision. I do not want to have to vote against this proposition, the substantive one, today. I would much prefer to have those questions answered. I strongly support Deputy Luce and the Scrutiny Panel. I think they have had a difficult job here. This is a very substantial proposition because just look at what we are told is that to answer all the questions is going to cost us £1.8 million just to do the work to answer all the points in detail, £1.8 million. We are in at the moment a kind of starting gate where, if you like, I think we have spent probably a modest amount of money and a modest amount of time and I do not think the Scrutiny Panel have had anything like adequate time to be able to produce a written report. So I am absolutely not critical on that. I would like to have seen a timetable that gave them time and the Minister time to produce that additional information. For me my reservations are mainly in the areas, as other Members have highlighted, particularly Deputy Power, about assets and in other incorporatisations, this has been controversial. I certainly would like more information of what is proposed because I think frankly when one looks at the maps and the report does say: "Well, here is the operational area but, by the way, that is not what is proposed to be transferred over." We do not know what is proposed to be transferred over. That is still to be decided and, of course, when one looks at these maps, there are a lot of questions. Where is the long-term Harbour Masterplan? Over many years and there still is an unresolved issue about our waterfront and our harbour and its future development, where is the Port Masterplan in all this? Why have we drawn boundaries around buildings that at the moment are in private industrial use or even in the case of the Airports, buildings that do not even sit within the Airport boundaries and say they are part of the Airport plans. I do not want to be negative about that. They are questions and I am afraid I cannot answer those from this paperwork. We have issues about service level agreements which are mentioned but I cannot, for example, see any mention of the future of the Met. Office. I know there have been big debates about that in the past that should this be transferred to the Met. Office of the U.K. (United Kingdom) and there are important issues there and I would like to have seen that sort of issue to make sure that the Island can keep its locally based Met. service covered. So I really do not want to vote against this. By supporting reference back, I am not in this negative group. I want the information please and I think we do not have to have the whole Rolls Royce of

£1.8 million but I just would like to see a little bit more so I think I will support the reference back.

3. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

It is a shame. I have heard most of the speeches this morning and I think everyone wants to support this incorporation of the ports but I do agree. I did go to the last, and it was only a few weeks ago now maybe even last week, I went to the briefing and I had a lot of these questions answered for my own satisfaction and for the Minister for Treasury and Resources to say to everybody you have got the pack that will want to never incorporate or privatise, whatever you want to use, and it is not privatisation, I totally accept that. I think he is wrong. I think he and the Minister for Economic Development really want this passed in the next month or 2 and has to do a little bit more work. I just went outside to speak to the officers. Normally on a great big report like this, you would have at least 4 or 5. There is no one here to ask a question of: Oh, just to confirm what I was told at the meeting, was it a fait accompli?" I do not know or is it because, as Senator Bailhache says, this is exceptional for us to be able to discuss policy in this House which I do not agree with. This is a big step today. I have been asked by one of the members of the shadow board was I intending to support and I was intending. I have read very carefully the union letter and it does not say that they are against it. They know the people who are working at the ports now will be protected when they cross over when it becomes an entity. T.U.P.E. does not I do not think even under T.U.P.E. it is future employees are covered but that is a different issue. I was assured for myself but you have got I think the Minister for Treasury and Resources, you have got Constables, and we were told at the briefing every Parish will be included and it will touch every Parish and every Parish could potentially have rates except St. Lawrence. They have none unfortunately. We had the Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources there who is also the Deputy of St. Lawrence and he was quite miffed at that. But there you go, you cannot move the ports. So what they do know they know what they have not done is give a little bit more information in here. Scrutiny have not and this really is not the reference back but the comments there. They had their questions answered and it sounds okay. So I really do not want the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Minister for Economic Development to lose the war over this small battle. The reference back is not rocket science. The officers know the answers because I was told them at the briefing. So why can we not accept this reference back or why does the Minister not take it away, come back in a month's time and I am sure you will get full support. Yes sorry some of the die-hards you will not get but even I can see this is the way forward but please do not let the Minister for Treasury and Resources ruin it for you again. Please listen to the people of the House. There was every speech so far has been in support but with a little bit more information. Do not dig your heels in please.