States Meeting Transcript - 19th March 2014

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 19th MARCH 2014

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ......................................3

1. Deputy Greffier of the States designate - appointment..................................3 The Bailiff :....................................................................................3
2. Items lodged au Greffe'..................................................................3

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

2. Esplanade Quarter developments: approval by the States (P.15/2014).................3

2.1 Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier:........................................................3

1. Deputy J.M. Le Bailly of St. Mary:......................................................5
2. The Connétable of St. John:..............................................................6
3. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:.............................................................6

4. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:....................................................8
5. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence:.......................................................9
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................11
7. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................12

8. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................12
9. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................16
10. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................18
11. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................20
12. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:..................................................21
13. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................23
14. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................24

3. Piquet House: cancellation of sale and future use (P.16/2014).........................29

3.1 Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................29

1. Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement : ........................................................32
2. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................33
3. Deputy E.J. Noel: ......................................................................34
4. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................36
5. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.................................................37
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................38
7. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................38

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................39

8. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................40
9. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................40
10. Senator F. Du H. Le Gresley: ........................................................42

11. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................43
12. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................44
13. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:....................................................44
14. Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier:...................................................45
15. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:......................................46
16. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................46
17. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen : ......................................................49
18. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:................................................50
19. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................51
20. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ............................................52
21. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu of St. Helier : ................................................54
22. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................54
23. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:..................................................55
24. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :....................................................56
25. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin:.....................................................57
26. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................57
27. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................59

4. States Housing: arrangements for new tenants. P.19/2014 - deferral..................64

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................64

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................64

5. The Bailiff :...............................................................................64

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ...............64
   2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................65

4.2.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................65

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................65

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER

1. Deputy Greffier of the States designate - appointment The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Connétable . Now, before we resume the debate on Projet 15 there is one matter I would like to inform Members of. Members will be aware that Mrs. Anne Harris , the current Deputy Greffier of the States, will be leaving her post at the end of April. I am pleased to tell Members that the recruitment process for her successor was completed on Monday with interviews held by a panel. The panel was chaired by Professor Sallis from the Jersey Appointments Commission and he was joined by the Attorney General, the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers, the Director of Human Resources and the Greffier of the States. I am sure Members will be pleased to hear the panel was unanimous in deciding that Mrs. Lisa Hart , the Assistant Greffier, will be appointed.  [Approbation] Given that applause, Members will be particularly relieved to hear that I have also given my consent to her appointment. [Laughter] She will be sworn in at the beginning of May and it is quite apparent that Members join me in congratulating her on this well-deserved appointment. Very well, a second matter just in connection is that there will be a reception held on 30th April to mark Mrs. Harris ' retirement. You will receive invitations in due course, but if you would like to put it in your diary at this stage that would be a good thing to do .. at 5.30 p.m. [Laughter]

2. Items lodged au Greffe'

Finally, 2 matters were lodged yesterday, which I do not think I read out: Projet 34, International Criminal Court Act 2001: extension to Jersey, lodged by the Chief Minister, and Projet 35, Draft International Criminal Court (Jersey) Law, lodged by the Minister for External Relations. They were lodged yesterday.

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

2. Esplanade Quarter developments: approval by the States (P.15/2014) The Bailiff :

Very well, so now we return to the debate on Projet 15, the proposition of Senator Breckon. Does any Member wish to speak? Deputy Bryans.

2.1 Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier :

Yesterday we were treated to a couple of stories and I listened with intent to what was being said. Also, there were some issues raised that I did not really fully appreciate or understand so I went back and began to discover some things that I was not fully informed on. Firstly, what exactly is Grade A office space? Because Senator Ozouf had said that we did not have any. Here is a definition I found: "Grade A office space: the most prized and sought after office space. Typically, office buildings within the Grade A bracket are brand new or have been recently redeveloped or experienced a thorough refurbishment. The properties are prestigious and usually occupy prime locations within major cities. Along with the standard of the building itself, Grade A offices will also possess high quality furnishings, state-of-the-art facilities and excellent accessibility. The property will be finished in order to compete for premier office users, typically appealing to an international market, and will usually demand rents that are above average for the area." Savills, in their description, are much more succinct: "Grade A: modern specification building with high quality finishes incorporating a suspended ceiling, raised floor or under-floor trunking in a prime location." So, 2 things occur to me here. As Senator Ozouf stated yesterday, the Jersey International Finance Centre offers the only blank canvas development opportunity in St. Helier, the only prime site. Secondly, the design of the buildings complements the architectural notion of a Grade A building. It has significant advantages in that it can provide regular-shaped floor plates with natural light on all 4 elevations as a result of the buildings being stand alone. From an operations perspective, this means there is no dead space on the floors with 100 per cent of the net lettable area being usable, so we have highly efficient and flexible space. Then I went back to P.73 and looked at why the S.o.J.D.C. (States of Jersey Development Company) was established, just to remind myself. It grew out of the dissatisfaction with W.E.B. (Waterfront Enterprise Board). I looked at the DTZ report that recommended the creation of the S.o.J.D.C. as a workable alternative. It says: "The prime purpose of S.o.J.D.C. is to act as the delivery vehicle for property development for the States of Jersey, procuring and managing project implementation either via a joint venture with a third party developer or direct." It also says it should include detailed risk mitigation measures, which the company is obligated to follow. The primary risk mitigation measure is no construction without a pre-let. Then I looked at its principles, which are quite comprehensive so I will just mention a few: "The States of Jersey is establishing the S.o.J.D.C. as a development company, the prime purpose of which is to deliver regeneration projects to provide the best socioeconomic benefit to S.o.J.D.C. This will be in the form of enhancing the value of existing property through refurbishment, the development of new properties, infrastructure and public realm. Regeneration assets may be retained by the public or disposed of to realise capital proceeds. Property held by either Jersey Property Holdings or S.o.J.D.C. will be consolidated within the S.O.J. (States of Jersey) accounts." Then it goes on to say what the objective and commitment is: "S.o.J.D.C. is committed to implementing appropriate strategies and processes that identify, analyse and manage the risks associated with its activities as a means of minimising the impact of undesired and unexpected events on our business activities. It will, therefore, identify business objectives that reflect the interests of all our stakeholders; identify the threats to the achievements of our business objectives; control and manage our exposure to risk by appropriate risk reduction and mitigation actions; regularly review our exposure to all forms of risk and reduce it as far as reasonably practical or achievable; apply robust risk management processes as part of a wider management system." It goes on; there are reams of it. Here we are really water-sealing ourselves against risk. So then I looked to see if Jersey is unique in creating its own company developing prime real estate. Is there a model? I found the Crown Estate. Their website states: "We are, above all, a commercial organisation tasked by Parliament with enhancing the value of the £8.1 billion property portfolio we manage and generating a profit for the benefit of the nation. We work to a clear investment strategy concluding hundreds of millions of property transactions every year, also delivering some of the most ambitious redevelopment schemes in the heart of London." The City of London Corporation is also another example, so we are not alone. The Jersey International Finance Centre creates an identifiable office district for the financial services industry and such centres have proven to act as positive attractors of business; for example, the City of London, Canary Wharf, the Singapore Waterfront and the Dubai International Finance Centre, to name a few. What other factors are in play here? This site has been earmarked for office use since 2001 and for 620,000

square foot of office space since the Hopkins Masterplan was endorsed by the States in 2008. Locally, most private developers have brought forward their latest office schemes post 2008 in the full knowledge of the content and quantum permitted on the Esplanade Quarter. The S.o.J.D.C. has received letters of objection against its planning applications from most rival private office developers, so it is no wonder that certain elements of the scheme have been kept private. The wolves are at the gate. So to roll this back, 6 private developers are hungry for this site. Why do you think that is? Should we let them step in and gain the potential profit the Island could benefit from? Accepted by the States, this site was identified for office space over 13 years ago. How much longer should we wait and for what? What can possibly be gained by hanging on? More importantly, what can be lost? What have we previously lost by waiting to see how things pan out? We are not alone when it comes to creating a development company for prime real estate; others have done it. There is a model to follow. Of the 2 companies I mentioned, each has been successful in realising their potential, creating successful financial centres that have attracted massive investment. Have we created a company with a strong board, with fine minds and a passion for excellence? A keen executive that is fully aware of its responsibilities and has undertaken every level of risk mitigation and open auditing that one might expect when dealing with high-level finances? I think we have.

[9:45]

Are we making the most of a prime site location for the benefit of both the finance industry and Islanders alike, providing Jersey with real opportunity to entice prospecting businesses from around the world to inhabit Grade A offices and potentially create more jobs? I think we have. Add to that Gigabit and Digital Jersey and perhaps we have a winning formula that could be envied. That said, I think risks still exist. No one knew the world's finances were going to collapse in 2008. No one knew when we started this Assembly back in 2011 that we would lose 2 Deputies, that we would gain 2 new Members, but yesterday on their first day both of them spoke clearly and with intent. Who would have thought that would have happened? I applaud them and it bodes well. Somebody asked me yesterday what engages me so much with promoting creativity. I said it is where the ideas are. It is where the positive people are to be found. It is where the energies lie. If we are serious about becoming a global player, we have to have the best infrastructure to allow us to do that. Grade A offices on a prime site connected to fibre-optical telecommunications is the first step. I have no problem with Members exercising their rights to be cautious because it sharpens my attention and helps me think. It helped me realise that without applying the same sort of vision that created the finance industry in the first place, this Island could be left in the doldrums wondering why we did not seize the opportunity when it was presented to us. We have grasped the opportunity. We have minimised the risk. I would urge Members to reject this proposition and support the vision of creating a new financial centre and, in doing so, potentially make the lives of Islanders better. [Approbation]

1. Deputy J.M. Le Bailly of St. Mary :

I am often very disappointed by the pessimism and the procrastination that emits from some of the Members in this Chamber. This Island would not enjoy the comfort or the security which it has achieved alongside the leading finance centres of the world today if it had been established on the negative thoughts of our previous Island politicians. We are fortunate that politicians like Cyril Le Marquand, Terry Le Sueur , Frank Walker , all prompted by our long-serving Chief Adviser to the States, Colin Powell, and many other politicians with actual business experience had the vision to grasp the opportunity of establishing Jersey as a finance centre in order to offset the reduction in revenue from the agricultural and tourism industries. Please do not jeopardise or destroy their hard work by delaying this project. We need to build on their legacy. We are here to create, not to stifle. You need to be audacious, continue that vision. The background work has been completed on this project by experts. There is no point in reviewing that in order to confirm the same opinion. The timescale does not allow that to happen. We need to press on with this project. We need to confirm our confidence in the financial sector in order for them to commit long term to Jersey. Doing so will also boost our economy by providing much needed work for the building industry and the service contractors. Remember, if we do not grasp this opportunity someone else will. Any delay will result in a great financial loss to this Island. This is a venture with and for the people of the Island, a golden moment for them to share in that success. If we do not allow that to happen, someone else shall reap the dividend, which would be a sad loss to the taxpayer. We need to be positive. We have a golden opportunity at our fingertips, providing you press the right button. That button is the "contre" button. Reject this proposition to avoid any further delay.

2. The Connétable of St. John :

Inspiring confidence in our future, the Strategic Plan in 2012: "Preparing for the future. We need to be a community that constantly looks forward and is prepared to identify both the opportunities and the threats that will affect our way of life in the future." That is one of the headings that was brought forward in 2012. Listening to the Constable of St. Clement yesterday, I was taken in by his speech. If the vote had happened then, I believe I would have supported it there and then. But after mature reflection and a bad night's sleep when I tossed and turned, and tossed the bed covers off the bed, I sat up thinking of the history of this site. Where have we been? I recall trying to get some common sense to the whole scenario back in 2009 and 2010 after some 2 years in the recession. I recall bringing to the Chamber a proposition to delay the works on this site until we, the Island, could see the light at the end of the tunnel. Well, yes, things have now moved on and the recession hopefully is behind us. Hopefully. We do not know what is going to happen with the problems in the Eastern Bloc at the moment, but that is another scenario possibly yet to be played out. We should build our own Canary Wharf or a Gherkin or a Palm Tree Island as in London and Dubai and capture the world's high-class finance business. Like many of our Island residents, I am totally fed up when I call any of the major banks or finance houses and ask to speak to the head of a department, only to find out that that department or the head office is in the Isle of Man, our little sister island 20 miles away, or some other part of the world. You mention that you live in Rue de la Mare-Ballam and they do not know where that is. You mention St. John . They do not know where that is. You are knocking your head against the wall with somebody who on many occasions does not even speak English or French. After many requests, you eventually speak to somebody. I am waiting for the light at the end of the tunnel to appear. We all need to see that light and that light is the certain ownership of this site. Given that Harcourt have not withdrawn their claim, it is all well and good the Ministers and Members telling us that ..

The Bailiff :

Sorry, we cannot go into that matter. The Connétable of St. John :

No, Sir, I have just moved on from there. [Laughter] You have just raised it again in my mind, though. It is all well and good the Minister and others telling us of the return of large sums of money. Was it not the Minister who originally said that this site would return some £70 million- plus to the Island, that being amended to some £50 million-odd at a later date, and I think the last figure I heard was somewhere in the region of £40 million. We need to settle this outstanding dispute before we move forward. I do not want this Island to find itself with empty pockets once we have something built on this site. It is all well and good for the C.E.O. (Chief Executive Officer) of our States-owned company pontificating that the States could lose potential clients, but we are the taxpayers. We are the people who have to put up the money at the end of the day and if everything goes wrong we see these people walk away and we, the taxpayer, the people of Jersey, have to hold the baby. I want the Minister to unblock this logjam because that in my mind is where there is a logjam. That can be sorted out and it should be sorted out before we start. I am fully in favour, as I say, of our own Canary Wharf, Gherkin or the Palm Tree scenario that they have in other parts of the world, but sort the logjam before we move forward.

3. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I would like to take Members back to the opening speech of Senator Breckon yesterday. Strangely enough, I had highlighted 2 sentences that he used, which were repeated on the radio this morning, BBC Radio, so I think I probably picked the right sentences. He said: "If all goes well, this could be one of the best things we have done for Jersey. However, we could be making a very, very serious  mistake." This is spring and in spring potential brides and grooms are preparing for marriage. They have been planning this for many years, perhaps in some cases more recently. I say this because this is happening in my own family. However, what often happens is that all the arrangements have been put into place and we get very close to the day of the service and the reception. The bride starts to get cold feet, gets a bit worried.

The Bailiff :

I trust you are not saying this is happening in your family? [Laughter] Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

That remains to be seen, Sir. So in this particular scenario, our bride of the day is Senator Breckon. He has 2 very passionate bridesmaids who are standing firmly behind him in Deputy Le Fondré and Deputy Power. Having just heard the Constable of St. John speak, I think he is also the pageboy of the wedding. [Laughter] Any sensible bride before the wedding day will go to one of these magazines or websites where there is a tick box for all the things you need to do in preparation for the big day. So our Jersey Development Company, which was set up to run the development of States property which had been passed to it, also has its own tick box. This is called the Memorandum of Understanding between the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the States of Jersey Development Company. That tick box appears in the appendix to P.73/2010. I have not seen the latest final version of the Memorandum of Understanding, but I believe it has not changed significantly, if at all. In preparation for the big day .. and the big day, of course, is the signing of the pre-lease agreements. This is very close. We know that there is a potential major tenant for the first of the office developments, who is ready and waiting for the big day. So what should our Jersey Development Company, set up by the States in accordance with P.73/2010, which incidentally I voted against. However, I am a little bit wiser perhaps these days having, obviously, looked into this in greater detail. In the tick box, what should be there? Firstly, objectives. I have to put my glasses on for this. The first one is develop detailed development proposals for specific projects of major regeneration of property and infrastructure within regeneration zone for consideration by the regeneration steering group: tick. Provide forward funding for preparing the detailed development proposals. We understand about £3 million has been put forward already: tick. Procure the services of appropriate design and development consultants: tick. Manage and develop detailed designs for specific sites: tick. Submit detailed planning applications to the Minister for Planning and Environment: tick, and also obtained approval. Procure and manage project implementation of development plans for regeneration zone agreed by the regeneration steering group either directly, which Deputy Bryans pointed out, or via a joint venture: tick. Provide quarterly progress report to the Regeneration Steering Group with regard to agreed development plans: tick. Procure and manage project implementation as agreed and directed by the Minister either directly or with a joint venture partner: tick. Provide quarterly progress reports to the Minister in respect of development taking place: tick. So, our States-owned States of Jersey Development Company has done everything that was required of it in preparation for the

development on the Esplanade car park. [10:00]

However, it has not only done that but it has also complied with the mitigation of risk, which is also set out in the Memorandum of Understanding where it clearly says: "If it is proposed that a specific development is undertaken directly, before committing to construction costs the States of Jersey Development Company will have to secure a sufficient level of legally binding pre-sales or pre-lets to fund the costs of constructing the first phase of a scheme. This will remove part of the risk of a particular development project and will ensure that there will be no financial liabilities relating to particular development construction costs to the States of Jersey Development Company." I would submit that the States of Jersey Development Company have absolutely stuck to their brief. They have done what was set out in the Memorandum of Understanding and we are at the door to the church. We are nearly there but, of course, we have the doubters. There is nothing wrong with doubting whether this should be the right thing to do for Jersey, but I would suggest that if all the tick boxes are in place there is really .. and I would urge Members who are perhaps in doubt, we really have to take that final step over the threshold and go forward and complete the union. What would be the implications of not doing this, of this Assembly accepting this proposition from Senator Breckon, which I stress I think is brought in good faith and it is good that we have this discussion? But the damage that it has probably already done to the prospective tenants who wish to work with the States of Jersey Development Company is, I would suggest, already quite considerable. So those Members who are in any doubt and who decide that they want to vote with Senator Breckon, I would say to them a vote in favour means that the tenants will pull out, the board will resign and we will be back to the drawing board. [Approbation]

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

May I seek clarification? Obviously, nowadays the divorce rate is quite high. Do the couple in the story genuinely love each other or is it simply a marriage of convenience? [Laughter]

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

In 2008, when the Masterplan was agreed by this Assembly, I think broadly we did it for different reasons. The holistic nature of urban regeneration was really what was being put on offer and sold to the Island and States Members. Since that time we have seen hard times in terms of the recession and perhaps the goalposts are moving a little or have moved a little. This is the biggest issue that I certainly am slightly worried and concerned about. We offered at that time an urban regeneration package which contained within it a whole host of other infrastructure projects which will be to the benefit of the old town and, indeed, the new area that was to be developed, not least of which was the sinking of the road. My predecessor Minister laboured for long hours to find a way to seamlessly cross the road to ensure that we did not end up with a Vatican City or a specific financial enclave or an area that could maybe operate as a cuckoo in a nest in planning terms, but an area that was vibrant and added in positive terms to the old town as much as to the new area within it. I think if I am reading Senator Breckon's request correctly, he is perhaps aiming in the direction to ask why we are not seeing the project as a whole when that is what we all agreed with and asking for assurances, as I have done, that the Masterplan that was agreed by this Assembly is delivered within the timeframes that were agreed. What has happened since is that we do have a slippage or what appears to be an opportunity for a slippage not only to seriously question the sinking of the road, which was in essence one of the main reasons for setting up the urban regeneration area, but secondly an opportunity to find different ways or not to have other ways to fund the residential parts and the infrastructure parts of the plan. For me, there is a fundamental difficulty in what we were promised, which was that there would be some £50 million - I think it was £70 million in the early days, perhaps heady days and perhaps too optimistic days in the light of what has happened since - and that these monies would be promised for further urban regeneration to be secured for the rest of the town. If indeed conditions have changed to the extent where those monies are not available, I think this particular part of the plan has to be reviewed.

There have been calls for me to review the whole of the Masterplan and to the extent that there still is a requirement for a new financial services quarter which provides better offices, I think that part of the Masterplan is probably safe. But it is the longer term aspects of delivering all of the other bits and pieces that I think we really need to have another look at. One way of doing it in order not to set cats among pigeons or to give negative indications about perhaps an inability on behalf of this House to supply funds to deliver the aims of the Masterplan would be perhaps to just come forward

with a better timetable to deliver. The whole project was due to be delivered originally in one go, but because the financial times are what they are we have decided over a period of years to do the thing in a phased way. Some people may say piecemeal, but I think that is missing the mark. It is to be phased but I am particularly concerned, as I mentioned earlier, that the phasing does deliver what was agreed to be delivered. Suggesting perhaps in the early days that the whole thing could be completed in 7 years might well have been optimistic, but if we move to the current proposals where phasing is being spoken about, mainly on financial grounds - that perhaps it could be as long as 20 years - I think we run a very strong risk of not delivering on the wider regeneration and urban regeneration principles that, as I mentioned earlier, was the real requirement for this programme. I think it is a bit of a curate's egg, this proposal. There are things that perhaps could be looked at and should be supported, while at the same time we should not be sending out messages to suggest that what has been decided up to a point in relation to the office provision is to be questioned. I think it is really more about timing, and I would feel happier if indeed the Minister for Treasury and Resources was able to work with Senator Breckon and others to allay their fears that longer term what was promised will be promised. It is about providing information. It is not about testing assumptions in a way that might turn up a proposal to cancel the whole scheme. It is about being positive and showing that we can deliver some of these things in perhaps a shorter timeframe than is being considered. One last thought: it does surprise me - or perhaps it does not surprise me - that we have countries such as China who are quite capable of building complete cities in relatively short periods of time for hundreds of thousands of people and here we are suggesting that to provide 625,000 square feet of offices over a 10-year period is an acceptable timeframe. I think all the timeframes could and perhaps should be .. if we are to continue to be a number one player in the financial services quarter, I think the delivery of these schemes should perhaps be accelerated rather than slowed down. Perhaps again that is something that the Minister for Treasury and Resources might like to convince Senator Breckon and others of, that there are means, perhaps more innovative means, and perhaps more means that include the private sector, to deliver on the things that we all would wish to happen. I think it is probably right that I do not vote for the proposition having made the comments and bearing in mind my position as the Minister for Planning and Environment, but I think it was right that the comments that I have made have been

made.

5. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence :

Senator Le Gresley made a very good speech. However, if I may say so, his analogy is not quite right. The bridegroom has 2 choices for his bride. We want the bridegroom to choose, not for him to have a forced marriage. Deputy Power made much of his Irish school friend who is a property expert. I was tempted yesterday to be a naughty little leprechaun and ask for a point of clarification to ask the name of his best friend. However, I thought better of it. Deputy Power told us that his expert friend said that office development should take place along the Esplanade between the Grand Hotel and the Pomme d'Or Hotel. Well, I agree with Deputy Power's best friend. That is exactly where it should be. Where is the Jersey International Finance Centre? Well, it is along the Esplanade between the Grand Hotel and the Pomme. Deputy Power's closing remarks that States debates have no impact on tenants is simply not correct. It has been repeatedly highlighted by S.o.J.D.C., by prospective tenants, that their primary concern of progressing with S.o.J.D.C. is political interference which may adversely impact on their new office accommodation. No tenant is going to spend fees with agents, with lawyers, with architects, reviewing and negotiating terms, specifications and pre-let agreements unless they have certainty of delivery. We need to allow the S.o.J.D.C. to deliver that certainty with confidence. Deputy Tadier made reference to the emperor's new clothes. I was tempted this morning to bring in a tape measure and some chalk. I am delighted that he thinks that the Minister for Treasury and Resource's assistant looks so young. He said that the Assembly had a poor track record at picking winners at the Waterfront and to a degree he is right. But we do not do that anymore. Instead we have an expert board which collectively has an excellent track record in property development. Their finance director alone was involved in delivering an award-winning building along the Esplanade, which has become home to one of our most successful legal and financial services firms. I need to correct Deputy Young's figures, which he quoted yesterday. After Phase 1 we get £40 million and a public car park and the remaining site to be developed and substantial public realm. Oh, and much needed employment for our construction industry. If the road does not get sunk for whatever reason, then we get a £40 million receipt which can be used for other projects, maybe to aid that regeneration of St. Helier , and an unencumbered car park valued at £10 million from the completion of the 6 office buildings on the Jersey International Finance Centre. But that is not all, because we also get the land to the west, which could still deliver hundreds of homes worth tens of millions of pounds. There would be more money available by not lowering the road, not less or nil as incorrectly suggested by Deputy Young. It has become a bit of a habit of my fellow Parish Deputy and myself to spar across the Chamber on technical accounting issues, and today is no different. Deputy Le Fondré's figures on page 7 of his handout omit one important piece of information that States Members need to interpret them correctly. I do not dispute the modest percentages for developer's profit between 15 and 20 per cent in the current climate, but his figure for the S.o.J.D.C. is inflated because he has not deducted the land value. If he did so, S.o.J.D.C.'s profits percentage would be similar to that of an independent developer. To clarify further what the Minister for Treasury and Resources has already said, and this has also been clarified by the Treasurer of the States directly to the Deputy by email, there will be no letter of comfort provided for the office accommodation.

[10:15]

A letter of comfort may be provided in the future to support the borrowings by S.o.J.D.C. for the car park and the car park only. No support will be given for the office development as S.o.J.D.C. has to comply on a level playing field with other developers. Deputy Le Fondré does not appear to trust the executive directors of S.o.J.D.C., both of whom are also accountants. He does not appear to trust the chairman, who oversees much larger developments in the City of London. He does not appear to trust the non-executive directors, who between them have extensive development experience. He does not appear to trust the external professional experts employed by S.o.J.D.C. to check through the numbers. He does not even appear to trust the Treasurer of the States and her team who also go through the numbers. Does he not think that the banks lending to S.o.J.D.C. without any comfort from the States on the office buildings have not done their due diligence? They have. Sometimes perhaps the Deputy does not trust his own shadow. Let us allow the prospective tenants to decide where they are going to base themselves.

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

May I ask the Deputy just to withdraw that very last comment? Deputy E.J. Noel:

Well, obviously then I do withdraw it. I am sure he does trust his own shadow. [Laughter] Let us allow the prospective tenants to decide where they are going to base their businesses. It is they who will decide what office schemes will proceed and what office schemes will not. All this talk about the amount of new office space that has planning permission is simply irrelevant. It will only get built if the tenants choose to occupy it. P.73 back in 2010 established S.o.J.D.C. for the prime purpose, and I quote: "The prime purpose of S.o.J.D.C. is to act as the delivery vehicle for property development for the States of Jersey, procuring and managing project implementation either via a joint venture with a third party developer or direct." Let us remember the speech of the Constable of St. Clement yesterday. Let us give Islanders some much needed leadership by this Assembly. Let us have a glass half-full mentality and be positive about our Island's future and, in particular,

the future of our world-class finance industry. Hopefully, the mood of the Members is to reject Senator Breckon's well-meaning but, in my view, slightly misguided proposition. We need to support our finance industry and we need to support our private construction industry and we need to get on and deliver this project.

Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade :

Can I ask for clarification of the last speaker, please? In responding to my remarks, I think he introduced important new material that he needs to clarify. He postulated that in the event that the road was not sunk, a departure from the approved Masterplan, there would be land available and that we would get development opportunities and yield. This is important new material. I ask the last speaker if he could at least explain that, at least give us that information in more detail, because that is a very significant point that I certainly think needs to be noted.

The Bailiff :

I think, Deputy Young, that is more like a second speech rather than clarification. Deputy E.J. Noel:

I am happy to point out that that land already exists. It is the other side of the road. Deputy J.H. Young:

Would he not provide figures?

Deputy E.J. Noel:

It is a substantial piece of land. If the Deputy wants me to find out the area of that land I will do so and let him know.

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

Someone once said - I do not recall who - believe nothing you are told and only part of what you see, and after 12 years in this Assembly I am inclined to concur with that observation. Especially for some of the newer Members, and I do not just mean the 2 who joined us yesterday, I would like to approach this from a slightly different angle to that of previous speakers. What the Minister for Treasury and Resources told us yesterday appeared to me to be saying: "Trust me, I know best." But when I think of the way the House was misled by a previous administration over the previous scheme, because they had let their gung-ho attitude override proper evaluation both over the developer and the sunken road; when I reflect on a previous Chief Minister trying to sell Jersey Telecom just a matter of days after we decided we would not do that, and for less than it was worth; when I recall the same Chief Minister trying to sell the old girls' college for a fraction of its value; when I think about the Lime Grove House fiasco; when I consider the present administration is proposing to build a new hospital without, in my view, adequate detail; when I see £465,000 granted to a scheme that is not yet designed - I could go on - is it any wonder I get concerned when they ask me to trust them? I get uneasy when people try to sell me something with this gung-ho attitude in this Assembly. We have been asked to put aside our concerns because the S.o.J.D.C. is populated by experts. I have no doubt it is, but we were told the same thing about other arm's length bodies, Jersey Telecom, and look at the problems afflicting that at the moment. I would say that it is reasonable for this Assembly to have sufficient information to be able to decide as a body rather than accept assurances from people possibly previously not noted for making sound decisions. On a project of this magnitude, albeit much safer than the last scheme .. I do appreciate the fact it is now phased to remove a lot of the risk. I was concerned with the previous scheme, one developer doing such a huge construction. It was more than likely to go wrong. I do appreciate that. Nevertheless, it would be, I believe, a dereliction of the duty of this Assembly to let this go ahead without ensuring as far as possible that risks are mitigated to an acceptable level. As some Members said yesterday, finance firms will not be making their board decisions around what we decide here. In fact, I have to say if I were one of them I would go out of my way not to be involved with a States-sponsored project. These firms will be wanting to do business with the private sector. Finally, as Deputy Tadier , who is not in the House at the moment, reminded us yesterday, this proposition is not, as some Ministers and their supporters tried to indicate yesterday, a proposition to abandon the project, not at all. It is a proposition asking for us, the electorate's representatives, to have sufficient information to make an informed choice how their money is spent. It is not about stopping it. It is about asking for more information, a delay that need only be a few weeks, which I believe is entirely reasonable. It would, as I have said, be in my view a dereliction of duty to let a team with their track record rush ahead hoping for the best. Let us hope we have learnt from the previous fiasco and not let ourselves be frogmarched into accepting a potentially unsound scheme.

7. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour :

Just a few notes of clarification. Before the Esplanade car park closes for the construction of the new underground car park, there will be a 520-space car park constructed on the other side of the dual carriageway nearby to the Radisson Hotel. That will be done prior to the Esplanade closing. Just to reiterate that T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) does not own the car park in the Esplanade. That comes under the ownership of the States of Jersey Development Company. It is, therefore, they that make the return to Treasury and not T.T.S.

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

My Constable, the Constable of St. Helier, yesterday started by quoting me from the last debate on this particular topic where we ended up playing games, games to be able to sweep-up either for or against the proposer towards the end of the debate, and we have been playing exactly that game yesterday and today. Members, new Members in particular, might have wondered why the only speech yesterday that we heard from a Minister was from the Minister for Treasury and Resources, who made a lengthy and quite emotive speech but nonetheless that was the only supporting statement coming from the benches of the Ministers yesterday. Members might have thought: "I wonder why not. Why are we not hearing from the Ministers? Surely they are backing it. They must be in there fighting their battle." Of course, they are fighting their battle but they are waiting until the end. I do not know whether it will be Senator Maclean or Senator Gorst who rounds up on behalf of the Minister for Treasury and Resources, but I believe one of them will, perhaps both. I have noticed that Senator Maclean is making extensive notes and that Senator Gorst has been playing finger poker with me as to who goes first, and he finally won. I gave up the ghost. It is interesting to note that what happens as a result of that is that people speak and if they are approving of the Council of Ministers' actions they get a great foot stomping. Time and time again we have heard that yesterday. My near neighbour from St. Martin got a good foot stomping. The Deputy of St. Ouen got a good foot stomping. Like tap dancing ducks we sounded at one stage. But that does not make an argument. No degree of foot stomping, no matter how loud, constitutes an argument. It constitutes support, it is very nice when you get it, but it does not constitute an argument. The fundamental question that each and every Member of the States should be considering now is: how can I hold the Ministers to account? Because that is our job, not S.o.J.D.C. That is the Minister for Treasury and Resources' job to hold them to account. Our job is to hold the Ministers to account. The fundamental question is: how can I do that when I do not have the evidence, when I do not have the documents? What documents am I talking about? I am talking about 2 documents that we have not been allowed to see. One is the McKinsey report, which says that there is a future for the finance industry in Jersey and presumably says: "This is what you need to do to build it." I do not think it says, I am not sure but on the evidence of this

particular debate perhaps it does say: "Throw away all the old rules. We have a new set of rules." It might sound a bit Russian style but it is called state capitalism. The way to revive your finance sector is to throw some government money at it. That is what we are going to do from now on, do some seed corn, pick winners. Now, we used to be told: "The Government is no good at picking winners. We should not be playing that game" but here we are, what are we doing? We are pumping the seed corn, the fundamental money, government money, into this creation, into this particular scheme. It seems to me all the rules have been thrown out and possibly the McKinsey report says: "This is the way to revive your finance sector. This is what you must do" because that appears to be what is happening. The second thing I have not seen, which is absolutely essential to my understanding and my holding of the Ministers to account and the Minister for Treasury and Resources in particular to account for his responsibility for S.o.J.D.C., is the King Sturge report or its equivalent. The Minister assures us that it is way out of date, completely useless, but it is the only document we have. Where is the updated version? Where is the new version? Where is the new assessment? Has that been presented to me or to anybody else? I do not think it has. Certainly, no evidence .. oh, yes, I have and I remind Members we saw one page of it yesterday, kindly presented by Deputy Le Fondré. That has some truly frightening numbers on it. There is no confidence to be had from that one but I want to see the page before that. I want to see the page after that. I want to see this chunk which is the chapter which contains this analysis.

[10:30]

I want to see it updated to say: "Now the new figures are these. This is what we are dealing with." Until I have those, and that is the information I need and we need, we cannot go ahead. We may as well just say to the Minister for Treasury and Resources: "Go on, back some winners. We know you can do it." History in the last 30 years says we do not do that very well but we think you can. I do not think that is what we should be doing. I think we are playing a gambling game. Yesterday, when he got his foot stamping, the Deputy of St. Ouen reminded me of his disaster. He comes in

from the west, I always imagine him in some great cowboy's hat, twirling his guns, and he says: "I am ready to gamble and why am I ready to gamble? Because I am going to gamble with your money." He does not go home and say: "Oh, the rates in St. Ouen ? I want to go gamble. I want to gamble with the rates of St. Ouen on a property development." But, no, he is ready to gamble, as he said yesterday. We saw as well another one who got a great foot stamping. It was a very good speech by the Constable of St. Clement. This was real fundamental turning, tooth and claw. This is a man who has avidly supported the private market throughout his entire career suddenly turning over to full-blooded State capitalism. What a change that was yesterday, and receiving his due reward for the tap-dancing. As Deputy Baudains has just recently reminded us, what we are back to here is the old days when time and time and time again presidents, or latterly, Ministers used to come to this House and say: "I know what I am doing; I have done the number crunching, trust me. This is the only option; this is the only game in town, trust me." That is exactly what we got in an hour-long speech from the Minister for Treasury and Resources. When push comes to shove, when he went through it - I listened and concentrated very carefully to his speech - it just says: "We have got to do this because I recommend it." He gave various ways of saying it. He must have invented a dozen ways of saying that: "Trust me. I know what we are doing, you can trust me." The Deputy of St. Ouen went further, he said: "Have faith, hallelujah." I wish I could have that much faith in this Minister for Treasury and Resources. Unfortunately I cannot. If I were to have that faith I would have put my trust in that faith and then I would be failing in my duty because what I am here to do is to hold him to account and to be critical and to say: "Hang on, whoa, this is Government money; this is tax payers' money and we are gambling with it." I remind Members that what we heard yesterday was from the 2 bridesmaids, as they are described - gone missing at the moment, maybe they are adjusting their veils and their bouquets - they are catching the bouquets for the next bride perhaps. No, let us not go any further down that line. But a very in-depth and conservative and cautious analysis of the figures from one of those bridesmaids that I think undermined and

certainly caused questions about the proposed way forward and I think that has to be taken, from that particular Member, very seriously. He is not a Member who regularly revolts, it is not his nature. But, nonetheless, he is revolting over this one because he knows about the figures and he does not believe that what is being sold to us is what should be. The other major contribution was from Deputy Young who very clearly told us that what we voted for in the past is not what we are voting for now. We are not voting for the whole of the old Masterplan, what we are getting are 2 buildings which top and tail this particular site and unless we progress, it seems, are likely to be a blight in this development if they get stuck, and there is serious danger that they will get stuck. I return to what we do not get rather than what we do get later. Let us have a look at the additional comments of the Minister for Treasury and Resources in detail. It starts on page 2 where it says quite clearly: "For example, there is a particular tenant actively seeking a new 80,000 square feet office building to be completed by March 2016 [and listen to this] and only 2 of the private schemes, in addition to the J.I.F.C., can deliver to this requirement." There we are, here is the man who is keen on competition, so keen that only 2 are competing for this piece of contract so we are going to throw our hat in the ring and we are going to compete. The Deputy of St. Ouen is perfectly happy with that: "Why do we not compete?" he says. But only 2 private schemes are there already competing for this business. Why should we interfere? Why should we interfere? Why should we be saying, against all advice during the past, we should be in there competing in this? Why do we let the private sector have the profit? It should be ours. Complete volte-face from the usual logic presented by the Ministers, completely opposite. It then goes on on page 2: "Potential office supply is greater than current or medium-term demand." We are getting involved in office supply when the potential office supply is already greater than short to medium-term demand." Big question mark. I want that grilled. Why is that not being roasted on a spit and squeezed for what the juices are? What does that mean? "However, it is considered that tenants should be offered a choice in their selection of new accommodation; ultimately it should be the tenants that decide which office scheme is delivered." Absolutely logical and they have already got a choice, 2 private developers. They can make up their minds. That is what they do. They are businesses and they do that. We are not. We should not be in there competing, elbowing them out of the way, saying: "Come to us, come to us." Why are we doing that? Later on in page 3: "The profits will be paid back to the States via a dividend on sale and completion of the projects and/or receipts will be used by J.D.C. to deliver public infrastructure, as will be the case with lowering the Route de la Libération." "The profits will be paid back to the States via a dividend on sale and on completion of the projects," which we are told may be 7, may be 4, 5, 6, 8 years down the line.

Completion of Phase 1, second building, Building 4, completed perhaps 10 years down the line, if at all. But that is all right because that will go back and that will enable us to lower Route de la Libération. Will it? There is also a statement on this page and I find this absolutely terrifying because it is completely wrong. Listen to this: "As a result of being 100 per cent States owned, the company acts in the best interests of tax payers at all times." Does it? Who should be acting in the best interests of taxpayers at all times? The Minister for Treasury and Resources should be acting in the best interests of the States. The J.D.C. does not necessarily, because it is 100 per cent owned, always act in the best interests of the States. It has its own internal aims and objectives which it follows. It is up to the Minister for Treasury and Resources to keep them in line, not to assume that because it is 100 per cent owned it always acts in our best interests. No, I will not give way.

Senator P.F. Routier:

It is just the Deputy is misleading the House by saying that J.D.C. .. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I will not give way. The Senator has not made a speech yet. He may make a speech if he wishes but not in my time.

The Bailiff :

Just question of is it a point of order or a point that you wish to make. If it is a point of order you can raise it, if not you cannot.

Senator P.F. Routier:

It is a point of order. The point of order would be that the Deputy is misleading the Assembly by saying that the Development Company does not follow the wishes of the States. They have a Memorandum of Understanding which guides them in what they do. It is not correct to say that.

The Bailiff :

That is not a point of order, that is a point that has been very properly made in your speech to say that he has not been correct.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I look forward to being swept off my feet by the powers of rhetoric of the Assistant Minister when he gives his own speech later on. Here we come to page 5 now: "It is intended for a £30 million investment [oh, we are making a £30 million investment now] to be repaid in full on completion of the sale of the second office building." Just confirmation, 10 years down the line we might get it back: "In the event Building 4 is not completed within this period, J.D.C. will be able to raise a mortgage against the revenue streams from the underground public car park to pay the Currency Fund investment." There we go. Okay, if it does not - it is a little caveat but it is there - get completed, and it may not - 10 years in the future, where will we be? We do not know - then they will simply raise a mortgage. In the analogy of the woodland copse that was created and improved in St. Martin yesterday, I do not think the Deputy of St. Martin included in that that he had to mortgage the property in order to do it, but it looks like what we might get is a mortgage. "The J.D.C. is obligated to follow directions from the States of Jersey [which is this Assembly] and as the States has approved the Esplanade Masterplan, which includes the lowering of Route de la Libération .. [sorry] and as the States has approved the Esplanade Masterplan .." that is not a sentence, oh, dear. I cannot read it as a sentence because it is not a sentence. That includes, presumably, what it should be saying, the Esplanade approves the lowering of the Route de la Libération. Here we are with the lowering of the road because we have already approved it, remember, in the Masterplan, and then it goes on to say: "All 6 office buildings in the J.I.F.C. can be constructed without needing to lower the road and without impacting on the future ability to lower the road." We have the best of both worlds here, we can do it with lowering the road or we can do it not lowering the road. Now you see it, now you do not, it does not really matter to us. Let us carry on: "By carrying out the much needed office accommodation, the first phase, the net receipts from this phase estimated to be £40 million, plus a debt free 520 space underground car park with an estimated value of £10 million, will be used to fund the majority of the public infrastructure." Note, as some Members have already, that the rewards of this particular scheme started off at some £70 million, came down towards £50 million and are now bottoming out, I hope, but perhaps not, at £40 million. The profits have got less. It then goes on to what is going to pay for the majority of the public infrastructure, which what we passed was the old scheme, the old Masterplan. The office development, Buildings 7 and 8, another 80,000 square feet; a residential

development, Building 9; a 100-bed hotel, ground floor and 6 hotel floors, no basement parking. [10:45]

More office developments, 70,000 square feet, above an unspecified ground  floor use. Self- catering block, 5 floors of residential. A residential development, Building 13, estimated there are 300 apartments on 6 levels with retail, restaurants on the ground floor: "Set among delightful winter gardens" with basement parking, as we were told yesterday. That is part of what was sold to

us. This is the overall grandiose great scheme with walkways, with trees, with winter gardens, with restaurants, with retail, with accommodation and offices. But that is not what we are getting; we are getting 2 blocks first of offices. Then it finally goes on to say in the Minister for Treasury and Resources' own words: "Yes, there will be a shortfall, based on index outline costings, and this will be of the order of £15 million. This shortfall can be funded by borrowing against the plot values that are created above the lowered road (4 additional buildings are created above the tunnel, the land value of which is in excess of £15 million)." This little sequence of: "We will lower the road, we will not lower the road," has now become: "We have to lower the road" because that is going to fund the £15 million shortfall that we already know we have got in the system. On that basis, we are supposed to take on trust that this is okay. We are supposed to have faith that everything is okay. I do not know about other Members, but I know clearly where my job is and at the moment without any hint of what is in McKinsey and their advice about how to save and how to promote and how to grow our finance sector and without a decent sight of the King Sturge Report, or an updated version of it, which must be done with the numbers in there about .. and must reflect and must be shown to this House, to these Assembly Members, because we are responsible and without that I cannot possibly allow this, on trust, go ahead, do what you like. That is not the way I am, I respond to my duties. I hope other Members will not either and I hope they will support this proposition which says we need to get the information if we are going to accept this as the way forward.

9. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

All very interesting the comments that Deputy Southern has just made; he was quite emotive in his speech. I would just like to correct a number of points that he made which are misleading, perhaps, to Members.

The Bailiff :

Erroneous.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Exactly, thank you. Deputy Southern referred on several occasions to the McKinsey Report, he seems to think it is some form of conspiracy that the McKinsey Report has not been published. I appreciate he has not seen it. The reason the McKinsey Report has not been published is that, quite simply, it has a lot of data in it which is competitively sensitive. We do not want our competitors to know the direction in which we are going but, frankly, it gives a great deal of confidence to the finance industry about the future of our finance industry. But never mind that, you can put the McKinsey Report aside because in the context of the debate that we are having today, the most relevant fact, if the Deputy is concerned about both demand and confidence of the finance industry, is all around the pre-let. There is a potential tenant to take on the first building, 80,000 square feet, one single tenant who is in the finance industry and is clearly confident enough to make that type of investment in Jersey now. What more, frankly, do I think we want than to have and see and have demonstrated to us that type of confidence. It is not about picking winners - if you want to use a horse racing analogy - it is almost after the race is ended. We know the winner of the race because quite simply we will have a tenant who will be tied-up in a contractual arrangement with penalty clauses before a single shovel goes into the ground. It is as simple as that, you cannot get it much better. There were some analogies earlier on about brides and bridesmaids and such like. It does strike me, just on one minor point in relation to that, I wonder why the bridesmaids are still the bridesmaids because, quite frankly, there is competition in this marketplace, there are a number of potential tenants and the facts speak, quite simply, for themselves. Deputy Southern also was talking about analysis, wanting more analysis. I am not sure exactly what he would seek to do with the analysis or, indeed, for that matter, what other Members might seek to do with all the additional

analysis that could indeed be presented. There are so many questions that were raised during this debate by, largely, a small number of Members who were suggesting we need more financial clarity. It is not about the scheme. There is no demand, there is no evidence, no one has signed-up. There have been no press announcements about signings. How many tenants per square foot should we be expecting? This is too much to delegate to a board, a professional board - I will come back to that in a moment - we need professional input. It is just quite simple, the numbers do not add up, we were told, and all sorts of very good reasons as to why the numbers themselves were not very good. We were also asked a moment ago by Deputy Southern about the King Sturge Report: "We need it to be updated." The King Sturge Report was not relevant, in any event. That report assumed the lowering of the road in Phase 1. That is not the plan; the road is not due to be lowered in Phase 1, so that report is largely irrelevant. The key point about this, without going into all the detail, is that this Assembly approved in 2008 a Masterplan for the area. We also approved in 2010 the J.D.C. Members of this Assembly approved the J.D.C. and in July 2011 that board was appointed, since then they have been getting on with our instructions. We asked them to get on with developing the site. They have spent to date £3 million; £3 million of taxpayers' money has effectively been spent on getting detailed permits, building control, construction drawings, and all the rest of it, to a point where we are about ready to go. Delay at this stage is highly likely to put that investment at risk, notwithstanding all the other impacts that it would have, some of which I will briefly touch on in a moment. J.D.C. was set up; it has got a professional executive group who have years of experience in property matters. Members, with the greatest respect, do not have that type of highly skilled background knowledge and experience in the marketplace. For me, on top of the executive, of course, you have a board, a board of highly professional individuals with experience. We have got one non-executive who has been a property professional most of his life; he is the ex-chairman of the Barclay Group. It is a listed U.K. (United Kingdom) company. They build all over the U.K.. We are being told that this decision is too much for J.D.C. to handle. This decision here in Jersey on our little Waterfront, £60 million, and we have people on the board who deal with hundreds of million pound projects in the U.K. and have been chairman of listed companies. We have got another member of the board who is involved in social housing development; they have 60,000 homes across 11 counties in the U.K. These are serious people, really serious people in the property world and I am comfortable that they know what they are doing. Ultimately, not only have we got the executives and their expertise, not only have we got a highly skilled board, at the end of the day we have a shareholder. All of those people are responsible and should be held to account if delivery is not as has been stated and that is the way, quite frankly, it should work to be most effective in terms of dealing with this. I could go on (and I

will not for very long).  There are a number of points about benefits to the local economy - £60 million spent, in terms of economic stimulus, into the local economy. I accept not all of that will go into the economy, some will, as a matter of drift, go off-Island. But local subcontractors, in particular, and a number of others will get significant benefits from this development. At the end of Phase 1, £40 million in cash in hand, plus a site of a 520-space car park with a value of around about £10 million, and profits that are generated. I was looking over my shoulder; I was hoping the Connétable of St. Helier was there but unfortunately he has morphed into something much more handsome. The profits from this development will go into regeneration of St. Helier, well that is a decision that can be taken. Clearly Phase 2 would soak up some of that amount, if necessary. There are all sorts of benefits that I am not going to repeat because the details have been covered very well. There was some excellent speaking from Deputy Noel, Deputy Bryans, and such like, who made many of the key points. But I just will say, from an economic perspective, Grade A office space is needed in this Island. We are going out selling Jersey at the moment. There is a shortage of Grade A office space. We want high value businesses to relocate here to create job opportunities for Islanders and to create economic stimulus within the local economy. There are not the suitable Grade A office space for the types of businesses that we want to attract. That is how we are going to diversify our economy; it is a key element of the diversification strategy. Quite frankly, the confidence element of not going ahead with this development when we have got to this point is going to do untold damage, not only to the potential tenant, but to anybody else who wants to do business with us, who wants to do business with Jersey or who wants to do business in Jersey. We have to look at the incentives other jurisdictions are offering. There are incentives being offered by places like Toronto. There are big signs advertising: "Where do you want to take your next big idea?" You get discounted office space. You get discounted staffing. You get given large sums of money to run various parts of your project. Dubai, Dublin, all around the world, they are falling over themselves and we are sitting here debating this issue. Frankly, the debate has gone on so we could almost have built the building by now. But I do encourage Members to have confidence in the Jersey Development Company, have confidence in the executive, have confidence in the board. Please hold them to account if they do not deliver. The downside risk is very small. I have to say that it is not a no-risk scenario; such a thing does not exist. If Members want no risk, the answer is do nothing. If Members want no risk, support this proposition. What we need to do is get on with it, give confidence to our local industry, give confidence to finance, which is an important part of our economy, and give a chance for diversification in our economy by providing the space the inward investors need. I urge Members to reject this proposition.

10. Senator I.J. Gorst :

Since 2008 one of the phrases that we have heard more often and probably we have all uttered it as Members of this Assembly, either in this Assembly or outside we hear it, day and day out across the media, and that is that the world has changed. The question I ask myself discharging the duties which I have is: "Have I changed in my thinking? Have I responded to the changed world in which we find ourselves? Is Jersey responding to the changed world in which she finds herself?" For many years we were in a very fortunate position in that people wanted to move to Jersey, businesses wanted to set up in Jersey for all the reasons that we are aware of. As Senator Maclean outlined in his closing remarks, we are now in a global competitive environment and the jurisdictions that he spoke about are doing exactly as he indicated, they are giving financial incentives for businesses to those jurisdictions and some of those jurisdictions I think we know are major competitors in the Middle East, out in the Far East in Singapore. The world has changed. The world does not, as we heard from the Connétable of St. Clement in what I thought was an excellent speech, owe us a living. We need to get out there and make sure that the world is aware of what we have to offer in all its various forms. Today we simply happen to be talking about financial services, which we know is the major contributing factor to our economy in so many ways, and I will come back to this point.

[11:00]

I would not say that the risk-free element is to do nothing. Far from it. From where I sit and from what I see around the world, doing nothing is by far the riskiest approach that this Assembly could take today [Approbation], but I will come back to that as I finish. I just want to very quickly look at some of those points that have been made in favour of the proposition and in support of doing nothing or, at least, stopping for some time. With the greatest of respect to Members, I do not believe that they amounted to very much at all. Some, I understand entirely, were based on being cautious, feeling that those individuals did not have enough information but not, I believe, giving due weight to the appropriate independent expert advice that has been put at this project and applied to this project in many, many ways. We had a Member who, on principle, he said, was against the setting up of the States of Jersey Development Company and if he had been in the Assembly it would not have happened and he would not have supported it. We just need to remember that from the other comments that that individual made, I believe flowed from that fundamental disagreement with what is happening and using S.o.J.D.C. in this way. Another

Member tried to suggest this approach has not been used anywhere else in the world. He had done all this research and could not find anywhere else in the world where this approach was used. I would ask that Member simply to - I do not like doing this because it goes slightly against the grain - look over the water and to look at the Crown Estates, a body set up by the U.K. Parliament, accountable to the U.K. Parliament, delivering value from the assets that have been placed into the Crown Estates. There we have an example which is known to everyone but perhaps people do not realise that that is how it is set up and we have other areas where that same principle is being applied. We do not need to be concerned about the application of the principle that we have in the S.o.J.D.C. That speaker seemed to be indicating to us that because we have had a visit from - I am not quite sure what the relationship was but I think it was said a "friend" of the speaker - the speaker's friend had said: "Well, perhaps without the detail he would consider this, that or the other" and on that basis we should accept the proposition and we should not ahead and we should not maintain the decision that we in this Assembly made a number of years ago. With the greatest of respect, I do not think that that is the grounds for overturning the decision that this Assembly has made in the past. That speaker also said something that I really do have to take issue with. I just have to hope he was not saying this, but he seemed to indicate something along the lines that it was fine for a financial services company to consider the Isle of Man instead of Jersey; it was fine for them to consider Cayman Islands instead of Jersey, and that is what they are doing. That is exactly what they are doing and we want to win the business of consolidation into Jersey and not, with the greatest of respect to my colleagues in the Isle of Man, into the Isle of Man, not into the Cayman Islands, but here because we believe that we have all the apparatus in place that any responsible international financial services company could want for and could generate growth from. The speaker also said that people do not listen to what goes on in this Assembly and that decision makers do not take consideration of what happens in this Assembly. That is not my experience, I have to say, and sometimes I am concerned about the comments that are made in this Assembly when senior individuals come to me and say: "Is it true that that is what the Assembly think? Is it true that that is what the majority of Members think?" and I have to say to them: "No, it is not." It is right that Ministers are challenged; it is right that policy is challenged and this is the place to do it but the majority of Members in this Assembly, I believe, see a future for Jersey and they see a future for an international finance centre in Jersey and they are committed to delivering the infrastructure in all its forms to make sure that that future is delivered. The world does not owe us a living. We have to go out there, we have to compete, we have to fight for it and we do it because we want to create a Jersey which we think is fit for our children and our grandchildren. I would say that we need to change our thinking. We need to respond to the changed world and make sure that our response is appropriate. The other thing I want quickly to say is that Deputy Southern tried to indicate that this was not a privately-funded development. It is. It is the public car park which is not privately-funded and that has been quite clear all along. Deputy Southern also suggested he