Land reclamation schemes west of Albert Pier and south of La Collette

1240/5(2028)

QUESTION TO BE ASKED OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY 20th JANUARY 2004, BY SENATOR J.A. LE MAISTRE

Question

In a letter dated 2nd December 1993, from the then H.M. Attorney General to the Policy and Resources Committee relating to land reclamation schemes to the west of Albert Pier and to the south of La Collette, he advised –

It  would not in my opinion be prudent or sensible to continue with those schemes without taking a decision on one or other of the following options'.

These options related either to litigate or to seek to compromise in order to resolve the claim to title.

Would the President advise whether this advice was considered by the Policy and Resources Committee on each occasion prior to matters being brought to the States relating to the development of the Waterfront, and, if so, why it, therefore, did not feature in any of the projets brought before the States?

Answer

The minutes of the meetings of the Policy and Resources Committee from 1993 onwards do not indicate whether the letter dated 2nd December 1993, was considered on each occasion. However, there are two points that need to be made in response to this question –

1. The letter dated2ndDecember1993,formed part of the body of legal advice whichhadbeen supplied to the Committee. It mayhavebeen considered atsubsequentmeetings,butif it wasitwouldnothavebeen necessary for this to have beenrecorded in the minutes oneveryoccasion that the mattercame up for discussion;
2. Senator LeMaistreappearsto have assumed that thePolicy and ResourcesCommitteeshould have given specific consideration to the advicecontained in this letter oneach and every occasion before matters relating to the developmentoftheSt.HelierWaterfrontwerebrought to the States. Thiswouldhavebeenmost unusual, and the reasons for such anassumption are notexplained.

The letter from the then H.M. Attorney General, like the letter from the then H.M. Solicitor General which was also considered by the Committee in December 1993, was written to advise the Committee following receipt of advice from London counsel. It advised that the decision which had to be taken at that stage was whether to litigate or to seek to compromise.  Having considered all the advice which was before it, the Committee decided to litigate. The then Attorney General's letter did not advise that the decision, once taken, should be revisited on every occasion when matters arose relating to the Waterfront.

What the Committee did do was remain open to the idea of settlement, and take fresh legal advice when settlement was suggested.  As members were told during the Les Pas debate, that came to nothing, because Les Pas was so unrealistic and so intransigent in its settlement demands. What the Committee also did was act to protect the public's interest as far as possible short of settlement by acquiring by compulsory purchase a large part of the reclaimed area upon which development was to take place.