The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
1240/5(1947)
QUESTION TO BE ASKED OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY 9th SEPTEMBER 2003, BY SENATOR E.P. VIBERT
Question
Would the President inform members –
( a ) why it was necessary to give the code name Project Atlantis', as quoted in Committee Minutes, relating
to the negotiations being carried out with representatives of Les Pas Holdings Limited, and whether the use of such a code name fits in with the Committee's policy of open, honest and accountable government?
( b ) how much has been paid in fees to Mourant, du Feu and Jeune for their services for legal advice and
representation since they were appointed to act on behalf of the States and the Receiver General in relation to the litigation involving Les Pas?
( c ) w h e ther the Committee has agreed with the Receiver General that the Crown will be paying one
third of the total legal costs of this action?
Answer
- Members will recognise that without prejudice' discussions of the type undertaken by this Committee and its predecessor, and being held withinthecontextof such a complexlegalposition, must of necessity be kept highly confidential. Theuse of the codename ProjectAtlantis', was merelyan additional precaution taken in caseanyconfidentialminutesordocuments inadvertently went astray.
- £1,565,500.
- As has been the position for very many years, the net annualincome from the Crown Estates in the Island is sent to the CrowninLondonand thereafter remitted to the States of Jersey. At its meetingof 20th February 1996, the then Policy and Resources Committee accepted a proposal bytheHomeOffice that the litigation costs shouldbe apportioned in such a manner that the States would paytwo-thirds of the total, and the Crown would paytheremainingthird. This provided cash flow advantages for the States becauseincomewhich would otherwise have been sent to London and later remitted wasby virtue of this agreement applied locally to the immediatepaymentofthelegalcosts incurred in the litigation.